Apache Airflow: Interpretation Conflict
CVE-2026-68968 is a high-severity interpretation conflict vulnerability in Apache Airflow from Apache, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.5 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. The record lists versions 3.0.0, 3.3.1 as the first without the flaw, so updating Apache Airflow to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.42% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update Apache Airflow to 3.0.0 or 3.3.1, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
- Update Airflow to 3.3.1 or a later version.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apache | Apache Airflow | before 3.0.0; 3.0.0 up to, but not including, 3.3.1 | 3.0.0, 3.3.1 |
| Apache | Airflow | before 3.3.1 | 3.3.1 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- NoneNothing can be modified.
- Availability
- NoneAvailability is not affected.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N. Scored by CISA (ADP).
Official description
Apache Airflow's Backfill API authorized a request against a Dag id supplied by the caller whenever the `backfill_id` path segment failed to parse. The authorization dependency parsed it with `int()` while the route handler parsed it as pydantic's `NonNegativeInt`, which accepts values `int()` rejects (`1.0` coerces to `1`); FastAPI resolves dependencies before endpoint validation, so the two acted on different Dags. An authenticated user holding edit permission on any single Dag could therefore read, pause and cancel backfills belonging to any other Dag, including moving another Dag's queued runs to `failed`. No non-default configuration is required and backfill ids are sequential, so finding a target is trivial. Users are advised to upgrade to apache-airflow 3.3.1 or later, which parses the backfill id with the same type the routes declare.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Interpretation Conflict
Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
- github.com/apache/airflow/pull/70889Issue Tracking
Other references
Other vulnerabilities in Apache Airflow
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 8.2 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
Recent Interpretation Conflict vulnerabilities
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.6 High severity
- 8.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
WordPress Core Interpretation Conflict Exploited
Spotted an error? Tell us.