GHSA-6m9r-7wrx-xmr6 BIT-airflow-2023-49920 CVE-2023-49920 PYSEC-2023-266
Apache Airflow Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability
- Severity
- 6.5 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.03%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 63.78% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
2.8.0- Upgrade apache-airflow to this version or later
Description
Apache Airflow, version 2.7.0 through 2.7.3, has a vulnerability that allows an attacker to trigger a DAG in a GET request without CSRF validation. As a result, it was possible for a malicious website opened in the same browser - by the user who also had Airflow UI opened - to trigger the execution of DAGs without the user's consent. Users are advised to upgrade to version 2.8.0 or later which is not affected
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| apache-airflow | >= 2.7.0, < 2.8.0 |
2.8.0 |
| apache-airflow | >= 2.7.0, < 2.8.0b1 |
2.8.0b1 |
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 → 2.8.0
- pip
pip install --upgrade "apache-airflow>=2.8.0"- poetry
poetry add "apache-airflow>=2.8.0"- uv
uv add "apache-airflow>=2.8.0"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 6.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
How to prevent it
- 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 [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
- Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
- Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
- Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
- Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
- Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
- Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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-5247-m8w9-2v4m Apache Airflow missing team context permits cross-team Dag actions and XCom reads | 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 |
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