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

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.

Published May 11, 2026Updated May 11, 2026Sources: cvelistV5, @huntr_ai

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

mlflow

mlflow_mlflow

CVSS base

7.1

HIGH

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

PoC

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

mlflow

Products (1)

mlflow mlflow

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
7.1	CVSS 3.0	HIGH	—	—	cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-918

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /server/handlers.py, /webhooks/delivery.py.

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

mlflowevery CVE for this vendor
CWE-918other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.