VulnerabilityPublished 13 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-68949: n8n · Use of Externally-Controlled Format String

Affects n8nSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 2.2.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.2.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 13 Jan 2026
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 to 2.2.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
n8n-ion8n	Affected >=1.36.0 <2.2.0	Fixed in 2.2.0
GitHubn8n-io/n8n`pkg:github/n8n-io/n8n`Other threats	Affected =1.36.0 =2.0.0	Fixed in–

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 n8n instances to version 2.2.0 or later where the vulnerability is fixed. Until upgrade is possible, administrators should avoid relying solely on IP-based whitelist controls for webhook security. Instead, implement additional authentication mechanisms such as secret tokens, OAuth, or mutual TLS to validate webhook requests. Review and tighten network-level controls, including firewall rules and VPN access, to restrict webhook endpoint exposure. Conduct thorough audits of existing webhook configurations to identify any that rely on IP whitelisting and assess their risk. Monitor webhook access logs for suspicious requests originating from IP addresses that partially match trusted IPs. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block anomalous webhook traffic patterns. Finally, educate developers and administrators about the limitations of partial IP matching and the importance of exact IP validation in access controls.

Description

CVE-2025-68949 is a medium-severity vulnerability in the n8n workflow automation platform versions 1.36.0 up to but not including 2.2.0. The flaw lies in the Webhook node’s IP whitelist validation, which uses partial string matching instead of exact IP comparison. This allows an attacker with a non-whitelisted IP address that shares a substring with a trusted IP to bypass IP-based access controls and invoke restricted webhooks. Both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are affected. The vulnerability does not require authentication or user interaction and impacts confidentiality by potentially exposing restricted workflows. The issue is fixed in version 2.

Impact

For European organizations using affected versions of n8n, this vulnerability can lead to unauthorized invocation of restricted webhooks, potentially exposing sensitive business workflows or data. Since webhooks often trigger automated processes or data exchanges, unauthorized access could result in data leakage or manipulation of workflow execution. Although the vulnerability does not directly impact integrity or availability, the confidentiality breach risk is significant, especially for organizations relying on IP-based access controls as a primary security measure. This risk is heightened in sectors with strict data protection requirements such as finance, healthcare, and government. The ease of exploitation (no authentication or user interaction needed) increases the threat level. Organizations with public-facing n8n webhook endpoints are particularly vulnerable to remote attackers who can craft requests from IPs that partially match whitelisted addresses.

CWE-134Use of Externally-Controlled Format String (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product uses a function that accepts a format string as an argument, but the format string originates from an external source.
Requirements
Choose a language that is not subject to this flaw.
Implementation
Ensure that all format string functions are passed a static string which cannot be controlled by the user, and that the proper number of arguments are always sent to that function as well. If at all possible, use functions that do not support the %n operator in format strings.
Build and Compilation
Run compilers and linkers with high warning levels, since they may detect incorrect usage.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Format String Injection (opens in a new tab)
String Format Overflow in syslog() (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized 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
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
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)
Authorization (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
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 21 Jan 2026, 03:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-134, CWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats