VulnerabilityPublished 26 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-68697: n8n · Improper Privilege Management

Affects n8nSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 2.0.0 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 18% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.0.0

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Dec 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade n8n-io/n8n to 2.0.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubn8n-io/n8n`pkg:github/n8n-io/n8n`Other threats	Affected <2.0.0	Fixed in 2.0.0

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade all self-hosted n8n instances to version 2.0.0 or later to fully remediate this vulnerability. Until upgrades can be performed, implement the following mitigations: 1) Configure the environment variable N8N_RESTRICT_FILE_ACCESS_TO to restrict file operations to a dedicated directory that contains no sensitive data, minimizing the risk of unauthorized file access. 2) Ensure N8N_BLOCK_FILE_ACCESS_TO_N8N_FILES is set to true (default) to block access to the .n8n directory and user-defined configuration files, protecting critical configuration data. 3) Disable the Code node and other high-risk nodes using the NODES_EXCLUDE environment variable if workflow editors are not fully trusted, thereby reducing the attack surface. 4) Enforce strict access controls and monitor workflow editor accounts for suspicious activity to prevent unauthorized privilege escalation. 5) Employ network segmentation and host-level security controls to limit the impact of any potential compromise. 6) Regularly audit and review workflow permissions and user roles to ensure least privilege principles are maintained. 7) Implement logging and alerting on file access and workflow changes to detect exploitation attempts promptly.

Description

n8n is an open source workflow automation platform. Prior to version 2.0.0, in self-hosted n8n instances where the Code node runs in legacy (non-task-runner) JavaScript execution mode, authenticated users with workflow editing access can invoke internal helper functions from within the Code node. This allows a workflow editor to perform actions on the n8n host with the same privileges as the n8n process, including: reading files from the host filesystem (subject to any file-access restrictions configured on the instance and OS/container permissions), and writing files to the host filesystem (subject to the same restrictions). This issue has been patched in version 2.0.0. Workarounds for this issue involve limiting file operations by setting N8N_RESTRICT_FILE_ACCESS_TO to a dedicated directory (e.g., ~/.n8n-files) and ensure it contains no sensitive data, keeping N8N_BLOCK_FILE_ACCESS_TO_N8N_FILES=true (default) to block access to .n8n and user-defined config files, and disabling high-risk nodes (including the Code node) using NODES_EXCLUDE if workflow editors are not fully trusted.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk especially for those deploying self-hosted n8n instances for automating business workflows. Exploitation can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive corporate data stored on the host system, including credentials, configuration files, or proprietary information. The ability to write files may allow attackers to implant malicious scripts or modify workflows, potentially disrupting business operations or enabling further lateral movement within the network. Given n8n’s role in automating critical processes, compromise could impact data integrity and operational continuity. Organizations in regulated sectors such as finance, healthcare, and government are particularly vulnerable due to strict data protection requirements under GDPR and other regulations. The vulnerability’s exploitation requires only authenticated access with workflow editing privileges, which may be obtained via compromised credentials or insider threats, increasing the attack surface. The lack of user interaction and remote network exploitability further heightens the risk. Failure to patch or mitigate this vulnerability could result in data breaches, compliance violations, reputational damage, and operational disruptions.

CWE-269Improper Privilege Management (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Restful Privilege Elevation (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Abuse (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Escalation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-749Exposed Dangerous Method or Function (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: LowOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product provides an Applications Programming Interface (API) or similar interface for interaction with external actors, but the interface includes a dangerous method or function that is not properly restricted.
Architecture and Design
If you must expose a method, make sure to perform input validation on all arguments, limit access to authorized parties, and protect against all possible vulnerabilities.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Identify all exposed functionality. Explicitly list all functionality that must be exposed to some user or set of users. Identify which functionality may be: accessible to all users; restricted to a small set of privileged users; prevented from being directly accessible at all
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V14.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V10.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
WebView Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/n8n-io/n8n/security/advisories/GHSA-j4p8-h8mh-rh8q (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Dec 2025, 22:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-269, CWE-749

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats