VulnerabilityPublished 19 Aug 2026Updated 28 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-55236: langgraph-api · Incomplete assistant authorization in LangGraph Server run creation

Affects langgraph-apiSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-55236· Medium 5.9

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium : upgrade to 0.10.0 when convenient.

Data as of 28 Oct 2026, 22:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 0.10.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 14 Sep 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 langgraph-api to 0.10.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIlanggraph-api	Affected <0.10.0	Fixed in 0.10.0

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

Description

## Summary In affected versions of `langgraph-api` (the LangGraph Server runtime), the run-creation path authorized the assistant attached to a run using a different authorization event than the rest of the assistant-handling code paths. Direct assistant reads and cron creation dispatch the `assistants.read` authorization event; run creation dispatched `assistants.search` with an incomplete value. In deployments whose custom authorization handlers register only an `assistants.read` handler (without an `assistants.search` handler and without a global fallback handler), no handler was consulted on the run-creation path, the returned filter set was empty, and the owner constraint was omitted from the resulting query. As a result, in those deployments a request to create a run could reference a private assistant owned by another user, even where direct assistant reads, assistant search, and cron creation against that assistant were correctly denied. The run-creation response merged the referenced assistant's `metadata`, `config`, and `context` into fields returned to the requesting user. These fields can carry sensitive configuration; the runtime encrypts them at rest for that reason. We have no evidence of this behavior occurring in the wild. ## Affected users / systems You may be affected if you: - run `langgraph-api` (the LangGraph Server / Agent Server runtime, including via the LangGraph Platform Helm chart), and - use custom authorization handlers that gate assistant access through an `assistants.read` or `assistants.search` handler rather than a global handler covering all assistant events. Deployments without custom authorization handlers, or whose handlers apply an equivalent owner filter across all assistant events (for example through a global handler), are not affected. ## Impact - Confidentiality: exposure of another user's private assistant `metadata`, `config`, and `context` through the run-creation response. These fields can contain sensitive configuration. - Integrity: creation of a run associated with another user's private assistant, beyond the requesting user's authorization scope; the run is then carried out using that assistant's configuration. ## Patches / mitigation Run creation, and the parallel cron-creation path, now dispatch the `assistants.read` authorization event in both the in-memory and gRPC/Postgres runtimes, matching direct assistant reads. Client-supplied run and cron metadata is no longer forwarded into that authorization event, so handlers receive a consistent value shape and determine access by returning an owner filter that is applied server-side. Fixed in `langgraph-api` 0.10.0. This is a behavioral change for deployments with custom authorization handlers: - Handlers that gated assistant access only through `assistants.search` during run creation are no longer consulted on that path; provide an equivalent `assistants.read` handler that returns the same owner filter. - The metadata field on the `assistants.read` event during run and cron creation is no longer populated; handlers that read or stamped it should move that logic into the run/cron create handlers. ## Operational guidance - Register an `assistants.read` handler (or a global handler covering it) that returns an owner-style filter, and confirm parity across the assistant read, search, and run/cron creation paths. - Upgrade to a release containing this change.

CWE-285Improper Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (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

WeaknessesCWE-285

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats