CVE-2026-64849

CRITICALPre-NVD 9.39.3
EchelonGraph scoreHIGH confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score elevated to 9.3 because this CVE is listed on the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog (added 2026-08-19), indicating real-world exploitation has been confirmed by US federal agencies. A secondary CVSS source baseline 9.3 retained for reference (NVD's own analysis pending). Confidence: HIGH.

Triggered by: CISA KEV (actively exploited)
Sources: CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 4 sources updated this weekExploited in the wild

Also known asEUVD-2026-60473 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-7gwp-5pfp-969j (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

9.3EG
EchelonGraph verdictPatch nowTreat as an emergency — this is being exploited.
  • Actively exploited in the wild (CISA-KEV) — the reason this is sooner than the SSVC decision on this page at low or medium mission impact
CISA-KEV: ExploitedEPSS PROB: 10%CVSS: 9.3Exploit: No code on recordExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

MLflow is an open source AI engineering platform for agents, large language models, and machine learning models. Starting in 3.3.0 and 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.

CVSS v3
9.3
EG Score
9.3CRITICALhigh confidence
EG Risk
97
EG Risk 97/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity93% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 9.3 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation100% × 40%
Fixed at 100% for a CISA KEV listing: EchelonGraph's rule.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Attend at low or medium mission impact; Act at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation active (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it sooner than your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and as soon as possible at high.
EPSS PROB
10%
EPSS %ILE
95th
KEV
⚠ Exploited

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (9.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
9.3 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
10% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-01). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
CISA KEV and EG-KEV Tier 1 (exploited in the wild)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Attend at medium mission impactAttend at low or medium mission impact; Act at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 14 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Attend at low or medium mission impact; Act at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it sooner than your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and as soon as possible at high.

Exploitation active (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 14 days if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV yes (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

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.”

Quoted verbatim from CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. CISA directs it at US federal civilian executive branch agencies under Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 26-04, which replaced BOD 22-01 on 10 June 2026; it is not EchelonGraph's advice. CISA's notes: https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/pull/24258 · https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/issues/24179 · https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/directives/bod-26-04-prioritizing-security-updates-based-risk · https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/directives/bod-26-04-implementation-guidance-prioritizing-security-updates-based-risk · https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-64849

Published

August 17, 2026

Last Modified

October 26, 2026

Advisory Details (6)

Auto-updated Oct 26, 2026
⚠️ Actively exploited (CISA KEV, CISA Vulnrichment). Patch available. Sources: github_pr, github_release, github, cisa, github_commit.
CISA🔴 Active Exploitation

Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog | CISA

Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog | CISA. Listed in CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.

https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2026-64849
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)🟡 PoC Available

Unauthenticated full-read SSRF in MLflow webhook delivery: _validate_webhook_url bypassed via unvalidated HTTP redirects (and DNS rebinding) · Advisory · mlflow/mlflow · GitHub

https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/security/advisories/GHSA-7gwp-5pfp-969j
GitHub release Patch Available

v3.15.0

Patch available: mlflow/mlflow v3.15.0

https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/releases/tag/v3.15.0
GitHub pull request

Fix DNS-rebinding SSRF bypass in webhook delivery

Fix merged in mlflow/mlflow PR #24258 on 2026-07-02 — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/pull/24258
Web page

DNS rebinding bypass of webhook SSRF protection enables cloud metadata access · Issue #24179 · mlflow/mlflow · GitHub

https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/issues/24179
GitHub commit

commit ba949522477c (mlflow/mlflow)

Fix landed in mlflow/mlflow commit ba949522477c — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/commit/ba949522477cbd5915aa55d29b0cfad7d5ddf939

