Update dependency langchain-core to v1.2.28 [SECURITY]#486
Open
renovate[bot] wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
Open
Update dependency langchain-core to v1.2.28 [SECURITY]#486renovate[bot] wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
renovate[bot] wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
Conversation
05811bd to
4e424f4
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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:
1.2.23→1.2.28GitHub Vulnerability Alerts
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.
Severity
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NLangChain has incomplete f-string validation in prompt templates
CVE-2026-40087 / GHSA-926x-3r5x-gfhw
More information
Details
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.
Severity
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NReferences
This data is provided by OSV and the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).
Configuration
📅 Schedule: (in timezone US/Eastern)
🚦 Automerge: Enabled.
♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR is behind base branch, 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.