CVE Tools

CVE-2026-64849

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

Exploited in the wild. In CISA KEV since 2026‑08‑19. A vendor fix is available.

Published Updated Sources: CVE.org, NVD

What to do

The vendor has published a fix. Version details are below where the sources state them.

Steps

Written by AI from the record
  1. Check your MLflow server version and whether the webhook test endpoint is reachable from untrusted networks.
  2. Upgrade MLflow to version 3.15.0 or later (preferably the latest patch release in your deployment line).
  3. If you cannot upgrade immediately, restrict network access so the MLflow web server (including the webhook test path) is not reachable from the internet.
  4. After upgrading, review webhook test/audit logs for requests that involved unusual redirect behavior or internal IP/domain targets.
pip install -U mlflow==3.15.0

What it is

From the CVE record

MLflow is an open source AI engineering platform for agents, large language models, and machine learning models. 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.

In plain language

Written by AI from the record

MLflow lets anyone test a webhook by giving a URL, but an attacker can trick it into following redirects to internal/cloud services and pulling back sensitive data—so typical small businesses should treat this as urgent and upgrade to MLflow 3.15.0 or later.

In MLflow, the unauthenticated webhook delivery “test” feature bypasses webhook URL validation when the server follows HTTP redirects (and can also be affected by DNS rebinding), enabling SSRF to internal network resources and cloud metadata endpoints to read response contents.

If you're affected

  • Steal cloud credentials
  • Exposure of internal secrets
  • Unauthorized access to internal systems
  • Data exfiltration risk

Exploitation

Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.

EPSS95th
CISA KEV
CISA KEV

Listed as exploited in the wild since 2026-08-19.

US federal agencies must remediate by 2026-09-02.

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.
Public exploits

No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.

EPSS

9.8% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 95th percentile of scored CVEs.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.

Attention now

Rising.

Lifecycle

24 events over 40 days, from the signal feeds we watch.

  1. EPSS band changemoderate → lowepss band change
  2. Analysis publishedEvery AI Product on CISA's KEV List: All Fourteen of Them
  3. Analysis publishedMLflow's SSRF Bypass Was Being Scanned Within Hours — And CISA Added It to KEV Two Days Later
  4. EPSS band change0 → moderateepss band change
  5. Patch availablepatch available, workaround available, workaround available, record updated, record updated
  6. Added to CISA KEVpatch available, workaround available, record updated, record updated

Affected products

Technical detail

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N

Scored 9.3 by NVD.

How it is reached

  • Attack Vector NetworkExploitable remotely over the network without any special conditions
  • Attack Complexity LowNo special conditions — the attack can be reliably reproduced
  • Privileges Required NoneNo authentication required — anyone can exploit this
  • User Interaction NoneNo user interaction needed — fully automated exploitation

Scope

  • Scope ChangedThe exploit can affect other components (e.g. sandbox escape, host compromise from VM)

Impact if exploited

  • Confidentiality HighTotal information disclosure — all data in the component is compromised
  • Integrity LowData modification is possible but limited in scope or consequence
  • Availability NoneNo availability impact

Weaknesses

ATT&CK techniques

Mapped from the weaknesses above (CWE to ATT&CK), not observed in attacks.

Sources

Watch the software you run.

My Stack ranks new CVEs for your products by real-world exploitation, so the next exploited one reaches you without reading every advisory.

We'll flag the next CVE, public exploit or patch for Mlflow, not every advisory. This one: actively exploited.

We use analytics cookies to see which pages and articles actually help people. Decline and none of them run — the site works the same. What we store