Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-73602

RCE in Flowiseai Flowise ≤ 3.1.3

Public PoCRCE
Published
13 August 2026
Modified
04 September 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 9.0
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS: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:X
EPSS Score 0.0084 56th percentile
Risk Priority 41 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2026-73602 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 44% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.

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

Vulnerability Data

Flowise before 3.1.3 contains a sandbox escape vulnerability in the vm2 JavaScript sandbox that allows authenticated users to execute arbitrary code by exploiting moment locale validation bypass. Attackers can craft a fake String object with a match function that bypasses…

more

path traversal checks to load and execute malicious JavaScript files stored in the document store outside the sandbox.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.005 Visual Basic Execution
Adversaries may abuse Visual Basic (VB) for execution.
T1059.006 Python Execution
Adversaries may abuse Python commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.007 JavaScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse various implementations of JavaScript for execution.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-73601Same product: Flowiseai Flowise
CVE-2026-69253Same product: Flowiseai Flowise
CVE-2026-69264Same product: Flowiseai Flowise
CVE-2026-52098Same product: Flowiseai Flowise
CVE-2026-73486Same product: Flowiseai Flowise
CVE-2026-73485Same product: Flowiseai Flowise
CVE-2024-31621Same product: Flowiseai Flowise
CVE-2026-73483Same product: Flowiseai Flowise
CVE-2026-41138Same product: Flowiseai Flowise
CVE-2026-46442Same product: Flowiseai Flowise

Affected Assets

flowiseai
flowise
≤ 3.1.3

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • 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.

PR.PS-06 partial match
prevents

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.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and safe coding practices that directly prevent eval injection.

prevents

Application security requirements include rules against dynamic code execution of untrusted input.

prevents

Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe dynamic evaluation constructs.

prevents

Secure coding explicitly requires neutralization of input before dynamic evaluation, directly mitigating eval injection.

finds

Security testing in development can detect eval injection vulnerabilities before deployment.

References