Every applicability statement published about this vulnerability, kept as each source wrote it rather than merged into one verdict. Where sources disagree, both positions are shown.
A statement that names no version covers the whole product, which is not the same as your version falling inside a range. Orderings marked best effort come from schemes with no published comparison algorithm; exact ones follow a published specification.
Precedence decides which claim wins when two sources describe the same product over the same version range. It is a property of the source, not of the claim, and changing it re-ranks the data without re-reading a single document.
| Product | Status | Versions | Remediation | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://github.com/langflow-ai/langflow | affected | <= 0f8ff5a3ac713f487c064aa1901522b1a899c5b9 | none available | osv | |
| langflow | affected | < 1.7.0 | vendor fix → 1.7.0 | osv PYSEC-2025-78 | |
| langflow | fixed | 1.7.0 | vendor fix → 1.7.0 | osv PYSEC-2025-78 | |
| Langflow/Langflow Langflow · Langflow | affected | <= 1.6.9 | none available | cve_cna |
A claim with no version range is shown as written rather than expanded: a government catalog naming only a vendor and product is a real statement at zero granularity, and inventing bounds for it would put precision in the record that the source never offered.