VulnerabilityPublished 24 Apr 2026Updated 5 May 2026

CVE-2026-40690: Apache Airflow's asset dependency graph did not restrict nodes by the viewer's DAG read permissions

Affects apache-airflowSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-40690· Medium 4.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium : upgrade to 3.2.1rc1 when convenient.

Data as of 27 Oct 2026, 01:44 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Patch: Available – fixed in 3.2.1rc1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 24 Apr 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade apache-airflow to 3.2.1rc1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIapache-airflow	Affected <3.2.1rc1	Fixed in 3.2.1rc1

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Upgrade Apache Airflow to version 3.2.1rc1 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. Since a patch is available and the issue is resolved in the fixed version, applying this update is the recommended remediation.

Description

Apache Airflow versions prior to 3.2.1rc1 contain a vulnerability in the asset dependency graph where nodes are not properly restricted by the viewer's DAG read permissions. This allows a user with read access to at least one DAG to browse the asset graph and discover the existence and names of DAGs and assets outside their authorized scope. The issue is fixed in version 3.2.1rc1.

Impact

An attacker or user with read access to at least one DAG can gain unauthorized visibility into the names and existence of other DAGs and assets within the Apache Airflow deployment. This constitutes an information disclosure vulnerability with limited confidentiality impact. There is no impact on integrity or availability. No active exploitation is known.

Summary

The asset dependency graph feature in Apache Airflow did not enforce access control restrictions based on the viewer's DAG read permissions. Consequently, users with read access to any single DAG could enumerate other DAGs and assets in the deployment that they should not have visibility into. This information disclosure vulnerability is tracked as CVE-2026-40690 and affects versions prior to 3.2.1rc1. The vulnerability has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 4.3 (medium severity), reflecting limited confidentiality impact without integrity or availability effects. No known exploits are reported in the wild. The issue is resolved by upgrading to Apache Airflow version 3.2.1rc1 or later.

CWE-1220Insufficient Granularity of Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product implements access controls via a policy or other feature with the intention to disable or restrict accesses (reads and/or writes) to assets in a system from untrusted agents. However, implemented access controls lack required granularity, which renders the control policy too broad because it allows accesses from unauthorized agents to the security-sensitive assets.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Testing
Access-control-policy protections must be reviewed for design inconsistency and common weaknesses.; Access-control-policy definition and programming flow must be tested in pre-silicon, post-silicon testing.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Oct 2026, 01:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1220

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats