Skip to content

Flowise: CSV Agent Prompt Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 29, 2026 in FlowiseAI/Flowise • Updated Aug 4, 2026

Package

npm flowise (npm)

Affected versions

<= 3.1.2

Patched versions

3.1.3
npm flowise-components (npm)
<= 3.1.2
3.1.3

Description

-- ABSTRACT -------------------------------------

Trend Micro's Zero Day Initiative has identified a vulnerability affecting the following products:
Flowise - Flowise

-- VULNERABILITY DETAILS ------------------------


A prompt injection sent to a chatflow using a CSV Agent node can cause the LLM to respond with a malicious Python script that bypasses the blocklist validator and executes in an unsandboxed pyodide environment. An attacker can leverage this to execute arbitrary code in the context of the user running the server.

This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Flowise. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.

The specific flaw exists within the run method of the CSV_Agents class. The issue results from insufficient input sanitization when using untrusted data to construct an LLM prompt. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the service account.

Analysis

When a user makes a query against a chatflow using the CSV Agent node, the run method of the CSV_Agents class is called. This method reads the CSV file, loads a pyodide environment, and uses pandas to extract column names and data types into a dictionary. It then constructs a system prompt using that dictionary and the user's input, and sends this prompt to a configured LLM. The LLM response is stored in a variable named pythonCode. The method then attempts to validate this value using validatePythonCodeForDataFrame from packages/components/src/pythonCodeValidator.ts before evaluating it in pyodide.

The validator relies on a static regex blocklist. It can be bypassed using obfuscation techniques including string concatenation to reconstruct forbidden identifiers, chr() encoding, aliasing of dangerous builtins, __getattribute__ with concatenated attribute names, frame object inspection, MRO traversal, df.query() expression evaluation, and decorator syntax to invoke exec indirectly. Furthermore, pyodide is not sandboxed from the host operating system, so any Python code that passes the validator is executed with full access to OS interfaces.

From packages/components/nodes/agents/CSVAgent/CSVAgent.ts:

let pythonCode = ''
if (dataframeColDict) {
    const chain = new LLMChain({
        llm: model,
        prompt: PromptTemplate.fromTemplate(systemPrompt),
        verbose: process.env.DEBUG === 'true' ? true : false
    })
    const inputs = {
        dict: dataframeColDict,
        question: input // user-controlled input substituted into prompt
    }
    const res = await chain.call(inputs, [loggerHandler, ...callbacks])
    pythonCode = res?.text // LLM response assigned to pythonCode
    pythonCode = pythonCode.replace(/^```[a-z]+\n|\n```$/gm, '')
}

let finalResult = ''
if (pythonCode) {
    const validation = validatePythonCodeForDataFrame(pythonCode) // blocklist validation applied
    if (!validation.valid) {
        throw new Error(
            `Generated code was rejected for security reasons (${
                validation.reason ?? 'unsafe construct'
            }). Please rephrase your question to use only pandas DataFrame operations.`
        )
    }
    try {
        const code = `import pandas as pd\nimport numpy as np\n${pythonCode}`
        finalResult = await pyodide.runPythonAsync(code) // executed in unsandboxed pyodide
    } catch (error) {
        throw new Error(`Sorry, I'm unable to find answer for question: "${input}" using following code: "${pythonCode}"`)
    }
}

An unauthenticated attacker with the ability to send prompts to a chatflow using the CSV Agent node may use prompt injection to cause the LLM to respond with a malicious Python script. An authenticated attacker may instead configure a chatflow that points to an attacker-controlled server, which responds to LLM requests with an attacker-controlled Python payload, bypassing the LLM entirely.

Eight bypass variants were demonstrated against the validator:

Variant Technique Bypasses
0 @exec decorator with string-concatenated __import__ /\bexec\s*\(/, /\b__import__\s*\(/
1 eval aliased to a variable, payload chr()-encoded /\beval\s*\(/, /\bimport\b/
2 df.query() with chr()-encoded @__builtins__.__import__ /\b__builtins__\b/, /\b__import__\s*\(/
3 MRO traversal + __getattribute__ + __subclasses__ -> BuiltinImporter.load_module /\b__class__\b/, /\b__subclasses__\s*\(/, /\b__mro__\b/
4 Generator frame inspection via gi_frame.f_globals['__loader__'] /\b__loader__\b/, /\b__globals__\b/
5 Exception traceback frame walk to f_builtins['__import__'] /\b__globals__\b/, /\b__import__\s*\(/
6 __build_class__.__self__.__getattribute__('__import__') /\b__import__\s*\(/
7 vars aliased to a variable, __builtins__ accessed via dict key /\bvars\s*\(/, /\b__builtins__\b/, /\b__import__\s*\(/

Repro

The proof of concept (poc.py) has three modes of operation:

mode = "server": Starts a malicious server that responds to "/api/chat" requests with a JSON object containing an LLM response with the selected attack payload.

mode = "chatflow": Authenticates to the Flowise server, creates a chatflow with a CSV Agent node configured to use a ChatOllama model pointed at the malicious server, and triggers a prediction to execute the payload.

mode = "prompt_injection": Sends a prompt injection payload directly to an existing chatflow's prediction endpoint. Due to the nature of LLM responses, it may take multiple attempts or require a different injection technique depending on the model used.

python3 poc.py --mode [server OR chatflow OR prompt_injection] [--user <USER> --passwd <PASSWORD> --host <HOST> --r_host <R_HOST> --r_port <R_PORT> --l_port <L_PORT> --port <PORT> --cmd <CMD> --attack <ATTACK> --chatflow_id <CHAT_ID>]

-- CREDIT ---------------------------------------
This vulnerability was discovered by:
Dre Cura (@dre_cura) of TrendAI Research

References

@igor-magun-wd igor-magun-wd published to FlowiseAI/Flowise Jul 29, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Aug 4, 2026
Reviewed Aug 4, 2026
Last updated Aug 4, 2026

Severity

Critical

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity High
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(37th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-70477

GHSA ID

GHSA-5xvg-pmgg-3mxr

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.