Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Yes: CISA KEV signal present. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

Is there a public exploit?

5 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, cloud metadata access logs, egress proxy logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-64849 using CVSS 9.3, EPSS 16%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Treat as emergency remediation because CISA KEV status is present. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

CISA KEVcriticalSSRFpublic exploit

CVE-2026-64849

CVE-2026-64849 — MLflow: Unauthenticated full-read SSRF in webhook delivery: _validate_webhook_url bypassed via unvalidated HTTP redirects (and DNS rebinding)

Q: What is CVE-2026-64849?

CVE-2026-64849 is MLflow: Unauthenticated full-read SSRF in webhook delivery: _validate_webhook_url bypassed via unvalidated HTTP redirects (and DNS rebinding). The supplied enrichment data classifies it as SSRF mapped to CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).

Q: Is it in CISA KEV?

Yes. The supplied enrichment data lists CVE-2026-64849 in CISA KEV with required action: 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.. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

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.

Published Aug 17, 2026Updated Aug 20, 2026Sources: NVD, mlflow (CNA), CISA, FIRST EPSS, GitHub, Red Hat (VEX), SOCRadar CTI

Triage

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

Exploitation

Confirmed

CISA KEV, listed Aug 19, 2026

EPSS

16%

ahead of 97% of scored CVEs

Affects

mlflow

CVSS base

9.3

critical · 2 sources

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

Active

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

Yes

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade mlflow to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

CISA required action

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.

Federal deadline Sep 2, 2026 — in 3 days

Red Hat VEX · CVE-2026-64849

fixed4affected0not affected335

vendor_fix: For Red Hat OpenShift AI 3.4.4 see the following documentation, which will be updated shortly for this release, for important instructions on how to upgrade your cluster and fully…

workaround: 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…

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Treat as emergency remediation because CISA KEV status is present.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
mlflow	mlflow	< 3.15.0	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

None

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

Low

Scope

Changed

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

None

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
9.3	CVSS 3.1	critical	3.9	4.7	GitHub (CNA), mlflow (CNA)
8.5	CVSS 3.1	high	—	—	Red Hat (VEX)

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

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

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

Read Application Data
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands::

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-664 · Server Side Request Forgery

CISA KEV details

CISA lists a CVE here once it has evidence of exploitation against real targets.

CISAThat month →

Listed

Aug 19, 2026

Federal deadline

Sep 2, 2026

in 3 days

Ransomware use

Unknown

CISA records ransomware use only for campaigns it has confirmed, so “Unknown” means unrecorded, not ruled out. The deadline binds US federal agencies; for everyone else it is a date to argue against.

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

Exploit entries

Exploit-DB and CTI exploit indexes

Social mentions

Posts naming this CVE. Attention, not evidence of exploitation — it spikes on disclosure and decays whether or not anything is exploited.

28 more posts on this CVEShowing 5 of 33 · Who is discussing this CVE, and how loudlyUnlock free

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 /api/2.0/mlflow/webhooks/, /test, /utils/validation.py, /webhooks/delivery.py.
Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable mlflow.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 5 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPScloud metadata access logsegress proxy logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 9.3 (AV:N)
Aug 20, 2026 · NVD
Added to CISA KEV catalog
Aug 19, 2026 · CISA
Cve is exploited BiuTrap/CVE-2026-64849
Aug 19, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
Cve is exploited codeb0ssx/CVE-2026-64849-PoC
Aug 19, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
Initial · CVE published
Aug 17, 2026 · NVD

Source activity

Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.

11×TweetsAug 19, 2026 – Aug 28, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
7×SvrsAug 19, 2026 – Aug 28, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
6×ModifiedAug 17, 2026 – Aug 20, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
3×Github ReposAug 18, 2026 – Aug 19, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
1×CVE appeared in the Cve Trends.Aug 19, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

13 on the record

github.com/mlflow/mlflow/commit/ba949522477cbd5915aa55d29b0cfad7d5ddf939
Patch, Mitre, NIST
github.com/mlflow/mlflow/issues/24179
Exploit, Issue Tracking, Mitigation, Mitre, NIST, GITHUB, Vendor Advisory
github.com/mlflow/mlflow/pull/24258
Issue Tracking, Patch, Mitre, NIST, Vendor Advisory
github.com/mlflow/mlflow/releases/tag/v3.15.0
Release Notes, Mitre, NIST
github.com/mlflow/mlflow/security/advisories/GHSA-7gwp-5pfp-969j
Exploit, Vendor Advisory, Mitre, NIST, GITHUB
www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2026-64849
US Government Resource, NIST
access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:60520
Vendor Advisory
access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-64849
Vendor Advisory

Coverage

10 stories from the feeds we poll

5 more reports on this CVEShowing 5 of 10 · Vendor research and security press coverageUnlock free

Elsewhere on this site

mlflowevery CVE for this vendor
August 2026what else CISA listed
SSRFsame class
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.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-64849 is MLflow: Unauthenticated full-read SSRF in webhook delivery: _validate_webhook_url bypassed via unvalidated HTTP redirects (and DNS rebinding), a critical vulnerability affecting mlflow from mlflow. The current evidence lists it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Yes: CISA KEV signal present. Public exploit evidence is: 5 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 9.3 describes technical severity, while EPSS 16% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.