GHSA-969w-gqqr-g6j3 BIT-mlflow-2025-1473 CVE-2025-1473 PYSEC-2026-1646
MLflow Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
High
PyPI
- Severity
- 5.4 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.22%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 12.67% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
2.20.3- Upgrade mlflow to this version or later
Description
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the Signup feature of mlflow/mlflow versions 2.17.0 to 2.20.1. This vulnerability allows an attacker to create a new account, which may be used to perform unauthorized actions on behalf of the malicious user.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| mlflow | >= 2.17.0, < 2.20.3 |
2.20.3 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
mlflow PyPI → 2.20.3
- pip
pip install --upgrade "mlflow>=2.20.3"- poetry
poetry add "mlflow>=2.20.3"- uv
uv add "mlflow>=2.20.3"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
- Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
- Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
- Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
- Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
- Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
- Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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