Skip to content

CVE-2026-48776

Path Traversal: is CVE-2026-48776real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
4.2 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-22 · Path Traversal
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →
Affected:Langchain

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

LangGraph Python SDK is used to connect to running LangGraph API servers, manage assistants, threads and stream runs from Python applications. Versions 0.3.14 and prior have unsafe URL path construction through unsanitized caller-supplied identifier values used in HTTP request paths for resource operations. Without sanitization of those values, identifiers that contain characters with special meaning in URL paths could cause the resulting request to address a different resource (and potentially a different resource type) than the SDK method's call site indicates. In deployments where the SDK receives identifier values that originate from untrusted sources, this could result in unintended access, modification, or deletion of resources beyond the calling user's authorization scope. This issue is most consequential in deployments that forward end-user-supplied values directly into SDK identifier parameters without first validating them against an expected format (such as a UUID), and rely on URL-prefix-based authorization at an upstream layer (reverse proxy, edge gateway, WAF), where the authorization decision is made on the SDK call's intended path rather than on the final delivered request path. The issue has been fixed in version 0.3.15.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-48776
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-48776/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-48776)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-48776"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-48776/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-48776"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

0 verdicts
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-22 · Path Traversal.