Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

Authentication Bypass in mlflow/mlflow

Not in CISA KEVCVE-2026-2652CWE-305

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: not blocked.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
Not blocked
CVSS
8.6
EPSS
20.8% Top 2%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2026-05-15
A vulnerability in mlflow/mlflow versions 3.9.0 and earlier allows unauthenticated access to certain FastAPI routes when the server is started with authentication enabled (`--app-name basic-auth`) and served via uvicorn (ASGI). The FastAPI… More

A vulnerability in mlflow/mlflow versions 3.9.0 and earlier allows unauthenticated access to certain FastAPI routes when the server is started with authentication enabled (`--app-name basic-auth`) and served via uvicorn (ASGI). The FastAPI permission middleware only enforces authentication on `/gateway/` routes, leaving other routes such as the Job API (`/ajax-api/3.0/jobs/*`) and the OpenTelemetry trace ingestion API (`/v1/traces`) unprotected. This allows unauthenticated remote attackers to submit jobs, read job results, cancel running jobs, and inject arbitrary trace data into experiments. The issue arises from an architectural mismatch between Flask and FastAPI authentication mechanisms, where the `_find_fastapi_validator()` function fails to handle non-`/gateway/` paths, resulting in a complete authentication bypass. This vulnerability is fixed in version 3.10.0.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2026-2652: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.0
High · 8.6 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to low impact on confidentiality and availability and full loss of integrity.

Over the internetNo login neededNo user actionWorks reliablySerious impact
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
    None
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.
    Unchanged
  • Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read some data, but has no control over what they get.
    Low
  • Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impactAn attacker can slow the component down or interrupt it now and then.
    Low
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:L
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationProof of concept

Public exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.

AutomatableYes

Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.

Technical impactPartial

A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.

Public exploits

1 found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB1 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2026-05-15
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2026-09-16
    F5 ships a rule
    MLflow Broken Access Control
  3. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it through
    paranoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
  4. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it through
    paranoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2026-09-16, 124 days after the CVE was published.

2026-09-16New rule200013208Source
Added: signature 200013208 "MLflow Broken Access Control" (Authentication/Authorization Attacks, risk Medium), systems: Other Web Server. References: CVE-2026-2652.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.