Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-41277 is a high-severity Improper Access Control (CWE-284) vulnerability in Flowiseai Flowise. Its CVSS base score is 7.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 13% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as LLM Application Platforms; in the Other ATLAS/OWASP Terms risk domain.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-41277 is a mass assignment vulnerability in Flowise, an open-source drag-and-drop user interface for building customized large language model (LLM) flows. Affecting versions prior to 3.1.0, the issue resides in the DocumentStore creation endpoint, where authenticated users can manipulate the primary key (id) and internal state fields of DocumentStore entities. The backend's use of repository.save() with client-supplied primary keys turns the POST create endpoint into an implicit UPSERT operation, enabling attackers to overwrite existing DocumentStore objects. Associated CWEs include CWE-284 (Improper Access Control), CWE-639 (Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key), and CWE-915 (Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes), with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
Authenticated users with low privileges can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network with no user interaction required. In multi-workspace or multi-tenant Flowise deployments, attackers can achieve cross-workspace object takeover by overwriting DocumentStore entities owned by other workspaces, bypassing object-level authorization (IDOR). This grants high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts, such as reassigning or modifying sensitive DocumentStore objects, potentially disrupting LLM flows or exposing data across tenants.
The official GitHub security advisory (GHSA-3prp-9gf7-4rxx) confirms the vulnerability is fixed in Flowise version 3.1.0, recommending immediate upgrades to mitigate risks. No additional workarounds are specified in the provided references.
Flowise's focus on LLM orchestration introduces AI/ML relevance, as compromised DocumentStores could tamper with model flows, embeddings, or retrieval-augmented generation components in production environments. No public evidence of real-world exploitation is available as of the CVE publication on 2026-04-23.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-25296
Vulnerability Data
Flowise is a drag & drop user interface to build a customized large language model flow. Prior to 3.1.0, a Mass Assignment vulnerability in the DocumentStore creation endpoint allows authenticated users to control the primary key (id) and internal state…
more
fields of DocumentStore entities. Because the service uses repository.save() with a client-supplied primary key, the POST create endpoint behaves as an implicit UPSERT operation. This enables overwriting existing DocumentStore objects. In multi-workspace or multi-tenant deployments, this can lead to cross-workspace object takeover and broken object-level authorization (IDOR), allowing an attacker to reassign or modify DocumentStore objects belonging to other workspaces. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.0.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- LLM Application Platforms
- Risk Domain
- Other ATLAS/OWASP Terms
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: flowise, large language model
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 8 hardening rules · 4 OS baselines
V10.3.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces approved authorizations for logical access, stopping unauthorized actors from reaching resources.
Requiring explicit access-control decisions on each request blocks unauthorized key-driven access.
Enforces flow-control policies that restrict information movement between subjects and objects.
Documents duties and assigns access so that no single account can bypass intended restrictions.
Limits each account to the minimum privileges needed, reducing the chance of unauthorized access.
Validates incoming attribute names and values so that only explicitly allowed fields are accepted for update.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Enforcing authorization policy and least privilege directly blocks user-controlled key tampering that bypasses access checks.
Logical access controls prevent unauthorized data access that results from missing authorization checks on object references.
Hardened baselines and deviation monitoring directly eliminate most configuration-induced access-control defects, yet CWE-284 also encompasses code-level and design flaws outside the scope of configuration management alone.
Secure SDLC practices catch most access-control defects during design/coding/testing (mostly), yet leave residual risk from runtime configuration, architecture, and operational controls (partial).
PR.AA-01 supplies managed identities/credentials that support but do not implement access-control decisions, so it only partially prevents CWE-284 in either direction.
Authentication directly blocks unauthenticated actors (partial prevention of CWE-284) but leaves authorization logic, policy enforcement, and role checks untouched, so the control neither eliminates nor fully mitigates the broader weakness.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Defining and enforcing explicit access rights and restrictions for each entity directly stops the assignment of permissions that exceed what is required, eliminating the root condition that allows improper access control.
Formal authorization, role-based provisioning, and timely revocation of access rights directly stop the creation of accounts or permissions that exceed what the business actually needs.
By enforcing explicit rules on which identities or groups may perform read, write, delete or execute operations and by denying anonymous access to sensitive data, the control directly stops the creation of overly permissive or missing access-control checks.
Requiring one-to-one mapping of identities to entities and timely removal of unused identities directly stops attackers from leveraging stale or shared accounts to bypass access restrictions.
By explicitly transferring security roles and responsibilities when personnel change jobs or leave, the control reduces the chance that former employees retain access rights they no longer need, thereby limiting improper access control.
Physical entry controls enforce explicit authorization and authentication at every access point, directly stopping unauthorized actors from reaching information-processing assets.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
- V-248597 There must be no "shosts.equiv" files on the OL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284
- V-248598 There must be no ".shosts" files on the OL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284
Oracle Linux 9 (2 rules)
- V-271758 OL 9 file systems must not contain .shosts files. prevents CWE-284
- V-271757 OL 9 file systems must not contain shosts.equiv files. prevents CWE-284
RHEL 7 (2 rules)
- V-204606 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not contain .shosts files. prevents CWE-284
- V-204607 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not contain shosts.equiv files. prevents CWE-284
RHEL 8 (2 rules)
- V-230283 There must be no shosts.equiv files on the RHEL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284
- V-230284 There must be no .shosts files on the RHEL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284