GHSA-P5W8-M249-4R4V

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-04 16:50 – Updated: 2026-08-04 16:50
VLAI
Summary
Flowise: `DELETE /api/v1/chatflows/:id` does not validate resource type, allowing `agentflows:delete` and `chatflows:delete` to delete each other’s flow type
Details

summary:

In Flowise, DELETE /api/v1/chatflows/:id authorizes requests with checkAnyPermission('chatflows:delete,agentflows:delete'). Possession of either permission is sufficient to reach the delete path. The delete logic does not validate the target resource type, allowing a caller with only agentflows:delete to delete a CHATFLOW, and a caller with only chatflows:delete to delete an AGENTFLOW.

details:

The delete route accepts either chatflows:delete or agentflows:delete. The subsequent logic only resolves the target record by id and workspaceId, then deletes by id without checking whether the target resource type matches the granted permission domain.

As a result, there is no binding between permission scope and flow type:

  • agentflows:delete can be used to delete CHATFLOW
  • chatflows:delete can be used to delete AGENTFLOW

This breaks the intended RBAC separation between Chatflows and Agentflows.

impact:

Users authorized to manage only one flow type can delete the other flow type within the same workspace, resulting in unauthorized deletion and configuration loss.

reproduction steps:

  1. Log in as a user who can create API keys.
  2. Create a normal CHATFLOW and record its id.
  3. Create an API key with only agentflows:delete.
  4. Use that API key to send:
curl -i -X DELETE \
  -H 'Authorization: Bearer <agentflows_delete_only_key>' \
  http://localhost:8080/api/v1/chatflows/<chatflow_id>
  1. Observe a 200 OK response, for example:
{"raw":[],"affected":1}
  1. Read the same id again and observe 404 Not Found.
Severity
7.1 (High)
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
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.1.2"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "flowise"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3.1.3"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-69262"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-04T16:50:32Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "# summary:\nIn Flowise, `DELETE /api/v1/chatflows/:id` authorizes requests with `checkAnyPermission(\u0027chatflows:delete,agentflows:delete\u0027)`. Possession of either permission is sufficient to reach the delete path. The delete logic does not validate the target resource `type`, allowing a caller with only `agentflows:delete` to delete a `CHATFLOW`, and a caller with only `chatflows:delete` to delete an `AGENTFLOW`.\n\n# details:\nThe delete route accepts either `chatflows:delete` or `agentflows:delete`. The subsequent logic only resolves the target record by `id` and `workspaceId`, then deletes by `id` without checking whether the target resource type matches the granted permission domain.\n\nAs a result, there is no binding between permission scope and flow type:\n\n- `agentflows:delete` can be used to delete `CHATFLOW`\n- `chatflows:delete` can be used to delete `AGENTFLOW`\n\nThis breaks the intended RBAC separation between Chatflows and Agentflows.\n\n# impact:\nUsers authorized to manage only one flow type can delete the other flow type within the same workspace, resulting in unauthorized deletion and configuration loss.\n\n# reproduction steps:\n\n1. Log in as a user who can create API keys.\n2. Create a normal `CHATFLOW` and record its `id`.\n3. Create an API key with only `agentflows:delete`.\n4. Use that API key to send:\n\n```bash\ncurl -i -X DELETE \\\n  -H \u0027Authorization: Bearer \u003cagentflows_delete_only_key\u003e\u0027 \\\n  http://localhost:8080/api/v1/chatflows/\u003cchatflow_id\u003e\n```\n\n5. Observe a `200 OK` response, for example:\n\n```json\n{\"raw\":[],\"affected\":1}\n```\n\n6. Read the same `id` again and observe `404 Not Found`.",
  "id": "GHSA-p5w8-m249-4r4v",
  "modified": "2026-08-04T16:50:32Z",
  "published": "2026-08-04T16:50:32Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise/security/advisories/GHSA-p5w8-m249-4r4v"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise/pull/6445"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise/commit/2f528ceced74afaa95fc7a282965e7788796448b"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise/releases/tag/flowise@3.1.3"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "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",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Flowise: `DELETE /api/v1/chatflows/:id` does not validate resource type, allowing `agentflows:delete` and `chatflows:delete` to delete each other\u2019s flow type"
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.



Related by attack behaviour

Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.