CVE-2026-64849
Description
A flaw was found in MLflow. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability by sending a specially crafted request to the webhook test endpoint. This occurs because the system validates only the initial URL, but then follows unvalidated HTTP redirects, allowing the attacker to bypass security controls. Successful exploitation can lead to information disclosure, enabling access to internal or cloud metadata services and sensitive data.
Statement
This flaw is in MLflow Tracking Server webhook delivery. An attacker who can reach the MLflow API can abuse POST /api/2.0/mlflow/webhooks/{id}/test to trigger SSRF and read upstream response bodies. Upstream rates this against the default unauthenticated mlflow server (PR:N).
For OpenShift AI, the operator-managed odh-mlflow-rhel9 image is the primary exposure; the operator enables kubernetes-auth by default, so unauthenticated abuse applies only where MLflow is deployed without authentication. The other 19 RHOAI images embed the mlflow Python package as a client library and do not execute the vulnerable server webhook path in their default role concluding those 19 RHOAI images as Not Affected.
Impact is set to Important with PR:L reflecting typical authenticated RHOAI deployments.
Mitigation
To reduce the attack surface for this vulnerability, restrict network access to the MLflow server. Implement firewall rules or network access controls to limit connectivity to the MLflow instance from untrusted networks. This operational control helps prevent unauthenticated attackers from reaching the vulnerable webhook test endpoint.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 8.5 | N/A | 9.3 |
| Attack Vector | Network | N/A | Network |
| Attack Complexity | Low | N/A | Low |
| Privileges Required | Low | N/A | None |
| User Interaction | None | N/A | None |
| Scope | Changed | N/A | Changed |
| Confidentiality | High | N/A | High |
| Integrity Impact | Low | N/A | Low |
| Availability Impact | None | N/A | None |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
cve.org: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Confidentiality
Technical Impact: Read Application Data
Integrity
Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Access Control
Technical Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism
By providing URLs to unexpected hosts or ports, attackers can make it appear that the server is sending the request, possibly bypassing access controls such as firewalls that prevent the attackers from accessing the URLs directly. The server can be used as a proxy to conduct port scanning of hosts in internal networks, use other URLs such as that can access documents on the system (using file://), or use other protocols such as gopher:// or tftp://, which may provide greater control over the contents of requests.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
