Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 0.44% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2025-66236High confidence
Apache Airflow: Secrets from Airflow config file logged in plain text in DAG run logs UI
Apache Software Foundation · Apache Airflow
7.5HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Patch availableHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Apache Software Foundation Apache Airflow and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Open-source package ranges2 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPIapache-airflow | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 3.0.0; fixed 3.2.0 | 3.2.0 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| pipapache-airflow | >= 3.0.0, < 3.2.0 | 3.2.0 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 5 Jun 2026 |
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
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.
What
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.
Why
The product writes sensitive information to a log file.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
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.
Why
The product writes sensitive information to a log file.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-532 ↗
CWE-532: Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File. The product writes sensitive information to a log file.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Affected
- Apache Airflow: 3.0.0 < 3.2.0
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 13 Apr 2026 · Last source change 16 Sept 2026, 14:57 UTC · CWE-532 · Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCISA ADP
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2025-209413
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- 3.0.0 < 3.2.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- Apache Airflow: 3.0.0 < 3.2.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.