Deskripsi CVE

MLflow: Unauthenticated full-read SSRF in webhook delivery: _validate_webhook_url bypassed via unvalidated HTTP redirects (and DNS rebinding)

MLflow is an open source AI engineering platform for agents, large language models, and machine learning models. Starting in 3.3.0 and prior to 3.15.0, the unauthenticated POST /api/2.0/mlflow/webhooks/{id}/test endpoint calls _validate_webhook_url() in mlflow/utils/validation.py only for the original URL while mlflow/webhooks/delivery.py follows redirects and re-resolves the hostname without pinning the validated address, allowing attackers to reach internal or cloud metadata services and receive response_status and response_body. This issue is fixed in version 3.15.0.

Informasi CVE

Kelemahan Terkait

CWE-ID	Nama Kelemahan	Sumber
CWE-918	Server-Side Request Forgery The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.

Metrik

Metrik	Skor	Tingkat keparahan	CVSS Vektor	Sumber
V3.1	9.3	CRITICAL	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N Informasi lebih lanjut Base: Exploitabilty Metrics The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Network The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. None The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope Metrics The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Changed An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities. Base: Impact Metrics The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Low Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no impact to availability within the impacted component. Temporal Metrics The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental Metrics These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

CISA KEV (Kerentanan yang Diketahui Dieksploitasi)

Nama kerentanan : MLflow Server-Side Request Forgery Vulnerability

Tindakan yang diperlukan : Apply mitigations in accordance with vendor instructions, ensuring compliance with CISA’s BOD 26-04 Prioritizing Security Updates Based on Risk (see URL in Notes) guidance and CISA’s “Forensics Triage Requirements” (see URL in Notes). Follow applicable BOD 26-04 guidance for cloud services or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Stakeholders are responsible for evaluating each asset's internet exposure and ensuring adherence to BOD 26-04 patching guidelines.

Diketahui Digunakan dalam Kampanye Ransomware : Unknown

Ditambahkan : 2026-08-19 00h00 +00:00

Tindakan jatuh tempo : 2026-09-02 00h00 +00:00

Informasi penting

CVE ini diidentifikasi sebagai rentan dan menimbulkan ancaman aktif, menurut Katalog Kerentanan yang Diketahui Dieksploitasi (CISA KEV). CISA telah mencantumkan kerentanan ini sebagai yang secara aktif dieksploitasi oleh penjahat siber, menekankan pentingnya mengambil tindakan segera untuk mengatasi kelemahan ini. Sangat penting untuk memprioritaskan pembaruan dan remediasi CVE ini guna melindungi sistem dari potensi serangan siber.