VulnerabilityPublished 12 Aug 2026Updated 16 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-68868: Apache Airflow Google provider · Insufficient Granularity of Access Control

Affects Apache Airflow Google providerSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 22.3.0 when convenient.

Data as of 8 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 48% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 22.3.0

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 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 9 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.

ghsa-qfr4-ppjq-9gr3

What to do

Upgrade Apache Airflow Google provider and apache-airflow-providers-google to 22.3.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Software FoundationApache Airflow Google provider	Affected <22.3.0	Fixed in 22.3.0
PyPIapache-airflow-providers-google`pkg:pypi/apache-airflow-providers-google`Other threats	Affected <22.3.0	Fixed in 22.3.0

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

AI-suggested

A patch is available in apache-airflow-providers-google version 22.3.0 and later, which correctly applies team-scoped secret names to enforce access control. Users should upgrade to version 22.3.0 or newer to remediate this vulnerability. Since this is a cloud service component, the vendor manages remediation for the cloud-hosted service; users should verify their provider version and upgrade accordingly.

Description

The Google Cloud Secret Manager secrets backend in Apache Airflow's Google provider never applied the team scope when resolving Connections and Variables: the caller's `team_name` was accepted by the backend but dropped at the internal call boundary, so every lookup resolved against the team-agnostic secret name. In a deployment running multi-team mode with this backend, a task or Dag belonging to one team resolved another team's Connection or Variable, obtaining its credentials in full. No unusual configuration is required beyond enabling multi-team mode and using this backend. Users are advised to upgrade to apache-airflow-providers-google 22.3.0 or later, which builds and applies the team-scoped secret name.

Impact

In multi-team deployments using the vulnerable Google Cloud Secret Manager backend, this vulnerability allows unauthorized access to other teams' Connections and Variables, exposing sensitive credentials. This can lead to credential leakage across teams within the same Airflow deployment. No unusual configuration is required beyond enabling multi-team mode and using this backend.

Summary

The Google Cloud Secret Manager secrets backend in Apache Airflow's Google provider fails to enforce team scoping when resolving Connections and Variables in multi-team mode. Although the caller's team_name is accepted, it is discarded internally, causing secret lookups to be team-agnostic. Consequently, tasks or DAGs from one team can retrieve another team's credentials. This vulnerability affects apache-airflow-providers-google versions before 22.3.0. The issue is fixed in version 22.3.0 by building and applying the team-scoped secret name correctly.

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 the required granularity
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 12 Aug 2026, 11:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1220

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats