Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-5247-m8w9-2v4m BIT-airflow-2026-68971 CVE-2026-68971 PYSEC-2026-3994

Apache Airflow missing team context permits cross-team Dag actions and XCom reads

Medium PyPI
Severity
6.5 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.33%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 25.95% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
3.3.1
Upgrade apache-airflow to this version or later

Description

Apache Airflow's asset materialization endpoint (POST /api/v2/assets/{asset_id}/materialize) and the XCom result check on wait_dag_run_until_finished authorized the target Dag without its team, unlike every other authorization site. A team-aware auth manager distinguishes a team-scoped Dag from a global one by that field -- the Keycloak auth manager, for example, checks the DAG resource instead of DAG:<team> -- so the team-scoped permission that should gate the request was never consulted. In a deployment running multi-team mode with a team-aware auth manager, an authenticated user in one team could trigger Dag runs belonging to another team, supplying their own dag_run_id and conf, and could read another team's XCom values. Deployments using the FAB auth manager are unaffected, as it has no multi-team support. Users are advised to upgrade to apache-airflow 3.3.1 or later, which resolves the Dag's team at both sites.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
apache-airflow
< 3.3.1
3.3.1

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

apache-airflow PyPI → 3.3.1

pip
pip install --upgrade "apache-airflow>=3.3.1"
poetry
poetry add "apache-airflow>=3.3.1"
uv
uv add "apache-airflow>=3.3.1"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.5

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Advisories

Packages

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
CVE-2020-13927
Authentication bypass in Apache Airflow
Critical Known exploited Also affects apache-airflow
CVE-2020-11978
Remote code execution (RCE) in Apache Airflow
High Known exploited Also affects apache-airflow
PYSEC-2026-3990
Apache Airflow: the Core API logout endpoint revokes only a session token presented as the _token cookie.
Critical Also affects apache-airflow
PYSEC-2026-3989
When a request to the Airflow core API carries both a session cookie and an explicit `Authorization: Bearer` token, Airflow resolves the caller from the cookie…
Medium Also affects apache-airflow
PYSEC-2026-3988
Apache Airflow's `/assets/events` API returned asset events for every Dag in the deployment, with no filter restricting them to the Dags the caller is…
Medium Also affects apache-airflow
GHSA-f3c2-j7g8-vpp8
Apache Airflow Task SDK fails to mask list-shaped JSON Variables
Medium Also affects apache-airflow
GHSA-cjv4-7hp2-2x9h
Apache Airflow bulk endpoints log Variable and Connection secrets in cleartext
Medium Also affects apache-airflow
GHSA-j4jc-cq9h-xrhr
Apache Airflow Backfill API parser discrepancy permits cross-DAG authorization bypass
High Also affects apache-airflow
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor