CVE Intelligence
Critical File handling exploit reference

CVE-2025-15031 — Path Traversal Vulnerability in mlflow/mlflow

A vulnerability in MLflow's pyfunc extraction process allows for arbitrary file writes due to improper handling of tar archive entries. Specifically, the use of `tarfile.extractall` without path validation enables crafted tar.gz files containing `..` or absolute paths to escape the intended extraction directory. This issue affects the latest version of MLflow and poses a high/critical risk in scenarios involving multi-tenant environments or ingestion of untrusted artifacts, as it can lead to arbitrary file overwrites and potential remote code execution.

Published Mar 18, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: @huntr_ai

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.9% (30-day exploitation probability)+9
  • Technical severity (critical)+10
  • CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

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

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.85%
ahead of 57% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Lfprojects
Mlflow
CVSS base
9.1
Critical · 4 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
Proof of concept
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

  • Documented mitigation — huntr.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Lfprojects Mlflow, Mlflow Mlflow).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. Apply the documented mitigations until a definitive fix is available.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (file handling), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Lfprojects Mlflow ≤ 3.10.1 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Mlflow Mlflow ≤ latest Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

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

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

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
9.1 CVSS 3.1 Critical 3.9 5.2 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.1 CVSS 3.1 High 2.8 5.2 0b0ca135-0b70-47e7-9f44-1890c2a1c46c via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.1 CVSS 3.0 High 2.8 5.2 security@huntr.dev via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.1 CVSS 3.0 High — — @huntr_ai via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)
Scoring entities (NIST, CNA, ADP) score independently; each score is shown with its origin. For prioritization we use 9.1 (NVD (NIST)) as a conservative provisional reference — not a definitive official score.

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-22 · Path Traversal

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.85%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Monitor file creation in web directories and paths with traversal sequences (../).
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSfile integrity (FIM)endpoint telemetry (EDR)

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · mlflow/mlflow/mlflow
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 9.1
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Modified
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Mar 18, 2026 · @huntr_ai

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Lfprojects
every CVE for this vendor
File handling
same class
CWE-22
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-64849 MLflow Server-Side Request Forgery Vulnerability KEV Aug 17, 2026
  • CVE-2026-8147 Authorization Bypass in mlflow/mlflow Jul 2, 2026
  • CVE-2026-13484 MLflow Experiment-scoped Label Schema CRUD API authorization Jun 28, 2026
  • CVE-2026-10803 MLflow Dataset Digest Computation digest_utils.py mlflow.data.digest_utils weak hash Jun 4, 2026
  • CVE-2026-4035 Environment Variable Resolution Vulnerability in mlflow/mlflow Jun 3, 2026
  • CVE-2026-3198 Improper Access Control in mlflow/mlflow Jun 2, 2026

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 record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2025-15031 is "Path Traversal Vulnerability in mlflow/mlflow", rated Critical. It affects Mlflow (Lfprojects); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 9.1 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.85% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.