VulnerabilityPublished 12 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32247: getzep graphiti · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Data Query Logic

Affects getzep graphitiSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 0.28.2 soon.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.28.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 12 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 graphiti and getzep/graphiti to 0.28.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
getzepgraphiti	Affected <0.28.2	Fixed in 0.28.2
GitHubgetzep/graphiti`pkg:github/getzep/graphiti`Other threats	Affected <0.28.2	Fixed in 0.28.2

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately upgrade Graphiti to version 0.28.2 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. For environments where immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement strict input validation and sanitization on all user-controllable inputs that influence Cypher query construction, especially SearchFilters.node_labels and entity_types parameters. Employ parameterized queries or prepared statements wherever possible to avoid string interpolation of labels. Restrict access to the Graphiti MCP server to trusted users and networks to reduce direct exploitation risk. Monitor and audit LLM client interactions that invoke search_nodes for anomalous or unexpected entity_types inputs indicative of prompt injection attempts. Implement network segmentation and least privilege principles to limit attacker movement if compromise occurs. Maintain up-to-date threat intelligence and apply security patches promptly. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block Cypher injection patterns targeting Graphiti endpoints.

Description

CVE-2026-32247 is a high-severity Cypher injection vulnerability in getzep's Graphiti framework versions prior to 0.28.2. The flaw arises from improper neutralization of special elements in data query logic, specifically in the construction of Cypher label expressions for non-Kuzu backends like Neo4j, FalkorDB, and Neptune. Attackers can exploit this by injecting malicious label values through SearchFilters.node_labels or via prompt injection against LLM clients that trigger vulnerable search_nodes calls. This can lead to unauthorized data access and compromise of confidentiality and integrity without requiring user interaction, though some privileges are needed. The issue was fixed in version 0.28.2 by improving input validation and parameterization.

Impact

This vulnerability poses a significant risk to organizations relying on Graphiti with non-Kuzu backends for AI-driven graph data querying. Successful exploitation can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive graph data, data leakage, and potential data manipulation, undermining confidentiality and integrity. Since the vulnerability does not impact availability, denial-of-service is less of a concern. The ease of exploitation is relatively high given that no user interaction is required and the attack surface includes both direct server access and indirect LLM prompt injection vectors. Organizations using vulnerable versions in MCP deployments face compounded risk due to the indirect exploitation path via LLM clients. The scope includes any organization leveraging Graphiti with Neo4j, FalkorDB, or Neptune backends, particularly those integrating AI agents and large language models. This could affect sectors such as technology, finance, healthcare, and government, where graph databases and AI are increasingly prevalent. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not preclude future attacks.

CWE-943Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Data Query Logic (opens in a new tab)
Class weakness
The product generates a query intended to access or manipulate data in a data store such as a database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that can modify the intended logic of the query.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
NoSQL Injection (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 20 Mar 2026, 02:35 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-943

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats