Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-73601 is a critical-severity Eval Injection (CWE-95) vulnerability in Flowiseai Flowise. Its CVSS base score is 9.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 43% 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 AI Agent Protocols and Integrations; in the Protocol-Specific Risks risk domain.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-57805
Vulnerability Data
Flowise versions before 3.1.3 contain a remote code execution vulnerability in the Custom MCP node when CUSTOM_MCP_PROTOCOL is set to stdio, allowing authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands by manipulating environment variables and command arguments. Attackers can abuse PYTHONWARNINGS and…
more
BROWSER environment variables with python3, or leverage the root working directory with node to bypass validation and execute system commands.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- AI Agent Protocols and Integrations
- Risk Domain
- Protocol-Specific Risks
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: mcp
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and code analysis can discover eval-injection flaws but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation explicitly requires neutralizing untrusted data before it reaches dynamic evaluation constructs such as eval.
Secure-development standards and tools can mandate safe coding patterns that avoid unsafe dynamic evaluation.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input neutralization and avoidance of unsafe dynamic evaluation.
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.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and safe coding practices that directly prevent eval injection.
Application security requirements include rules against dynamic code execution of untrusted input.
Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe dynamic evaluation constructs.
Secure coding explicitly requires neutralization of input before dynamic evaluation, directly mitigating eval injection.
Security testing in development can detect eval injection vulnerabilities before deployment.