chore(deps): update dependency langchain-core to v1.2.28 [security]#5417
Merged
chore(deps): update dependency langchain-core to v1.2.28 [security]#5417
Conversation
Generated by renovateBot
davidzhao
approved these changes
Apr 11, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR contains the following updates:
1.2.19→1.2.28Warning
Some dependencies could not be looked up. Check the Dependency Dashboard for more information.
GitHub Vulnerability Alerts
CVE-2026-34070
Summary
Multiple functions in
langchain_core.prompts.loadingread files from paths embedded in deserialized config dicts without validating against directory traversal or absolute path injection. When an application passes user-influenced prompt configurations toload_prompt()orload_prompt_from_config(), an attacker can read arbitrary files on the host filesystem, constrained only by file-extension checks (.txtfor templates,.json/.yamlfor examples).Note: The affected functions (
load_prompt,load_prompt_from_config, and the.save()method on prompt classes) are undocumented legacy APIs. They are superseded by thedumpd/dumps/load/loadsserialization APIs inlangchain_core.load, which do not perform filesystem reads and use an allowlist-based security model. As part of this fix, the legacy APIs have been formally deprecated and will be removed in 2.0.0.Affected component
Package:
langchain-coreFile:
langchain_core/prompts/loading.pyAffected functions:
_load_template(),_load_examples(),_load_few_shot_prompt()Severity
High
The score reflects the file-extension constraints that limit which files can be read.
Vulnerable code paths
template_path,suffix_path,prefix_path_load_template().txtexamples(when string)_load_examples().json,.yaml,.ymlexample_prompt_path_load_few_shot_prompt().json,.yaml,.ymlNone of these code paths validated the supplied path against absolute path injection or
..traversal sequences before reading from disk.Impact
An attacker who controls or influences the prompt configuration dict can read files outside the intended directory:
.txtfiles: cloud-mounted secrets (/mnt/secrets/api_key.txt),requirements.txt, internal system prompts.json/.yamlfiles: cloud credentials (~/.docker/config.json,~/.azure/accessTokens.json), Kubernetes manifests, CI/CD configs, application settingsThis is exploitable in applications that accept prompt configs from untrusted sources, including low-code AI builders and API wrappers that expose
load_prompt_from_config().Proof of concept
Mitigation
Update
langchain-coreto >= 1.2.22.The fix adds path validation that rejects absolute paths and
..traversal sequences by default. Anallow_dangerous_paths=Truekeyword argument is available onload_prompt()andload_prompt_from_config()for trusted inputs.As described above, these legacy APIs have been formally deprecated. Users should migrate to
dumpd/dumps/load/loadsfromlangchain_core.load.Credit
CVE-2026-40087
LangChain's f-string prompt-template validation was incomplete in two respects.
First, some prompt template classes accepted f-string templates and formatted them without enforcing the same attribute-access validation as
PromptTemplate. In particular,DictPromptTemplateandImagePromptTemplatecould accept templates containing attribute access or indexing expressions and subsequently evaluate those expressions during formatting.Examples of the affected shape include:
Second, f-string validation based on parsed top-level field names did not reject nested replacement fields inside format specifiers. For example:
"{name:{name.__class__.__name__}}"In this pattern, the nested replacement field appears in the format specifier rather than in the top-level field name. As a result, earlier validation based on parsed field names did not reject the template even though Python formatting would still attempt to resolve the nested expression at runtime.
Affected usage
This issue is only relevant for applications that accept untrusted template strings, rather than only untrusted template variable values.
In addition, practical impact depends on what objects are passed into template formatting:
In many deployments, these conditions are not commonly present together. Applications that allow end users to author arbitrary templates often expose only a narrow set of simple template variables, while applications that work with richer internal Python objects often keep template structure under developer control. As a result, the highest-impact scenario is plausible but is not representative of all LangChain applications.
Applications that use hardcoded templates or that only allow users to provide variable values are not affected by this issue.
Impact
The direct issue in
DictPromptTemplateandImagePromptTemplateallowed attribute access and indexing expressions to survive template construction and then be evaluated during formatting. When richer Python objects were passed into formatting, this could expose internal fields or nested data to prompt output, model context, or logs.The nested format-spec issue is narrower in scope. It bypassed the intended validation rules for f-string templates, but in simple cases it results in an invalid format specifier error rather than direct disclosure. Accordingly, its practical impact is lower than that of direct top-level attribute traversal.
Overall, the practical severity depends on deployment. Meaningful confidentiality impact requires attacker control over the template structure itself, and higher impact further depends on the surrounding application passing richer internal Python objects into formatting.
Fix
The fix consists of two changes.
First, LangChain now applies f-string safety validation consistently to
DictPromptTemplateandImagePromptTemplate, so templates containing attribute access or indexing expressions are rejected during construction and deserialization.Second, LangChain now rejects nested replacement fields inside f-string format specifiers.
Concretely, LangChain validates parsed f-string fields and raises an error for:
.or[]{or}This blocks templates such as:
The fix preserves ordinary f-string formatting features such as standard format specifiers and conversions, including examples like:
In addition, the explicit template-validation path now applies the same structural f-string checks before performing placeholder validation, ensuring that the security checks and validation checks remain aligned.
Configuration
📅 Schedule: (UTC)
🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.
♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.
🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.
This PR was generated by Mend Renovate. View the repository job log.