The GET /api/v1/public-chatflows/:id endpoint returns the full chatflow object without sanitization for public chatflows. Docker validation revealed this is worse than initially assessed: the sanitizeFlowDataForPublicEndpoint function does NOT exist in the released v3.0.13 Docker image. Both public-chatflows AND public-chatbotConfig return completely raw flowData including credential IDs, plaintext API keys, and password-type fields.
// packages/server/src/controllers/chatflows/index.ts:218-220
const chatflow = await chatflowsService.getChatflowById(req.params.id)
if (!chatflow) return res.status(StatusCodes.NOT_FOUND).json(...)
if (chatflow.isPublic) return res.status(StatusCodes.OK).json(chatflow) // ← NO sanitization!
Created public chatflow with credential IDs and passwords in flowData:
{
"flowData": "{\"nodes\":[{\"data\":{\"credential\":\"e92a39bf-...\",\"inputs\":{\"password\":\"sk-supersecretkey123\",\"apiKey\":\"should-not-leak\"}}}]}"
}
The sanitizeFlowDataForPublicEndpoint function only exists in unreleased HEAD, and even there, only public-chatbotConfig calls it — public-chatflows never does.
public-chatflows and public-chatbotConfig are affected in the released versionApply sanitization to both public endpoints:
const sanitized = sanitizeFlowDataForPublicEndpoint(chatflow)
return res.status(StatusCodes.OK).json(sanitized)
Ensure the sanitization function strips all credential, password, apiKey, and secretKey fields from flowData.
packages/server/src/controllers/chatflows/index.ts lines 209-236packages/server/src/utils/sanitizeFlowData.ts lines 11-34 (exists only in unreleased HEAD)| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
flowise
|
- | 3.1.0 |
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.