Vulnerability from bitnami_vulndb
Apache Airflow's asset materialization endpoint (POST /api/v2/assets/{asset_id}/materialize) and the XCom result check on wait_dag_run_until_finished authorized the target Dag without its team, unlike every other authorization site. A team-aware auth manager distinguishes a team-scoped Dag from a global one by that field -- the Keycloak auth manager, for example, checks the DAG resource instead of DAG:<team> -- so the team-scoped permission that should gate the request was never consulted. In a deployment running multi-team mode with a team-aware auth manager, an authenticated user in one team could trigger Dag runs belonging to another team, supplying their own dag_run_id and conf, and could read another team's XCom values. Deployments using the FAB auth manager are unaffected, as it has no multi-team support. Users are advised to upgrade to apache-airflow 3.3.1 or later, which resolves the Dag's team at both sites.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Bitnami",
"name": "airflow",
"purl": "pkg:bitnami/airflow"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.3.1"
}
],
"type": "SEMVER"
}
],
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-68971"
],
"database_specific": {
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:apache:airflow:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"severity": "Medium"
},
"details": "Apache Airflow\u0027s asset materialization endpoint (`POST /api/v2/assets/{asset_id}/materialize`) and the XCom result check on `wait_dag_run_until_finished` authorized the target Dag without its team, unlike every other authorization site. A team-aware auth manager distinguishes a team-scoped Dag from a global one by that field -- the Keycloak auth manager, for example, checks the `DAG` resource instead of `DAG:\u003cteam\u003e` -- so the team-scoped permission that should gate the request was never consulted. In a deployment running multi-team mode with a team-aware auth manager, an authenticated user in one team could trigger Dag runs belonging to another team, supplying their own `dag_run_id` and `conf`, and could read another team\u0027s XCom values. Deployments using the FAB auth manager are unaffected, as it has no multi-team support. Users are advised to upgrade to apache-airflow 3.3.1 or later, which resolves the Dag\u0027s team at both sites.",
"id": "BIT-airflow-2026-68971",
"modified": "2026-09-08T08:34:36.952Z",
"published": "2026-08-17T05:39:33.053Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "DISCUSSION",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/08/12/15"
},
{
"type": "FIX",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/70893"
},
{
"type": "DISCUSSION",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/kfxqqwgojdjdnt6bxg3ord4y41y334fo"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-68971"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.6.2",
"summary": "Apache Airflow: Cross-team authorization bypass in the asset materialization and dag-run result endpoints"
}
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.