CVE-2025-34267

Flowise v3.0.1 < 3.0.8 and all versions after with ALLOW_BUILTIN_DEP enabled contain an authenticated remote code execution vulnerability and node VM sandbox escape due to insecure use of integrated modules (Puppeteer and Playwright) within the nodevm execution environment. An authenticated attacker able to create or run a tool that leverages Puppeteer/Playwright can specify attacker-controlled browser binary paths and parameters. When the tool executes, the attacker-controlled executable/parameters are run on the host and circumvent the intended nodevm sandbox restrictions, resulting in execution of arbitrary code in the context of the host. This vulnerability was incorrectly assigned as a duplicate CVE-2025-26319 by the developers and should be considered distinct from that identifier.

Weakness

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.

Extended Description

Many protocols and products have their own custom command language. While OS or shell command strings are frequently discovered and targeted, developers may not realize that these other command languages might also be vulnerable to attacks.

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/136.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/15.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/183.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/248.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/40.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/43.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/75.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/76.html

References

• https://flowiseai.com/
• https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise/pull/5231
• https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise/security/advisories/GHSA-5w3r-f6gm-c25w
• https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/flowise-auth-command-execution-and-sandbox-bypass-via-puppeteer-and-playwright-packages