🚨 CVE-2026-48828
The Bulk Variables API in Apache Airflow called the redactor without passing the variable's key, so the key-based `should_hide_value_for_key` check (which triggers on secret-suffixed key names like `*_password` / `*_token` / `*_secret`) could not fire for JSON-decodable variable values. An authenticated UI/API user with bulk Variable read permission could retrieve plaintext values from JSON variables whose key would otherwise trigger redaction. Affects deployments that store sensitive values in JSON-typed Airflow Variables under secret-suffixed key names. Users are advised to upgrade to `apache-airflow` 3.3.0 or later (the fix landed on `main` after 3.2.2; no 3.2.x backport).
🎖@cveNotify
The Bulk Variables API in Apache Airflow called the redactor without passing the variable's key, so the key-based `should_hide_value_for_key` check (which triggers on secret-suffixed key names like `*_password` / `*_token` / `*_secret`) could not fire for JSON-decodable variable values. An authenticated UI/API user with bulk Variable read permission could retrieve plaintext values from JSON variables whose key would otherwise trigger redaction. Affects deployments that store sensitive values in JSON-typed Airflow Variables under secret-suffixed key names. Users are advised to upgrade to `apache-airflow` 3.3.0 or later (the fix landed on `main` after 3.2.2; no 3.2.x backport).
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Fix the miss redact in variable Json value by shubhamraj-git · Pull Request #67495 · apache/airflow
When a Variable's key matches the sensitive-key heuristic (e.g. db_password), its value is correctly masked when stored as a plain string but if the value is valid JSON, the redact() call i...
🔥1
🚨 CVE-2026-48891
A bug in Apache Airflow's `/ui/dependencies` scheduling graph endpoint applied the caller's readable-Dag filter to the top-level serialized Dag key but still emitted referenced Dag IDs through the `dep.source` and `dep.target` fields of trigger / sensor dependency entries. An authenticated UI user with read permission on some Dags could enumerate the identifiers of other Dags they were not authorized to read by inspecting the dependency graph for trigger / sensor references. Affects deployments that rely on per-Dag read scoping to keep Dag identifiers private across teams. This is a residual gap in the fix for CVE-2026-28563, which filtered the top-level Dag key but did not propagate the filter into the trigger / sensor dep-source / dep-target fields. Users who already upgraded for CVE-2026-28563 should additionally upgrade to `apache-airflow` 3.3.0 or later to cover the residual trigger / sensor dependency leak.
🎖@cveNotify
A bug in Apache Airflow's `/ui/dependencies` scheduling graph endpoint applied the caller's readable-Dag filter to the top-level serialized Dag key but still emitted referenced Dag IDs through the `dep.source` and `dep.target` fields of trigger / sensor dependency entries. An authenticated UI user with read permission on some Dags could enumerate the identifiers of other Dags they were not authorized to read by inspecting the dependency graph for trigger / sensor references. Affects deployments that rely on per-Dag read scoping to keep Dag identifiers private across teams. This is a residual gap in the fix for CVE-2026-28563, which filtered the top-level Dag key but did not propagate the filter into the trigger / sensor dep-source / dep-target fields. Users who already upgraded for CVE-2026-28563 should additionally upgrade to `apache-airflow` 3.3.0 or later to cover the residual trigger / sensor dependency leak.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Filter scheduling-dependencies graph edges by readable-DAG access by potiuk · Pull Request #67627 · apache/airflow
The UI scheduling-dependencies graph route (GET /ui/dependencies?dependency_type=scheduling) was filtering only the top-level DAG keys in get_scheduling_dependencies() by the caller's reada...
🚨 CVE-2026-48892
The Config API in Apache Airflow surfaced per-key secrets-backend overrides (environment variables like `AIRFLOW__SECRETS__BACKEND_KWARG__SECRET_ID` and `AIRFLOW__WORKERS__SECRETS_BACKEND_KWARG__SECRET_ID`) as synthetic config options whose option names were not in `sensitive_config_values`, so the masker did not redact them. An authenticated UI/API user with Config read permission could retrieve plaintext secrets-backend credentials (Vault `role_id` / `secret_id`, etc.) from the Config API output. Affects deployments that configure secrets backends via per-key environment overrides. Users are advised to upgrade to `apache-airflow` 3.3.0 or later.
🎖@cveNotify
The Config API in Apache Airflow surfaced per-key secrets-backend overrides (environment variables like `AIRFLOW__SECRETS__BACKEND_KWARG__SECRET_ID` and `AIRFLOW__WORKERS__SECRETS_BACKEND_KWARG__SECRET_ID`) as synthetic config options whose option names were not in `sensitive_config_values`, so the masker did not redact them. An authenticated UI/API user with Config read permission could retrieve plaintext secrets-backend credentials (Vault `role_id` / `secret_id`, etc.) from the Config API output. Affects deployments that configure secrets backends via per-key environment overrides. Users are advised to upgrade to `apache-airflow` 3.3.0 or later.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Mask per-key secrets-backend-kwarg overrides on the Config API by potiuk · Pull Request #67622 · apache/airflow
Per-key environment-variable overrides like AIRFLOW__SECRETS__BACKEND_KWARG__SECRET_ID and AIRFLOW__WORKERS__SECRETS_BACKEND_KWARG__SECRET_ID are materialised by conf.as_dict as synthetic options u...
🚨 CVE-2026-49296
Before apache-airflow 3.3.0, a user authorized to read one Dag could disclose the source of other Dags co-located in the same source file. `GET /api/v2/dagSources/{dag_id}` — and the equivalent Dag-source view in the UI — returned the entire source file without redacting Dags the caller was not authorized to read, bypassing per-DAG read authorization. Deployments that co-locate multiple Dags in a single file and rely on per-DAG access control to limit source visibility are affected; single-Dag-per-file deployments are not. Upgrade to apache-airflow 3.3.0 or later.
🎖@cveNotify
Before apache-airflow 3.3.0, a user authorized to read one Dag could disclose the source of other Dags co-located in the same source file. `GET /api/v2/dagSources/{dag_id}` — and the equivalent Dag-source view in the UI — returned the entire source file without redacting Dags the caller was not authorized to read, bypassing per-DAG read authorization. Deployments that co-locate multiple Dags in a single file and rely on per-DAG access control to limit source visibility are affected; single-Dag-per-file deployments are not. Upgrade to apache-airflow 3.3.0 or later.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Apply per-file authorization to dag-source endpoint by potiuk · Pull Request #67662 · apache/airflow
This PR applies per-file authorization to the /api/v2/dagSources/{dag_id} endpoint, matching the pattern already in place for the import-errors endpoint in #65329.
The dag-source endpoint currently...
The dag-source endpoint currently...
🚨 CVE-2026-49487
In Apache Airflow before 3.3.0, the REST API task-instance detail and list
endpoints returned a deferred task's trigger kwargs without masking. When a
deferred operator passed a secret (for example a provider API key) into its
trigger, any authenticated user with DAG-scoped task-instance read access for
that DAG could read that secret in clear text while the task was deferred.
Users should upgrade to apache-airflow 3.3.0 or later, which masks sensitive
values in trigger kwargs returned by the API.
🎖@cveNotify
In Apache Airflow before 3.3.0, the REST API task-instance detail and list
endpoints returned a deferred task's trigger kwargs without masking. When a
deferred operator passed a secret (for example a provider API key) into its
trigger, any authenticated user with DAG-scoped task-instance read access for
that DAG could read that secret in clear text while the task was deferred.
Users should upgrade to apache-airflow 3.3.0 or later, which masks sensitive
values in trigger kwargs returned by the API.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Remove trigger kwargs from the REST API response by potiuk · Pull Request #67868 · apache/airflow
Why
TriggerResponse.kwargs returned the decrypted trigger keyword arguments verbatim — and only as a stringified Python dict, not a usable JSON value. Those kwargs can carry credentials a deferred ...
