Unauthenticated full-read SSRF via webhook redirects
Published Aug 17, 2026 · Updated Aug 20, 2026
Server-side request forgery in MLflow before 3.15.0 allows remote attackers to read internal HTTP responses via webhook tests. The POST /api/2.0/mlflow/webhooks/{id}/test path validates only the original webhook URL in _validate_webhook_url(), but mlflow/webhooks/delivery.py follows redirects and re-resolves the hostname without pinning or re-validating the connected peer IP. On default Tracking Server deployments, the endpoint is unauthenticated and reflects response_status and response_body, enabling reads from loopback, private-network, or cloud metadata services.
Summary
What happened
Server-side request forgery in MLflow before 3.15.0 allows remote attackers to read internal HTTP responses via webhook tests. The POST /api/2.0/mlflow/webhooks/{id}/test path validates only the original webhook URL in _validate_webhook_url(), but mlflow/webhooks/delivery.py follows redirects and re-resolves the hostname without pinning or re-validating the connected peer IP. On default Tracking Server deployments, the endpoint is unauthenticated and reflects response_status and response_body, enabling reads from loopback, private-network, or cloud metadata services.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2026-64849
- Published
- Aug 17, 2026
- Updated
- Aug 20, 2026
- Vendor
- MLflow Project
- Product
- MLflow
- Classifications
- CWE-918, T1190
- Attack vector
- network
- Privileges
- unauthenticated
Timeline
How it unfolded
- Aug 17, 2026CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- Aug 19, 2026Exploitation reportedCISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog entry
- Aug 20, 2026Record updatedLatest update available in the CVE record.
Exploitability
Present is not the same as exploitable
Compare your product and version with the public record. A matching version still requires validation against your environment.
Is a vulnerable build present?
Compare these published version ranges with your installed build and any vendor patches.
- Affected versionversion=< 3.15.0
What conditions does exploitation require?
What is affected?
Published CVSS scores
CVSS describes severity. EPSS estimates exploitation probability.
Attacks
What attackers are doing with it
Daily unique IPs observed by Shadowserver honeypots for known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs). Missing observations do not establish an absence of attacks.
Weakness, pattern, technique
Public exploit references
- Issue #24179 DNS rebinding SSRF proof of conceptproof of concept · demonstrated
Labels summarize the accepted research assessment. They do not indicate a test against your environment.
Reported exploitation
- CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog entryknown exploited catalog
Technologies
Your stack
See the directory against your own environment.
Your stack
Check the software in your environment
Book a demo to see how Hinoki identifies affected software and validates exploitability in your environment.
Book a demo