CVE-2025-54550 (GCVE-0-2025-54550)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2026-04-15 00:22
Modified
2026-04-19 23:46
Severity ?
VLAI Severity ?
EPSS score ?
CWE
- CWE-94 - Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
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
| URL | Tags | |
|---|---|---|
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apache Software Foundation | Apache Airflow |
Version: 0 ≤ |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-04-15T03:03:33.178Z",
"orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
"shortName": "CVE"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/04/15/1"
}
],
"title": "CVE Program Container"
},
{
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"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"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-54550",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-04-16T11:56:37.252031Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-04-16T12:05:38.834Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://pypi.python.org",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "apache-airflow",
"product": "Apache Airflow",
"vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "3.2.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Vincent55 Yang"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eThe example \u003ccode\u003eexample_xcom\u003c/code\u003e\u0026nbsp;that was included in airflow documentation implemented unsafe pattern of reading value\u003cbr\u003efrom xcom in the way that could be exploited to allow UI user who had access to modify XComs to perform arbitrary\u003cbr\u003eexecution of code on the worker. Since the UI users are already highly trusted, this is a Low severity vulnerability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt does not affect Airflow release - example_dags are not supposed to be enabled in production environment, however\u003cbr\u003eusers following the example could replicate the bad pattern. Documentation of Airflow 3.2.0 contains version of\u003cbr\u003ethe example with improved resiliance for that case.\u003c/p\u003eUsers who followed that pattern are advised to adjust their implementations accordingly.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e"
}
],
"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."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"text": "Low"
},
"type": "Textual description of severity"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-94",
"description": "CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code (\u0027Code Injection\u0027)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-04-19T23:46:54.404Z",
"orgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"shortName": "apache"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/3mf4cfx070ofsnf9qy0s2v5gqb5sc2g1"
},
{
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/63200"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Apache Airflow: RCE by race condition in example_xcom dag",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"assignerShortName": "apache",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-54550",
"datePublished": "2026-04-15T00:22:03.305Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-07-24T21:10:16.628Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-04-19T23:46:54.404Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"vulnrichment": {
"containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CVE Program Container\", \"references\": [{\"url\": \"http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/04/15/1\"}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108\", \"shortName\": \"CVE\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-04-15T03:03:33.178Z\"}}, {\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"cvssV3_1\": {\"scope\": \"UNCHANGED\", \"version\": \"3.1\", \"baseScore\": 8.1, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"HIGH\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N\", \"integrityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"availabilityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"LOW\", \"confidentialityImpact\": \"HIGH\"}}, {\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2025-54550\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"no\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"total\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2026-04-16T11:56:37.252031Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-04-16T11:57:00.237Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"title\": \"Apache Airflow: RCE by race condition in example_xcom dag\", \"source\": {\"discovery\": \"UNKNOWN\"}, \"credits\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"finder\", \"value\": \"Vincent55 Yang\"}], \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"Textual description of severity\", \"content\": {\"text\": \"Low\"}}}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"Apache Software Foundation\", \"product\": \"Apache Airflow\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.2.0\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}], \"packageName\": \"apache-airflow\", \"collectionURL\": \"https://pypi.python.org\", \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\"}], \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://lists.apache.org/thread/3mf4cfx070ofsnf9qy0s2v5gqb5sc2g1\", \"tags\": [\"vendor-advisory\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/63200\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}], \"x_generator\": {\"engine\": \"Vulnogram 0.2.0\"}, \"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.\", \"supportingMedia\": [{\"type\": \"text/html\", \"value\": \"\u003cp\u003eThe example \u003ccode\u003eexample_xcom\u003c/code\u003e\u0026nbsp;that was included in airflow documentation implemented unsafe pattern of reading value\u003cbr\u003efrom xcom in the way that could be exploited to allow UI user who had access to modify XComs to perform arbitrary\u003cbr\u003eexecution of code on the worker. Since the UI users are already highly trusted, this is a Low severity vulnerability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt does not affect Airflow release - example_dags are not supposed to be enabled in production environment, however\u003cbr\u003eusers following the example could replicate the bad pattern. Documentation of Airflow 3.2.0 contains version of\u003cbr\u003ethe example with improved resiliance for that case.\u003c/p\u003eUsers who followed that pattern are advised to adjust their implementations accordingly.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\", \"base64\": false}]}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-94\", \"description\": \"CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code (\u0027Code Injection\u0027)\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09\", \"shortName\": \"apache\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-04-19T23:46:54.404Z\"}}}",
"cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2025-54550\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-04-19T23:46:54.404Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2025-07-24T21:10:16.628Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09\", \"datePublished\": \"2026-04-15T00:22:03.305Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"apache\"}",
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…