TriggerResponse.kwargs returned the decrypted trigger keyword arguments verbatim — and only as a stringified Python dict, not a usable JSON value. Those kwargs can carry credentials a deferred ...
🔥1
🚨 CVE-2026-11348
Improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in HAVELSAN Inc. Liman MYS allows Fake the Source of Data.
This issue affects Liman MYS: before release.Master.1107.
🎖@cveNotify
Improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in HAVELSAN Inc. Liman MYS allows Fake the Source of Data.
This issue affects Liman MYS: before release.Master.1107.
🎖@cveNotify
siberguvenlik.gov.tr
T.C. Siber Güvenlik Başkanlığı
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Siber Güvenlik Başkanlığı resmi web sitesi.
🚨 CVE-2026-13696
Improper neutralization of special elements used in an LDAP query ('LDAP injection') vulnerability in HAVELSAN Inc. Liman MYS allows LDAP Injection.
This issue affects Liman MYS: before release.Master.1107.
🎖@cveNotify
Improper neutralization of special elements used in an LDAP query ('LDAP injection') vulnerability in HAVELSAN Inc. Liman MYS allows LDAP Injection.
This issue affects Liman MYS: before release.Master.1107.
🎖@cveNotify
siberguvenlik.gov.tr
T.C. Siber Güvenlik Başkanlığı
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Siber Güvenlik Başkanlığı resmi web sitesi.
🚨 CVE-2026-10659
The Dhara flash translation layer disk driver (drivers/disk/ftl_dhara.c) implemented the dhara_nand_ callbacks so that, on a flash error, the error code was written unconditionally through the caller-supplied dhara_error_t err pointer (e.g. *err = DHARA_E_ECC in dhara_nand_read, and similar in dhara_nand_erase/prog/copy). The upstream Dhara library calls these callbacks with err == NULL along its journal-resume binary search: find_last_checkblock() invokes find_checkblock(j, mid, &found, NULL), which forwards the NULL pointer into dhara_nand_read(). This path runs during disk_ftl_access_init() -> dhara_map_resume() whenever the FTL disk is mounted/initialised. If a flash read error (uncorrectable ECC, bad block, controller error) occurs on one of the probed checkpoint pages, the driver dereferences and writes to NULL, faulting the kernel (denial of service). The trigger is conditioned on the NAND medium content/health, which can be influenced by media wear, induced faults, or a corrupted/crafted on-flash image. The fix routes all error assignments through the library's NULL-safe dhara_set_error() helper. Affects Zephyr v4.4.0, where the driver was introduced.
🎖@cveNotify
The Dhara flash translation layer disk driver (drivers/disk/ftl_dhara.c) implemented the dhara_nand_ callbacks so that, on a flash error, the error code was written unconditionally through the caller-supplied dhara_error_t err pointer (e.g. *err = DHARA_E_ECC in dhara_nand_read, and similar in dhara_nand_erase/prog/copy). The upstream Dhara library calls these callbacks with err == NULL along its journal-resume binary search: find_last_checkblock() invokes find_checkblock(j, mid, &found, NULL), which forwards the NULL pointer into dhara_nand_read(). This path runs during disk_ftl_access_init() -> dhara_map_resume() whenever the FTL disk is mounted/initialised. If a flash read error (uncorrectable ECC, bad block, controller error) occurs on one of the probed checkpoint pages, the driver dereferences and writes to NULL, faulting the kernel (denial of service). The trigger is conditioned on the NAND medium content/health, which can be influenced by media wear, induced faults, or a corrupted/crafted on-flash image. The fix routes all error assignments through the library's NULL-safe dhara_set_error() helper. Affects Zephyr v4.4.0, where the driver was introduced.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
drivers: disk: ftl: fix null pointer dereference · zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr@a8371b0
find_last_checkblock() passes a NULL error pointer to
find_checkblock(), which is forwarded to dhara_nand_read().
If a read error occurs, dhara_nand_read() attempts to write
to the NULL pointer, ca...
find_checkblock(), which is forwarded to dhara_nand_read().
If a read error occurs, dhara_nand_read() attempts to write
to the NULL pointer, ca...
