Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-30898 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Apache Airflow. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 48% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-30898 is a high-severity vulnerability (CVSS 8.8) stemming from an incorrect example in the Apache Airflow documentation for the BashOperator. The flawed guidance suggested a method of passing dag_run.conf that could result in unsanitized user input being executed, enabling command injection (CWE-77). This affects Apache Airflow deployments where users have adopted the erroneous documentation in their own DAGs, potentially exposing the worker nodes to privilege escalation from UI users.
An authenticated attacker with low privileges (PR:L), such as a standard Airflow UI user, can exploit this over the network (AV:N) with low complexity and no user interaction required. Successful exploitation allows the attacker to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code on the Airflow worker, achieving high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts (C:H/I:H/A:H).
Advisories recommend that Airflow users immediately review and audit their DAGs for any implementation following the vulnerable BashOperator example. The Apache Airflow project addressed the issue via a documentation pull request (https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/64129), with further details in mailing list announcements (https://lists.apache.org/thread/26zmhfj1t95c1hld2r14ho81nzh1bdc8) and OSS-Security (http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/04/17/7), emphasizing proactive DAG validation over a specific patch.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-23660
Vulnerability Data
An example of BashOperator in Airflow documentation suggested a way of passing dag_run.conf in the way that could cause unsanitized user input to be used to escalate privileges of UI user to allow execute code on worker. Users should review…
more
if any of their own DAGs have adopted this incorrect advice.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.