VulnerabilityPublished 12 Aug 2026Updated 3 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-67260: Apache Airflow · Deserialization of Untrusted Data

Affects Apache AirflowSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-58076

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.3 High : upgrade to 3.3.1 soon.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.3High

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CISA-ADP	CVSS 3.1	7.3

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 56% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.3.1

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

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 Aug 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 10 Nov 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 and apache-airflow-core to 3.3.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Airflowapache-airflow-core	Affected >=3.3.0 <3.3.1	Fixed in 3.3.1
PyPIapache-airflow`pkg:pypi/apache-airflow`Other threats	Affected =3.3.0	Fixed in–
PyPIapache-airflow-core`pkg:pypi/apache-airflow-core`Other threats	Affected >=3.3.0 <3.3.1	Fixed in 3.3.1

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

AI-suggested

Users should upgrade Apache Airflow to version 3.3.1 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. There is no indication of a temporary workaround or configuration change to mitigate this issue. Deployments that have applied fixes for CVE-2026-58076 must also upgrade to 3.3.1 or later to address this separate deserialization vulnerability.

Description

Apache Airflow 3.3.0 moved human-in-the-loop tasks from the triggerer to a new `awaiting_input` task state swept by the scheduler. That sweep deserializes the task instance's `next_kwargs` without an allow-list, so a Dag author — who controls that value through the task execution API — can cause an arbitrary module import and object instantiation inside the scheduler process, or terminate the scheduler job. No non-default configuration is required: the sweep runs unconditionally every 15 seconds, and the default `allowed_deserialization_classes` setting does not cover this code path. Versions before 3.3.0 are not affected, because human-in-the-loop tasks deferred onto the triggerer instead. This is a different code path from CVE-2026-58076, which covers the same unguarded exception-node deserialization reached elsewhere — deployments that applied that fix must upgrade for this issue as well. Users are advised to upgrade to apache-airflow 3.3.1 or later.

Impact

An attacker with DAG author privileges can exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code within the scheduler process or cause the scheduler to terminate unexpectedly. This could lead to denial of service or unauthorized code execution within the Airflow scheduler environment. No non-default configuration is required for exploitation, making the default installation vulnerable if running version 3.3.0.

Summary

Apache Airflow 3.3.0 introduced a new handling mechanism for human-in-the-loop tasks, moving them from the triggerer to an awaiting_input task state managed by the scheduler. During the scheduler's periodic sweep (every 15 seconds), it deserializes the next_kwargs attribute of task instances without enforcing an allow-list of safe classes. Since DAG authors control next_kwargs via the task execution API, this allows them to cause arbitrary module imports and object instantiations within the scheduler process or to terminate the scheduler job. This vulnerability is distinct from CVE-2026-58076 and affects only version 3.3.0. Upgrading to Apache Airflow 3.3.1 or later is advised to address this issue.

CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #15OWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation
When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
Implementation
Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Object Injection (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 12 Aug 2026, 16:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-502

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats