Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Yes: CISA KEV signal present. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

Is there a public exploit?

31 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, EDR process telemetry, host service logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-0770 using CVSS 9.8, EPSS 56%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Treat as emergency remediation because CISA KEV status is present. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

CISA KEVcriticalRemote Code Execpublic exploit

CVE-2026-0770

Langflow exec_globals Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Q: What is CVE-2026-0770?

CVE-2026-0770 is Langflow exec_globals Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Remote Code Exec mapped to CWE-829 CWE-829.

Q: Is it in CISA KEV?

Yes. The supplied enrichment data lists CVE-2026-0770 in CISA KEV with required action: Apply mitigations in accordance with vendor instructions, ensuring compliance with CISA’s BOD 26-04 Prioritizing Security Updates Based on Risk (see URL in Notes) guidance and CISA’s “Forensics Triage Requirements” (see URL in Notes). Follow applicable BOD 26-04 guidance for cloud services or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Stakeholders are responsible for evaluating each asset's internet exposure and ensuring adherence to BOD 26-04 patching guidelines.. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Langflow exec_globals Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Langflow. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the handling of the exec_globals parameter provided to the validate endpoint. The issue results from the inclusion of a resource from an untrusted control sphere. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-27325.

Published Jan 23, 2026Updated Jul 22, 2026Sources: NVD, Langflow (CNA), CISA, FIRST EPSS, GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, Exploit-DB

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Confirmed

CISA KEV, listed Jul 21, 2026

EPSS

56%

ahead of 99% of scored CVEs

Affects

Langflow

2 products listed

CVSS base

9.8

critical

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

Active

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

Yes

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade Langflow to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

CISA required action

Apply mitigations in accordance with vendor instructions, ensuring compliance with CISA’s BOD 26-04 Prioritizing Security Updates Based on Risk (see URL in Notes) guidance and CISA’s “Forensics Triage Requirements” (see URL in Notes). Follow applicable BOD 26-04 guidance for cloud services or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Stakeholders are responsible for evaluating each asset's internet exposure and ensuring adherence to BOD 26-04 patching guidelines.

Federal deadline Jul 24, 2026 — passed 32 days ago

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Treat as emergency remediation because CISA KEV status is present.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
Langflow	Langflow	1.4.2	Vulnerable
pip	langflow	<= 1.7.3	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
9.8	CVSS 3.0	critical	3.9	5.9	Trend Micro (ZDI) (CNA), Langflow (CNA)

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-829

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-242 · Code InjectionCAPEC-35 · Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files

T1055Process Injection
T1195.001Supply Chain Compromise: Software Dependencies and Development Tools
T1505.005Server Software Component: Terminal Services DLL

CISA KEV details

CISA lists a CVE here once it has evidence of exploitation against real targets.

CISAThat month →

Listed

Jul 21, 2026

Federal deadline

Jul 24, 2026

passed 32 days ago

Ransomware use

Unknown

CISA records ransomware use only for campaigns it has confirmed, so “Unknown” means unrecorded, not ruled out. The deadline binds US federal agencies; for everyone else it is a date to argue against.

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

1 of the 5 sampled are weaponized

Exploit entries

Exploit-DB and CTI exploit indexes

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable Langflow, langflow.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 31 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPSEDR process telemetryhost service logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 9.8 (AV:N)
Jul 22, 2026 · NVD
Added to CISA KEV catalog
Jul 21, 2026 · CISA
Added · webapps entry: Langflow 1.3.0 - Remote Code Execution
May 29, 2026 · Exploit-DB
Initial · CVE published
Jan 23, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-g22f-v6f7-2hrh published (high)
Jan 23, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory

References

9 on the record

www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-26-036/
Third Party Advisory, Vendor Advisory
www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2026-0770
US Government Resource
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-0770
NVD, Vendor Advisory
github.com/affix/CVE-2026-0770-PoC
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/advisories/GHSA-g22f-v6f7-2hrh
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
www.exploit-db.com/exploits/52597
Vendor Advisory
github.com/langflow-ai/langflow/releases/tag/v1.9.0
Vendor Advisory
www.cisa.gov/news-events/directives/bod-26-04-prioritizing-security-updates-based-risk
US Government Resource

Elsewhere on this site

Langflowevery CVE for this vendor
pipevery CVE for this vendor
July 2026what else CISA listed
Remote Code Execsame class
CWE-829other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-0770 is Langflow exec_globals Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere Remote Code Execution Vulnerability, a critical vulnerability affecting Langflow, langflow from Langflow, pip. The current evidence lists it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Yes: CISA KEV signal present. Public exploit evidence is: 31 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 9.8 describes technical severity, while EPSS 56% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.