Skip to content

GHSA-49m6-vrr9-2cqm BIT-mlflow-2025-0453 CVE-2025-0453 PYSEC-2026-1637

MLflow Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability

High PyPI
Severity
5.9 / 10
High · CVSS 3.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
11.31%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 95.98% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
CWE-410 Insufficient Resource Pool
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published

Description

In mlflow/mlflow version 2.17.2, the /graphql endpoint is vulnerable to a denial of service attack. An attacker can create large batches of queries that repeatedly request all runs from a given experiment. This can tie up all the workers allocated by MLFlow, rendering the application unable to respond to other requests. This vulnerability is due to uncontrolled resource consumption.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
mlflow
<= 2.17.2
No fix yet

How to fix

No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.0 5.9

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

CWE-410: Insufficient Resource Pool

The product's resource pool is not large enough to handle peak demand, which allows an attacker to prevent others from accessing the resource by using a (relatively) large number of requests for resources.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Do not perform resource-intensive transactions for unauthenticated users and/or invalid requests.
  • Architecture and Design: Consider implementing a velocity check mechanism which would detect abusive behavior.
  • Operation: Consider load balancing as an option to handle heavy loads.
  • Implementation: Make sure that resource handles are properly closed when no longer needed.
  • Architecture and Design: Identify the system's resource intensive operations and consider protecting them from abuse (e.g. malicious automated script which runs the resources out).

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-7gwp-5pfp-969j
MLflow: Unauthenticated full-read SSRF in webhook delivery: _validate_webhook_url bypassed via unvalidated HTTP redirects (and DNS rebinding)
Critical Known exploited Also affects mlflow
GHSA-26p8-2jq9-3vq9
MLflow vulnerable to remote code execution on unauthenticated servers via third-party scorer deserialization importing caller-placed artifact modules
Critical Also affects mlflow
GHSA-j7qq-vr8c-xvw3
MLflow CrewAI autologging records LLM provider API keys in logged trace spans
Medium Also affects mlflow
GHSA-m65p-9j7q-6w33
MLflow vulnerable to arbitrary file read on unauthenticated servers via prompt model version source
High Also affects mlflow
GHSA-2wqp-q3c6-ccj5
MLflow: SSRF on unauthenticated MLflow servers via third-party scorer kwargs in the scorer invoke, register, and GenAI evaluate endpoints
Medium Also affects mlflow
GHSA-wqmh-qccw-pqwf
MLflow FileStore trace IDs allow path traversal and arbitrary file writes
High Also affects mlflow
GHSA-gqvg-gmmx-x4hm
MLFLOW_ALLOW_PICKLE_DESERIALIZATION=False safety control bypassed by mlflow.statsmodels flavor — RCE via crafted model artifact
High Also affects mlflow
GHSA-h7x2-h6g9-p789
MLflow AI Gateway permits SSRF through an unvalidated api_base
High Also affects mlflow
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor