Vulnerability from bitnami_vulndb
Before Airflow 3.2.0, it was unclear that secure Airflow deployments require the Deployment Manager to take appropriate actions and pay attention to security details and security model of Airflow. Some assumptions the Deployment Manager could make were not clear or explicit enough, even though Airflow's intentions and security model of Airflow did not suggest different assumptions. The overall security model [1], workload isolation [2], and JWT authentication details [3] are now described in more detail. Users concerned with role isolation and following the Airflow security model of Airflow are advised to upgrade to Airflow 3.2, where several security improvements have been implemented. They should also read and follow the relevant documents to make sure that their deployment is secure enough. It also clarifies that the Deployment Manager is ultimately responsible for securing your Airflow deployment. This had also been communicated via Airflow 3.2.0 Blog announcement [4].
[1] Security Model: https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/security/jwt_token_authentication.html [2] Workload isolation: https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/security/workload.html [3] JWT Token authentication: https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/security/jwt_token_authentication.html [4] Airflow 3.2.0 Blog announcement: https://airflow.apache.org/blog/airflow-3.2.0/
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 3.2.0, which fixes this issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Bitnami",
"name": "airflow",
"purl": "pkg:bitnami/airflow"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.2.0"
}
],
"type": "SEMVER"
}
],
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-66236"
],
"database_specific": {
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:apache:airflow:*:*:*:*:*:python:*:*"
],
"severity": "High"
},
"details": "Before Airflow 3.2.0, it was unclear that secure Airflow deployments require the Deployment Manager to take appropriate actions and pay attention to security details and security model of Airflow. Some assumptions the Deployment Manager could make were not clear or explicit enough, even though Airflow\u0027s intentions and security model of Airflow did not suggest different assumptions. The overall security model [1], workload isolation [2], and JWT authentication details [3] are now described in more detail. Users concerned with role isolation and following the Airflow security model of Airflow are advised to upgrade to Airflow 3.2, where several security improvements have been implemented. They should also read and follow the relevant documents to make sure that their deployment is secure enough. It also clarifies that the Deployment Manager is ultimately responsible for securing your Airflow deployment. This had also been communicated via Airflow 3.2.0 Blog announcement [4].\n\n[1] Security Model: https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/security/jwt_token_authentication.html \n[2] Workload isolation: https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/security/workload.html \n[3] JWT Token authentication: https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/security/jwt_token_authentication.html \n[4] Airflow 3.2.0 Blog announcement: https://airflow.apache.org/blog/airflow-3.2.0/ \n\n\n\nUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 3.2.0, which fixes this issue.",
"id": "BIT-airflow-2025-66236",
"modified": "2026-04-17T00:10:47.507Z",
"published": "2026-04-16T23:37:55.116Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/04/13/6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/58662"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/g8fyy1tkmxkkfk7tx2v6h8mvwzpyykbo"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-66236"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.6.2",
"summary": "Apache Airflow: Secrets from Airflow config file logged in plain text in DAG run logs UI"
}
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.