Skip to content

Langflow is Missing Ownership Verification in API Key Deletion (IDOR)

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 16, 2026 in langflow-ai/langflow

Package

pip langflow (pip)

Affected versions

< 1.7.2

Patched versions

1.7.2

Description

Detection Method: Kolega.dev Deep Code Scan

Attribute Value
Location src/backend/base/langflow/api/v1/api_key.py:44-53
Practical Exploitability High
Developer Approver faizan@kolega.ai

Description

The delete_api_key_route() endpoint accepts an api_key_id path parameter and deletes it with only a generic authentication check (get_current_active_user dependency). However, the delete_api_key() CRUD function does NOT verify that the API key belongs to the current user before deletion.

Affected Code

@router.delete("/{api_key_id}", dependencies=[Depends(auth_utils.get_current_active_user)])
async def delete_api_key_route(
    api_key_id: UUID,
    db: DbSession,
):
    try:
        await delete_api_key(db, api_key_id)
    except Exception as e:
        raise HTTPException(status_code=400, detail=str(e)) from e
    return {"detail": "API Key deleted"}

Evidence

In crud.py lines 44-49, delete_api_key() retrieves the API key by ID and deletes it without checking if the key belongs to the authenticated user. The endpoint also doesn't pass the current_user to the delete function for verification.

Impact

An authenticated attacker can enumerate and delete API keys belonging to other users by guessing or discovering their API key IDs. This allows account takeover, denial of service, and disruption of other users' integrations.

Recommendation

Modify the delete_api_key endpoint and function: (1) Pass current_user to the delete function; (2) In delete_api_key(), verify api_key.user_id == current_user.id before deletion; (3) Raise a 403 Forbidden error if the user doesn't own the key. Example: if api_key.user_id != user_id: raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail='Unauthorized')

Notes

Confirmed IDOR vulnerability. The delete_api_key_route endpoint at line 44-53 accepts an api_key_id and calls delete_api_key(db, api_key_id) without passing the current_user. The CRUD function delete_api_key() at crud.py:44-49 retrieves the API key by ID and deletes it without verifying ownership (api_key.user_id == current_user.id). Compare this to the GET endpoint at lines 17-28 which correctly filters by user_id, and the POST endpoint at lines 31-41 which correctly associates the key with user_id. An authenticated attacker can delete any user's API keys by guessing/enumerating UUIDs. Fix: Pass current_user to delete_api_key and verify api_key.user_id == current_user.id before deletion, returning 403 if unauthorized.

Developer Review Notes

Does not accept current_user as a parameter. Allowing deletion of any user's API keys even without permissions.

References

@andifilhohub andifilhohub published to langflow-ai/langflow Mar 16, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 18, 2026
Reviewed Mar 18, 2026

Severity

High

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 Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

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:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-33053

GHSA ID

GHSA-rf6x-r45m-xv3w

Source code

Credits

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