Vulnerability from bitnami_vulndb
Published
2026-04-18 08:37
Modified
2026-04-18 09:10
Summary
Apache Airflow: RCE by race condition in example_xcom dag
Details

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.


{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Bitnami",
        "name": "airflow",
        "purl": "pkg:bitnami/airflow"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3.2.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "SEMVER"
        }
      ],
      "severity": [
        {
          "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
          "type": "CVSS_V3"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-54550"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cpes": [
      "cpe:2.3:a:apache:airflow:*:*:*:*:*:python:*:*"
    ],
    "severity": "High"
  },
  "details": "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.",
  "id": "BIT-airflow-2025-54550",
  "modified": "2026-04-18T09:10:03.541Z",
  "published": "2026-04-18T08:37:17.629Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/04/15/1"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/63200"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/3mf4cfx070ofsnf9qy0s2v5gqb5sc2g1"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-54550"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.6.2",
  "summary": "Apache Airflow: RCE by race condition in example_xcom dag"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

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.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…