Skip to content
Noroxi
NVD / CVE Program· CNA @huntr_ai

CVE-2026-2393: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in mlflow/mlflow

Noroxi assessment

Priority: Monitor (action score 28/100)

  • The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
  • Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.28% (FIRST EPSS).
  • Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
  • Fixed version: mlflow (PyPI) 3.9.0.

Low priority for now. Upgrade to mlflow (PyPI) 3.9.0 or later.

Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it

Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in MLflow versions prior to 3.9.0. The `_create_webhook()` function in `mlflow/server/handlers.py` accepts a user-controlled `url` parameter without validation, and the `_send_webhook_request()` function in `mlflow/webhooks/delivery.py` sends HTTP POST requests to this attacker-controlled URL. This allows an authenticated attacker to force the MLflow backend to send HTTP requests to internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, or arbitrary external servers. The lack of input sanitization, URL scheme filtering, or allowlist validation on the webhook URL enables exploitation, potentially leading to cloud credential theft, internal network access, and data exfiltration.

HighCVSS 7.1 · v3.0—No exploit Fix available
Published
May 11, 2026
Updated
Jun 17, 2026
EPSS
0.2% · 21th percentile

Report tools

JSON

Action score

28

Monitor

Low priority for now.

CVSS
28 / 40 · 7.1 / 10
CISA KEV
0 / 30 · Not listed
EPSS
0 / 30 · 0.2%

CISA SSVC decision

Exploitation
proof of concept
Automatable
no
Technical impact
partial

Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.

CNA vs NVD score

NVD
—
CNA · @huntr_ai
7.1
NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.

The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.

Get told when this record changes

  • Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
  • No public exploit code on record
  • A fix has been released

If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.

Follow CVE-2026-2393

When you'll hear from us

  • when it enters CISA KEV
  • when exploit code appears or is weaponized
  • when the record is updated (including a fixed version)
  • when EPSS rises 20 points in a week

One daily email digest (06:00 UTC); connect a webhook for KEV listings and weaponized exploits instantly.

Your free account also gets you

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

  • Stack alerts: add the products and versions you run, get the new CVEs that affect them
  • Uptime monitoring: 1 site, instant email when it goes down
  • Add your domain: subdomains and takeover risk scanned every week (1 domain)
  • 10 scans an hour on the security tools (3 a day without an account), an API key and MCP
  • All your scans in one panel: findings, what changed in the last scan, a report per domain or per client (PDF, share link)
All free tools

Sign up with email · Have an account? Sign in

Free account, no card. Unfollow any time.

Don't want an account? Get "Exploited this week" by email every MondayDon't want an account? RSS feed for lfprojects records

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

Is your version affected? Check it

Noroxi analysis

What does it mean in your environment?

The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.

We use this product, ask for help

Affected systems

Is your version affected?

Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.

VendorProduct
lfprojectsmlflow

Affected versions

NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.

  • lfprojects mlflowbefore 3.9.0

Versions reported by the vendor

Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (@huntr_ai). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.

  • mlflow mlflow/mlflow

    • unspecified and later · before 3.10.0affected

Package-level exposure

OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.

EcosystemPackageAffected rangeFix
PyPImlflowbefore 3.9.03.9.0

Same product

lfprojects: all records

Other highest-scoring records for the same primary product.

  • CVE-2026-64849MLflow: Unauthenticated full-read SSRF in webhook delivery: _validate_webhook_url bypassed via unvalidated HTTP redirects (and DNS rebinding)KEV
    70This week
  • CVE-2023-3765Absolute Path Traversal in mlflow/mlflow
    60This week
  • CVE-2023-1177Path Traversal: '\..\filename' in mlflow/mlflow
    60This week

Published before and after this one in the same product

  • ← EarlierCVE-2026-33865Apr 7, 2026 · Stored XSS via unsafe YAML parsing in MLflow
    20Monitor
  • ← EarlierCVE-2026-33866Apr 7, 2026 · Authorization Bypass in MLflow AJAX Endpoint
    21Monitor
  • Later →CVE-2026-2614May 11, 2026 · Arbitrary File Read via Prompt Tag Source Validation Bypass in mlflow/mlflow
    31Monitor

Remediation

Which version to upgrade to

Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.

Product / packageFixed versionSource
PyPI:mlflow3.9.0Package registry (OSV)

Exploit status

No known public exploit

No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.

Research context

For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.

Timeline

From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.

No dated events beyond publication.

No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).

Patch and commit links

Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.

Credits

All researchers

Finders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.

No credits in the CNA record.

Variant candidates

Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.

  • CVE-2026-6484998 days apartMLflow: Unauthenticated full-read SSRF in webhook delivery: _validate_webhook_url bypassed via unvalidated HTTP redirects (and DNS rebinding)KEV
    70This week
  • CVE-2025-52967322 days apartgateway_proxy_handler in MLflow before 3.1.0 lacks gateway_path validation.
    23Monitor

Chain candidates

An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.

  • CVE-2026-26523 days apartAuthentication Bypass in mlflow/mlflow
    40Plan
  • CVE-2026-054538 days apartMissing Authentication for Critical Function in mlflow/mlflow
    40Plan

Bug bounty scope

No known public program.

Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).

Technical details

Attack conditions

  • Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
  • A low-privileged account is enough.
  • No user action is required.
  • No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.

If successful

Confidentiality
high · data can be read
Integrity
low · data or configuration can be modified
Availability
none
Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality impact
High
Integrity impact
Low
Availability impact
None

Weakness class (CWE)

CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

CVSS vector

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N

nvd-secondary

Attack context

MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.

ATT&CK techniques

—

Change log

  1. Fix✗ → ✓

For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →

References

Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.

All records