🚨 CVE-2026-53481
Dell PowerProtect Data Domain, versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.7, LTS2026 release version 8.6.1.0 through 8.6.1.10, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.30, LTS2024 release versions 7.13.1.0 through 7.13.1.70 contain an improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to unauthorized access to the system. This is a critical severity vulnerability as it allows an attacker to take complete control of system; so Dell recommends customers to upgrade at the earliest opportunity.
🎖@cveNotify
Dell PowerProtect Data Domain, versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.7, LTS2026 release version 8.6.1.0 through 8.6.1.10, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.30, LTS2024 release versions 7.13.1.0 through 7.13.1.70 contain an improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to unauthorized access to the system. This is a critical severity vulnerability as it allows an attacker to take complete control of system; so Dell recommends customers to upgrade at the earliest opportunity.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-53483
Dell PowerProtect Data Domain, versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.7, LTS2026 release version 8.6.1.0 through 8.6.1.10, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.30, LTS2024 release versions 7.13.1.0 through 7.13.1.70 an improper authentication vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to unauthorized access. This is a critical severity vulnerability as it allows an attacker to take complete control of system; so Dell recommends customers to upgrade at the earliest opportunity.
🎖@cveNotify
Dell PowerProtect Data Domain, versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.7, LTS2026 release version 8.6.1.0 through 8.6.1.10, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.30, LTS2024 release versions 7.13.1.0 through 7.13.1.70 an improper authentication vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to unauthorized access. This is a critical severity vulnerability as it allows an attacker to take complete control of system; so Dell recommends customers to upgrade at the earliest opportunity.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-45488
User interface (ui) misrepresentation of critical information in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
User interface (ui) misrepresentation of critical information in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-55945
Concurrent execution using shared resource with improper synchronization ('race condition') in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an authorized attacker to disclose information locally.
🎖@cveNotify
Concurrent execution using shared resource with improper synchronization ('race condition') in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an authorized attacker to disclose information locally.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-56645
Heap-based buffer overflow in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Heap-based buffer overflow in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-56646
Exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-57974
Integer overflow or wraparound in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Integer overflow or wraparound in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-57975
Access of resource using incompatible type ('type confusion') in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Access of resource using incompatible type ('type confusion') in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-41899
Coolify is an open-source and self-hostable tool for managing servers, applications, and databases. Prior to 4.0.0-beta.474, POST /api/feedback has no authentication, no rate limiting, and no input validation, allowing arbitrary content to be forwarded directly to a Discord webhook and enabling spam, content injection, and webhook abuse. This issue is fixed in version 4.0.0-beta.474.
🎖@cveNotify
Coolify is an open-source and self-hostable tool for managing servers, applications, and databases. Prior to 4.0.0-beta.474, POST /api/feedback has no authentication, no rate limiting, and no input validation, allowing arbitrary content to be forwarded directly to a Discord webhook and enabling spam, content injection, and webhook abuse. This issue is fixed in version 4.0.0-beta.474.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
refactor(api): validate and throttle feedback endpoint (#9653) · coollabsio/coolify@371e883
An open-source, self-hostable PaaS alternative to Vercel, Heroku & Netlify that lets you easily deploy static sites, databases, full-stack applications and 280+ one-click services on your own servers. - refactor(api): validate and throttle feedback endpoint…
🚨 CVE-2026-42153
Coolify is an open-source and self-hostable tool for managing servers, applications, and databases. Prior to 4.0.0-beta.474, PostgreSQL healthcheck command generation used attacker-controlled database settings (postgres_user and postgres_db) in shell-form commands, allowing an authenticated user to inject commands executed in the database container. This issue is fixed in version 4.0.0-beta.474.
🎖@cveNotify
Coolify is an open-source and self-hostable tool for managing servers, applications, and databases. Prior to 4.0.0-beta.474, PostgreSQL healthcheck command generation used attacker-controlled database settings (postgres_user and postgres_db) in shell-form commands, allowing an authenticated user to inject commands executed in the database container. This issue is fixed in version 4.0.0-beta.474.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
fix(database): mount guard, healthcheck CMD exec-form, port input lay… · coollabsio/coolify@b74f543
…out (#9674)
🚨 CVE-2026-42204
Coolify is an open-source and self-hostable tool for managing servers, applications, and databases. From 4.0.0-beta.471 through 4.0.0-beta.473, a regression in SHELL_SAFE_COMMAND_PATTERN allowed ampersands in custom Docker Compose build, start, and pre/post-deployment command fields, allowing an authenticated team member to inject shell commands that execute on the host. This issue is fixed in version 4.0.0-beta.474.
🎖@cveNotify
Coolify is an open-source and self-hostable tool for managing servers, applications, and databases. From 4.0.0-beta.471 through 4.0.0-beta.473, a regression in SHELL_SAFE_COMMAND_PATTERN allowed ampersands in custom Docker Compose build, start, and pre/post-deployment command fields, allowing an authenticated team member to inject shell commands that execute on the host. This issue is fixed in version 4.0.0-beta.474.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
refactor(validation): tokenize shell-safe command pattern (#9684) · coollabsio/coolify@e1aac50
An open-source, self-hostable PaaS alternative to Vercel, Heroku & Netlify that lets you easily deploy static sites, databases, full-stack applications and 280+ one-click services on your own servers. - refactor(validation): tokenize shell-safe command pattern…
🚨 CVE-2023-45815
ArchiveBox is an open source self-hosted web archiving system. Any users who are using the `wget` extractor and view the content it outputs. The impact is potentially severe if you are logged in to the ArchiveBox admin site in the same browser session and view an archived malicious page designed to target your ArchiveBox instance. Malicious Javascript could potentially act using your logged-in admin credentials and add/remove/modify snapshots, add/remove/modify ArchiveBox users, and generally do anything an admin user could do. The impact is less severe for non-logged-in users, as malicious Javascript cannot *modify* any archives, but it can still *read* all the other archived content by fetching the snapshot index and iterating through it. Because all of ArchiveBox's archived content is served from the same host and port as the admin panel, when archived pages are viewed the JS executes in the same context as all the other archived pages (and the admin panel), defeating most of the browser's usual CORS/CSRF security protections and leading to this issue. Version 0.9.0 contains a patch. As a mitigation for this issue would be to disable the wget extractor by setting `archivebox config --set SAVE_WGET=False`, ensure you are always logged out, or serve only a [static HTML version](https://github.com/ArchiveBox/ArchiveBox/wiki/Publishing-Your-Archive#2-export-and-host-it-as-static-html) of your archive.
🎖@cveNotify
ArchiveBox is an open source self-hosted web archiving system. Any users who are using the `wget` extractor and view the content it outputs. The impact is potentially severe if you are logged in to the ArchiveBox admin site in the same browser session and view an archived malicious page designed to target your ArchiveBox instance. Malicious Javascript could potentially act using your logged-in admin credentials and add/remove/modify snapshots, add/remove/modify ArchiveBox users, and generally do anything an admin user could do. The impact is less severe for non-logged-in users, as malicious Javascript cannot *modify* any archives, but it can still *read* all the other archived content by fetching the snapshot index and iterating through it. Because all of ArchiveBox's archived content is served from the same host and port as the admin panel, when archived pages are viewed the JS executes in the same context as all the other archived pages (and the admin panel), defeating most of the browser's usual CORS/CSRF security protections and leading to this issue. Version 0.9.0 contains a patch. As a mitigation for this issue would be to disable the wget extractor by setting `archivebox config --set SAVE_WGET=False`, ensure you are always logged out, or serve only a [static HTML version](https://github.com/ArchiveBox/ArchiveBox/wiki/Publishing-Your-Archive#2-export-and-host-it-as-static-html) of your archive.
🎖@cveNotify
Wikipedia
Cross-site request forgery
type of malicious exploit of a website where unauthorized commands are transmitted from a user trusted by the web app, using image tags, hidden forms, XMLHttpRequest etc.