CVE-2026-49297
ADVISORY - pypaSummary
Apache Airflow's Google provider operators GCSToSFTPOperator and GCSTimeSpanFileTransformOperator joined GCS object names returned by the bucket listing API directly to a destination filesystem path without normalisation or containment check. A user with write access to the source GCS bucket (typically a different trust principal than the DAG author — partner uploads, ingest-only service accounts, public-data buckets) could create an object whose name contains .. segments and cause the DAG run to write the downloaded blob outside the configured destination (the SFTP destination_path for GCSToSFTPOperator; the worker-local temp directory for GCSTimeSpanFileTransformOperator), enabling overwrite of arbitrary files on the SFTP server or the worker host. Affects deployments that ingest from buckets writable by less-trusted principals. Users are advised to upgrade to apache-airflow-providers-google 22.2.1 or later.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
PypA
PYSEC-2026-2084
2.8
CVSS SCORE
8.1high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| apache-airflow-providers-google | pypi | - | - | <22.2.1 | 22.2.1 |
CVSS:3 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
There is no loss of confidentiality.
There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any or all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.