VulnerabilityPublished 17 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-26929: Apache Airflow · Incorrect Permissions

Affects Apache AirflowSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 3.1.8 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.1.8

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

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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 17 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 30 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 3.1.8.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Software FoundationApache Airflow	Affected >=3.0.0 <3.1.8	Fixed in 3.1.8
Mavenorg.apache.airflow/airflow`pkg:maven/org.apache.airflow/airflow`Other threats	Affected =3.0.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-26929, organizations should upgrade Apache Airflow to version 3.1.8 or later, where the vulnerability has been fixed by enforcing proper per-DAG authorization filtering in the DagVersion listing API. Until the upgrade can be performed, administrators should consider restricting access to the FastAPI endpoints to trusted users only, using network-level controls such as firewall rules or API gateway policies to limit exposure. Implementing strict role-based access control (RBAC) and monitoring API usage logs for unusual access patterns can help detect attempts to exploit this vulnerability. Additionally, reviewing and minimizing the number of users with API access reduces the attack surface. Organizations should also ensure that their Airflow deployment follows security best practices, including using secure authentication mechanisms, encrypting communications, and regularly auditing permissions. Finally, staying informed about updates from the Apache Software Foundation and applying security patches promptly is critical to maintaining a secure environment.

Description

Apache Airflow versions 3.0.0 through 3.1.7 FastAPI DagVersion listing API does not apply per-DAG authorization filtering when the request is made with dag_id set to "~" (wildcard for all DAGs). As a result, version metadata of DAGs that the requester is not authorized to access is returned. Users are recommended to upgrade to Apache Airflow 3.1.8 or later, which resolves this issue.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-26929 is unauthorized disclosure of sensitive metadata related to DAG versions within Apache Airflow environments. This information leakage can compromise confidentiality by revealing workflow structures, version histories, and potentially sensitive operational details that could be leveraged by attackers for reconnaissance or to craft targeted attacks. While the vulnerability does not directly allow modification or disruption of workflows, the exposure of internal metadata can weaken an organization's security posture. Organizations relying on Airflow for critical data pipelines, automated workflows, or business processes may face increased risk of information leakage to unauthorized users. This could lead to indirect impacts such as intellectual property theft, exposure of business logic, or facilitation of further attacks against the environment. Since exploitation does not require user interaction and can be triggered by authenticated users with access to the API, insider threats or compromised accounts could exploit this flaw. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for future attacks.

CWE-732Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
Implementation
When using a critical resource such as a configuration file, check to see if the resource has insecure permissions (such as being modifiable by any regular user), and generate an error or even exit the software if there is a possibility that the resource could have been modified by an unauthorized party.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully defining distinct user groups, privileges, and/or roles. Map these against data, functionality, and the related resources. Then set the permissions accordingly.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (opens in a new tab)
Signing Malicious Code (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 17 Mar 2026, 11:28 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-732

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats