Critical Injection

CVE-2026-9135 — Policies Component Dynamic CodeInput Fields Bypass Custom Component Validation

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 Langflow versions up to 1.9.2 (commit 94981c443d4918517b9e8163d70fc598dc33a32d) contain a code injection vulnerability in the Policies component's ToolGuard integration that bypasses the allow_custom_components=false security control. The vulnerability exists because the validation mechanism only checks the main component source code in node_template["code"]["value"] but fails to validate dynamic CodeInput fields that store generated ToolGuard Python files. Attackers can embed malicious Python code in these unvalidated dynamic fields, which are persisted in Flow.data and later executed server-side when a guarded tool is invoked through the ToolGuard runtime. This allows authenticated users with flow creation privileges to achieve arbitrary Python code execution on the backend despite custom component restrictions. The vulnerability can be escalated through cross-tenant flow manipulation via the agentic MCP update_flow_component_field tool, which accepts attacker-controlled user_id parameters, enabling attackers to inject malicious code into victim users' flows. When combined with publicly accessible flows and specific misconfigurations (AUTO_LOGIN=true, NEW_USER_IS_ACTIVE=true), the attack can be conducted with reduced authentication requirements.

Published Jul 17, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: ibm

Low

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.

How the score was calculated

Technical severity (critical)+10

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation

Not confirmed

Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.

EPSS FIRST

—

No EPSS score.

Affects

Ibm

Langflow OSS and 1 more

CVSS base

9.9

Critical · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script the kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Ibm Langflow OSS, Langflow Langflow).
No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (injection), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status	Source
Ibm	Langflow OSS	≥ 1.0.0 and ≤ 1.10.0	Vulnerable	CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
Langflow	Langflow	≥ 1.0.0 and < 1.10.1	Vulnerable	NIST National Vulnerability Database

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector

Network

Attack complexity

Low

Privileges required

Low

User interaction

None

Scope

Changed

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Availability

High

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Scored by
9.9	CVSS 3.1	Critical	3.1	6.0	psirt@us.ibm.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
9.9	CVSS 3.1	Critical	—	—	ibm via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: psirt@us.ibm.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-94 · Code Injection

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
Look for parameters with command/query metacharacters and unexpected child processes of the service.

web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSapplication logsendpoint telemetry (EDR)

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

2026
Affected products added · ibm/langflow oss
Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
SSVC assessment updated
Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
Record published
Oct 15, 2026
CVSS changed · 9.9
Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Source status changed · → Analyzed
Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Record created in this database
Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVE published
Jul 17, 2026 · ibm

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

1 on the record

www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7278920
Vendor Advisory, vendor-advisory, patch, NIST National Vulnerability Database

Elsewhere on this site

Ibm
every CVE for this vendor

Injection
same class

CWE-94
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

High CVE-2026-97673 Langflow OSS is affected by multiple vulnerabilities 8d
High CVE-2026-97679 Langflow OSS is affected by multiple vulnerabilities 8d
High CVE-2026-97676 Langflow OSS is affected by multiple vulnerabilities 8d
High CVE-2026-97674 Langflow OSS is affected by multiple vulnerabilities 8d
High CVE-2026-97678 Langflow OSS is affected by multiple vulnerabilities 8d
High CVE-2026-97680 Langflow OSS is affected by multiple vulnerabilities 8d

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No FIRST EPSS score.
No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-9135 is "Policies Component Dynamic CodeInput Fields Bypass Custom Component Validation", rated Critical. It affects Langflow OSS (Ibm); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 9.9 describes technical severity. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.