Patch Availability(3)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
redhatrhoai/odh-mlflow-rhel9:17872267902026-08-27redhat
redhatrhoai/odh-latency-predictor-training-rhel9:17865522502026-08-26redhat
pipmlflow @ 3.15.0 (fixes >= 3.3.0, < 3.15.0)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
PyPI(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
mlflow0.0.1 ... 3.9.0rc0 (182 versions)
  • 3.3.0 up to 3.15.0: fixed in 3.15.0
  • every version up to 3.15.0: fixed in 3.15.0
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 22× in last 7d / 133× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 451 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 351 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-01 19:05 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-11-01 19:05 UTCVendor advisory
  3. 2026-11-01 19:05 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-7gwp-5pfp-969j · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.3
  4. 2026-11-01 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 10% · 95th percentile
  5. 2026-11-01 07:40 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-7gwp-5pfp-969j · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.3
  6. 2026-11-01 07:40 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-31 18:08 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-31 18:08 UTCVendor advisory
  9. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 10% · 95th percentile
  10. 2026-10-30 17:11 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-30 17:11 UTCVendor advisory
  12. 2026-10-30 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 10% · 95th percentile
  13. 2026-10-29 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 10% · 95th percentile
  14. 2026-10-29 16:15 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-29 16:15 UTCVendor advisory
  16. 2026-10-28 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 10% · 95th percentile
  17. 2026-10-28 15:18 UTCEG score recompute
  18. 2026-10-28 15:18 UTCVendor advisory
  19. 2026-10-27 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 10% · 95th percentile
  20. 2026-10-27 14:22 UTCEG score recompute
  21. 2026-10-27 14:22 UTCVendor advisory
  22. 2026-10-26 13:27 UTCVendor advisory
  23. 2026-10-25 18:30 UTCEG score recompute
  24. 2026-10-25 18:30 UTCVendor advisory
  25. 2026-10-25 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 10% · 95th percentile
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-10-25 14:12 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-24 17:34 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-24 17:34 UTCVendor advisory
  4. 2026-10-24 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 10% · 95th percentile
  5. 2026-10-23 16:38 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-23 16:38 UTCVendor advisory
  7. 2026-10-23 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 10% · 95th percentile
  8. 2026-10-22 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 10% · 95th percentile
  9. 2026-10-22 15:40 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-22 15:40 UTCVendor advisory
  11. 2026-10-21 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  12. 2026-10-21 14:43 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-21 14:43 UTCVendor advisory
  14. 2026-10-20 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  15. 2026-10-20 13:47 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-10-20 13:47 UTCVendor advisory
  17. 2026-10-19 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  18. 2026-10-19 12:51 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-10-19 12:51 UTCVendor advisory
  20. 2026-10-18 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  21. 2026-10-18 11:54 UTCVendor advisory
  22. 2026-10-18 03:22 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-17 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  24. 2026-10-17 10:57 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-17 10:57 UTCVendor advisory
  26. 2026-10-16 16:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  27. 2026-10-16 09:59 UTCEG score recompute
  28. 2026-10-16 09:59 UTCVendor advisory
  29. 2026-10-15 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  30. 2026-10-15 09:02 UTCEG score recompute
  31. 2026-10-15 09:02 UTCVendor advisory
  32. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  33. 2026-10-14 08:05 UTCEG score recompute
  34. 2026-10-14 08:05 UTCVendor advisory
  35. 2026-10-13 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  36. 2026-10-13 07:08 UTCEG score recompute
  37. 2026-10-13 07:08 UTCVendor advisory
  38. 2026-10-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  39. 2026-10-12 15:47 UTCEG score recompute
  40. 2026-10-12 06:11 UTCVendor advisory
  41. 2026-10-12 01:48 UTCVendor advisory
  42. 2026-10-11 21:29 UTCVendor advisory
  43. 2026-10-11 19:32 UTCEG score recompute
  44. 2026-10-11 17:08 UTCVendor advisory
  45. 2026-10-11 16:47 UTCEG score recompute
  46. 2026-10-11 14:08 UTCEG score recompute
  47. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  48. 2026-10-11 12:47 UTCEG score recompute
  49. 2026-10-11 12:47 UTCVendor advisory
  50. 2026-10-11 08:27 UTCVendor advisory
  51. 2026-10-11 04:06 UTCVendor advisory
  52. 2026-10-10 23:46 UTCEG score recompute
  53. 2026-10-10 23:46 UTCVendor advisory
  54. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  55. 2026-10-10 19:26 UTCVendor advisory
  56. 2026-10-10 15:06 UTCVendor advisory
  57. 2026-10-10 10:46 UTCVendor advisory
  58. 2026-10-10 06:25 UTCVendor advisory
  59. 2026-10-10 02:05 UTCVendor advisory
  60. 2026-10-09 21:44 UTCEG score recompute
  61. 2026-10-09 21:44 UTCVendor advisory
  62. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  63. 2026-10-09 17:24 UTCVendor advisory
  64. 2026-10-09 13:05 UTCVendor advisory
  65. 2026-10-09 08:43 UTCVendor advisory
  66. 2026-10-09 04:20 UTCVendor advisory
  67. 2026-10-09 00:00 UTCVendor advisory
  68. 2026-10-08 19:41 UTCEG score recompute
  69. 2026-10-08 19:41 UTCVendor advisory
  70. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 9.8% · 95th percentile
  71. 2026-10-08 15:21 UTCVendor advisory
  72. 2026-10-08 11:01 UTCVendor advisory
  73. 2026-10-08 06:41 UTCVendor advisory
  74. 2026-10-08 02:21 UTCEG score recompute
  75. 2026-10-08 02:21 UTCVendor advisory

Public detection templates

(1 reference)

A public Nuclei detection template is referenced for this CVE. A detection template checks whether a system is affected; it is not necessarily exploit code.

  • Nucleihttp/cves/2026/CVE-2026-64849.yaml
    Published Aug 18, 2026

    MLflow Webhook SSRF - Unauthenticated Full-Read via Redirect Bypass

    Open source ↗

Frequently asked(6)

What is CVE-2026-64849?
CVE-2026-64849 is a critical-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on August 17, 2026. MLflow is an open source AI engineering platform for agents, large language models, and machine learning models. Starting in 3.3.0 and 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…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-64849 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-64849 was published on August 17, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 26, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-64849 actively exploited?
Yes. CISA added CVE-2026-64849 to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog on August 19, 2026, affecting MLflow MLflow. KEV listing indicates confirmed exploitation in the wild; this CVE warrants immediate attention. A fix is available. Apply it.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-64849?
CVE-2026-64849 has a CVSS base score of 9.3 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
Which products are affected by CVE-2026-64849?
CVE-2026-64849 affects MLflow MLflow. The affected packages EchelonGraph has on record, with version ranges, are listed in the Affected Packages section of this page.
How do I remediate CVE-2026-64849?
A fix for CVE-2026-64849 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-64849 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-64849

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-64849?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.