FKIE_CVE-2025-54550

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-04-15 04:17 - Updated: 2026-11-03 07:17
Severity
8.1 (High) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Summary
The example example_xcom that was included in airflow documentation implemented unsafe pattern of reading value from xcom in the way that could be exploited to allow UI user who had access to modify XComs to perform arbitrary execution of code on the worker. Since the UI users are already highly trusted, this is a Low severity vulnerability. It does not affect Airflow release - example_dags are not supposed to be enabled in production environment, however users following the example could replicate the bad pattern. Documentation of Airflow 3.2.0 contains version of the example with improved resiliance for that case. Users who followed that pattern are advised to adjust their implementations accordingly.
References
security@apache.orghttps://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/63200Issue Tracking
security@apache.orghttps://lists.apache.org/thread/3mf4cfx070ofsnf9qy0s2v5gqb5sc2g1Mailing List, Vendor Advisory
af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/04/15/1Mailing List, Third Party Advisory
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
apache airflow *
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "affectedData": [
        {
          "collectionURL": "https://pypi.python.org",
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "packageName": "apache-airflow",
          "packageURL": "pkg:pypi/apache-airflow",
          "product": "Apache Airflow",
          "vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "3.0.0",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        },
        {
          "collectionURL": "https://pypi.python.org",
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "packageName": "apache-airflow-core",
          "packageURL": "pkg:pypi/apache-airflow-core",
          "product": "Apache Airflow",
          "vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "3.2.0",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.0.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": "security@apache.org"
    }
  ],
  "configurations": [
    {
      "nodes": [
        {
          "cpeMatch": [
            {
              "criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:apache:airflow:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
              "matchCriteriaId": "98A505A1-464C-4895-A628-9D8BEA1458E4",
              "versionEndExcluding": "3.2.0",
              "vulnerable": true
            }
          ],
          "negate": false,
          "operator": "OR"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "The example example_xcom\u00a0that was included in airflow documentation implemented unsafe pattern of reading value\nfrom xcom in the way that could be exploited to allow UI user who had access to modify XComs to perform arbitrary\nexecution of code on the worker. Since the UI users are already highly trusted, this is a Low severity vulnerability.\n\nIt does not affect Airflow release - example_dags are not supposed to be enabled in production environment, however\nusers following the example could replicate the bad pattern. Documentation of Airflow 3.2.0 contains version of\nthe example with improved resiliance for that case.\n\nUsers who followed that pattern are advised to adjust their implementations accordingly."
    },
    {
      "lang": "es",
      "value": "El ejemplo example_xcom que se incluy\u00f3 en la documentaci\u00f3n de Airflow implement\u00f3 un patr\u00f3n inseguro de lectura de valores de xcom de una manera que podr\u00eda ser explotada para permitir que un usuario de la interfaz de usuario (UI) que tuviera acceso para modificar XComs realizara la ejecuci\u00f3n arbitraria de c\u00f3digo en el worker. Dado que los usuarios de la interfaz de usuario (UI) ya son de alta confianza, esta es una vulnerabilidad de baja severidad.\n\nNo afecta a la versi\u00f3n de Airflow; los example_dags no deben habilitarse en un entorno de producci\u00f3n; sin embargo, los usuarios que siguieron el ejemplo podr\u00edan replicar el patr\u00f3n incorrecto. La documentaci\u00f3n de Airflow 3.2.0 contiene una versi\u00f3n del ejemplo con resiliencia mejorada para ese caso.\n\nSe aconseja a los usuarios que siguieron ese patr\u00f3n que ajusten sus implementaciones en consecuencia."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2025-54550",
  "lastModified": "2026-11-03T07:17:20.607",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
          "baseScore": 8.1,
          "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
          "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
          "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
          "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 2.8,
        "impactScore": 5.2,
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ],
    "ssvcV203": [
      {
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "ssvcData": {
          "id": "CVE-2025-54550",
          "options": [
            {
              "exploitation": "none"
            },
            {
              "automatable": "no"
            },
            {
              "technicalImpact": "total"
            }
          ],
          "role": "CISA Coordinator",
          "timestamp": "2026-04-16T11:56:37.252031Z",
          "version": "2.0.3"
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2026-04-15T04:17:32.670",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "security@apache.org",
      "tags": [
        "Issue Tracking"
      ],
      "url": "https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/63200"
    },
    {
      "source": "security@apache.org",
      "tags": [
        "Mailing List",
        "Vendor Advisory"
      ],
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/3mf4cfx070ofsnf9qy0s2v5gqb5sc2g1"
    },
    {
      "source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
      "tags": [
        "Mailing List",
        "Third Party Advisory"
      ],
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/04/15/1"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "security@apache.org",
  "vulnStatus": "Analyzed",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-94"
        }
      ],
      "source": "security@apache.org",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




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.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

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

JSON
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…




    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.