| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| IBM WebSphere Application Server 8.5, and 9.0 traditional could allow a remote attacker to conduct a cross-site scripting attack. |
| IBM WebSphere Application Server 9.0, and 8.5 could allow a remote attacker to bypass authentication by sending a crafted unauthenticated request. |
| IBM WebSphere Application Server 8.5, and 9.0 traditional could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code caused by unsafe deserialization of untrusted data. |
| IBM WebSphere Application Server 9.0, and 8.5 traditional is vulnerable to pre-authentication unsafe deserialization which could allow a remote attacker to bypass authentication or execute arbitrary code. |
| IBM OPENBMC FW1110.00 through FW1110.20, and FW1060.00 through FW1060.71 allows a user to supply a password with a resource dump request stores that password into the BMC audit log where an admin user can see it. |
| IBM Verify Identity Access 11.0 through 11.0.2 and IBM Security Verify Access 10.0 through 10.0.9.1 and IBM Verify Identity Access Container 11.0 through 11.0.2 and IBM Security Verify Access Container 10.0 through 10.0.9.1 could allow an attacker with read-only privileges to make unauthorized modifications and deployments outside of their assigned permissions. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 has a vulnerability in Langflow's webhook authentication logic allows unauthenticated users to trigger the execution of any flow. The system incorrectly bypasses API key validation when the WEBHOOK_AUTH_ENABLE configuration is set to False (which is the default setting). This allows a remote attacker who knows a flow's UUID to execute it as if they were the owner, potentially leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE). |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 Langflow could allow remote code execution due to incomplete validation enforcement on MCP server configuration files. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.1 Lanflow OSS contains an unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability in the public flow build endpoint ( /api/v1/build_public_tmp/{flow_id}/flow ). The vulnerability stems from an incomplete denylist in the validate_public_flow_no_code_execution() function that fails to block several code-execution agent components including OpenDsStarAgent, CodeActAgentSmolagents, and CSVAgent. |
| IBM Sterling B2B Integrator and IBM Sterling File Gateway are vulnerable to SQL injection. A privileged user could send specially crafted SQL statements, which could allow the attacker to view, add, modify, or delete information in the back-end database. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.1 contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key, which it uses for its own inbound authentication, outbound communication to external components, or encryption of internal data. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 allows an authenticated attacker to create a malicious flow pointing to an attacker-controlled URL that returns a specially crafted Content-Disposition header (e.g., filename="../../../target/path" ), enabling arbitrary file write operations with attacker-controlled content to any path accessible by the Langflow process. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 Langflow 1.9.0 could allow server-side request forgery (SSRF) due to insecure default configuration and incomplete enforcement of the SSRF protection mechanism. |
| IBM Engineering AI Hub 1.0.0, 1.1.0, and 1.2.0 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to the exposure of session tokens in URLs. |
| IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.4 is vulnerable to a trap when compiling a specially crafted statements containing subqueries could lead to a denial of service. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 allows authenticated users to escalate privileges to superuser by directly manipulating the database, execute arbitrary system commands, and achieve full system compromise with Langflow service permissions. |
| 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. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 allows authenticated users to override component parameters at runtime via the API. A critical security flaw exists in the parameter filtering mechanism within the `apply_tweaks()` function. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.1 can allow an authenticated attacker to exploit the SaveToFile component to read and modify another user's uploaded files by specifying absolute paths pointing to victim storage locations. In append mode, the attacker's workflow reads victim file contents, appends attacker-controlled data, and uploads a copy containing victim data to the attacker's namespace (confidentiality breach). In overwrite mode, the attacker can replace victim file contents with arbitrary data (integrity breach). This breaks the storage ownership boundary between users. |
| IBM Engineering AI Hub 1.0.0, 1.1.0, and 1.2.0 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary scripts due to improper neutralization of input during web page generation. |
