AirflowApplication · Apache
CVE-2026-25219
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe `access_key` and `connection_string` connection properties were not marked as sensitive names in secrets masker. This means that user with read permission could see the values in Connection UI, as well as when Connection was accidentaly logged to logs, those values could be seen in the logs. Azure Service Bus used those properties to store sensitive values. Possibly other providers could be also affected if they used the same fields to store sensitive data. If you used Azure Service Bus connection with those values set or if you have other connections with those values storing sensitve values, you should upgrade Airflow to 3.1.8
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisThe application discloses data — error detail, internal paths, tokens, or other users' records — to someone who shouldn't see it. On its own it can look minor, but it hands attackers the map they need for a larger attack. Remediation is about minimising what's returned and enforcing authorization on every piece of data.
General guidance for the information exposure class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
AirflowApplication
< 3.2.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped3.2.0
3.1.8 (or 3.2.0+)
- 1. Review your Airflow deployment to identify all connections using `access_key` or `connection_string` properties, particularly Azure Service Bus connections.
- 2. Identify the current Airflow version in use (check with `airflow version` or your deployment manifests).
- 3. Plan the upgrade to Airflow 3.1.8 or later (3.2.0+ also contains the fix).
- 4. Before upgrading, back up your Airflow metadata database and configuration files.
- 5. Upgrade Airflow using your deployment method (e.g., pip install apache-airflow==3.1.8, Helm chart upgrade, or Docker image update).
- 6. After upgrade, verify that the secrets masker now redacts `access_key` and `connection_string` by checking Connection UI and log outputs.
- 7. If you have custom providers using these fields for sensitive data, verify they are now properly masked.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-25219 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-25219 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data