VulnerabilityPublished 18 Sep 2026Updated 22 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-75157: Apache Airflow · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Apache AirflowSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 3.3.2 soon.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.3.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 18 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 1 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 to 3.3.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Software FoundationApache Airflow	Affected <3.3.2	Fixed in 3.3.2
PyPIapache-airflow`pkg:pypi/apache-airflow`Other threats	Affected <3.3.2	Fixed in 3.3.2

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 3.3.2 or later, where this authorization flaw has been fixed. No other mitigation is indicated or required by the vendor advisory. Deployments should apply this official fix to prevent unauthorized deletion of queued asset events.

Description

Apache Airflow's asset queued-events DELETE endpoints checked the caller's Dag-axis permission with `READ` instead of `EDIT`. Any authenticated user who could read a Dag could therefore delete that Dag's queued asset events, silently suppressing asset-triggered scheduling for it — a state-changing action gated on a read-only permission. Deployments are affected whenever asset-triggered scheduling is in use and Dag read access is granted more widely than Dag edit access, which is the normal RBAC arrangement; no special configuration is required. Upgrade to apache-airflow 3.3.2 or later.

Impact

An attacker with authenticated read access to a DAG can delete queued asset events, effectively suppressing asset-triggered scheduling for that DAG. This is a state-changing action that should require edit permissions but is incorrectly gated by read permissions. The impact is limited to deployments using asset-triggered scheduling and where read access is more permissive than edit access, which is common in RBAC configurations. There is no impact on confidentiality or availability, but integrity is affected due to unauthorized modification of scheduling state.

Summary

Apache Airflow's asset queued-events DELETE endpoints perform an incorrect authorization check by validating the caller's DAG permission with READ instead of EDIT. Consequently, any authenticated user with read access to a DAG can delete that DAG's queued asset events, which is a state-changing operation that should require edit permissions. This flaw allows suppression of asset-triggered scheduling without proper authorization. The vulnerability affects all versions prior to 3.3.2 where asset-triggered scheduling is enabled and read access is granted more broadly than edit access. No special configuration is needed to be vulnerable. The issue is tracked as CVE-2026-75157 and has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.5 (high severity).

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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 26 Sep 2026, 03:56 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats