Lfprojects Mlflow vulnerabilities, page 2
77 vulnerabilities
Known vulnerabilities in Lfprojects Mlflow, newest first, with CVSS severity, EPSS, KEV listings, ransomware use and the affected versions.
CVE-2024-0520lfprojectsmlflow+2
EPSS score2.40%
A vulnerability in mlflow/mlflow version 8.2.1 allows for remote code execution due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('Command Injection') within the `mlflow.data.http_dataset_source.py` module. Specifically, when loading a dataset from a source URL with an HTTP scheme, the filename extracted from the `Content-Disposition` header or the URL path is used to generate the final file path without proper sanitization. This flaw enables an attacker to control the file path fully by utilizing path traversal or absolute path techniques, such as '../../tmp/poc.txt' or '/tmp/poc.txt', leading to arbitrary file write. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a malicious user to execute commands on the vulnerable machine, potentially gaining access to data and model information. The issue is fixed in version 2.9.0.CVE-2024-4263lfprojectsmlflow+2EPSS score0.33%
A broken access control vulnerability exists in mlflow/mlflow versions before 2.10.1, where low privilege users with only EDIT permissions on an experiment can delete any artifacts. This issue arises due to the lack of proper validation for DELETE requests by users with EDIT permissions, allowing them to perform unauthorized deletions of artifacts. The vulnerability specifically affects the handling of artifact deletions within the application, as demonstrated by the ability of a low privilege user to delete a directory inside an artifact using a DELETE request, despite the official documentation stating that users with EDIT permission can only read and update artifacts, not delete them.CVE-2024-37060chainguardmlflow+6EPSS score0.78%
Deserialization of untrusted data can occur in versions of the MLflow platform running version 1.27.0 or newer, enabling a maliciously crafted Recipe to execute arbitrary code on an end user’s system when run.CVE-2024-37057chainguardmlflow+6EPSS score0.62%
Deserialization of untrusted data can occur in versions of the MLflow platform running version 2.0.0rc0 or newer, enabling a maliciously uploaded Tensorflow model to run arbitrary code on an end user’s system when interacted with.CVE-2024-37053chainguardmlflow+6EPSS score0.62%
Deserialization of untrusted data can occur in versions of the MLflow platform running version 1.1.0 or newer, enabling a maliciously uploaded scikit-learn model to run arbitrary code on an end user’s system when interacted with.CVE-2024-37055chainguardmlflow+6EPSS score0.62%
Deserialization of untrusted data can occur in versions of the MLflow platform running version 1.24.0 or newer, enabling a maliciously uploaded pmdarima model to run arbitrary code on an end user’s system when interacted with.CVE-2024-37061chainguardmlflow+6EPSS score0.88%
Remote Code Execution can occur in versions of the MLflow platform running version 1.11.0 or newer, enabling a maliciously crafted MLproject to execute arbitrary code on an end user’s system when run.CVE-2024-37058chainguardmlflow+6EPSS score0.62%
Deserialization of untrusted data can occur in versions of the MLflow platform running version 2.5.0 or newer, enabling a maliciously uploaded Langchain AgentExecutor model to run arbitrary code on an end user’s system when interacted with.CVE-2024-37052chainguardmlflow+6EPSS score0.66%
Deserialization of untrusted data can occur in versions of the MLflow platform running version 1.1.0 or newer, enabling a maliciously uploaded scikit-learn model to run arbitrary code on an end user’s system when interacted with.CVE-2024-37056chainguardmlflow+6EPSS score0.62%
Deserialization of untrusted data can occur in versions of the MLflow platform running version 1.23.0 or newer, enabling a maliciously uploaded LightGBM scikit-learn model to run arbitrary code on an end user’s system when interacted with.CVE-2024-37054chainguardmlflow+6EPSS score0.70%
Deserialization of untrusted data can occur in versions of the MLflow platform running version 0.9.0 or newer, enabling a maliciously uploaded PyFunc model to run arbitrary code on an end user’s system when interacted with.CVE-2024-37059chainguardmlflow+6EPSS score0.62%
Deserialization of untrusted data can occur in versions of the MLflow platform running version 0.5.0 or newer, enabling a maliciously uploaded PyTorch model to run arbitrary code on an end user’s system when interacted with.CVE-2024-27134lfprojectsmlflow+1EPSS score0.12%
Excessive directory permissions in MLflow leads to local privilege escalation when using spark_udf. This behavior can be exploited by a local attacker to gain elevated permissions by using a ToCToU attack. The issue is only relevant when the spark_udf() MLflow API is called.CVE-2024-27133lfprojectsmlflow+1EPSS score0.66%
Insufficient sanitization in MLflow leads to XSS when running a recipe that uses an untrusted dataset. This issue leads to a client-side RCE when running the recipe in Jupyter Notebook. The vulnerability stems from lack of sanitization over dataset table fields.CVE-2024-27132lfprojectsmlflow+1EPSS score0.88%
Insufficient sanitization in MLflow leads to XSS when running an untrusted recipe.
This issue leads to a client-side RCE when running an untrusted recipe in Jupyter Notebook.
The vulnerability stems from lack of sanitization over template variables.CVE-2024-6838lfprojectsmlflow+2EPSS score0.66%
In mlflow/mlflow version v2.13.2, a vulnerability exists that allows the creation or renaming of an experiment with a large number of integers in its name due to the lack of a limit on the experiment name. This can cause the MLflow UI panel to become unresponsive, leading to a potential denial of service. Additionally, there is no character limit in the `artifact_location` parameter while creating the experiment.CVE-2024-8859lfprojectsmlflow+2EPSS score2.77%
A path traversal vulnerability exists in mlflow/mlflow version 2.15.1. When users configure and use the dbfs service, concatenating the URL directly into the file protocol results in an arbitrary file read vulnerability. This issue occurs because only the path part of the URL is checked, while parts such as query and parameters are not handled. The vulnerability is triggered if the user has configured the dbfs service, and during usage, the service is mounted to a local directory.CVE-2024-3573lfprojectsmlflow+2EPSS score0.73%
mlflow/mlflow is vulnerable to Local File Inclusion (LFI) due to improper parsing of URIs, allowing attackers to bypass checks and read arbitrary files on the system. The issue arises from the 'is_local_uri' function's failure to properly handle URIs with empty or 'file' schemes, leading to the misclassification of URIs as non-local. Attackers can exploit this by crafting malicious model versions with specially crafted 'source' parameters, enabling the reading of sensitive files within at least two directory levels from the server's root.CVE-2024-3848lfprojectsmlflow+2EPSS score43.28%
A path traversal vulnerability exists in mlflow/mlflow version 2.11.0, identified as a bypass for the previously addressed CVE-2023-6909. The vulnerability arises from the application's handling of artifact URLs, where a '#' character can be used to insert a path into the fragment, effectively skipping validation. This allows an attacker to construct a URL that, when processed, ignores the protocol scheme and uses the provided path for filesystem access. As a result, an attacker can read arbitrary files, including sensitive information such as SSH and cloud keys, by exploiting the way the application converts the URL into a filesystem path. The issue stems from insufficient validation of the fragment portion of the URL, leading to arbitrary file read through path traversal.CVE-2024-3099lfprojectsmlflow+2EPSS score0.44%
A vulnerability in mlflow/mlflow version 2.11.1 allows attackers to create multiple models with the same name by exploiting URL encoding. This flaw can lead to Denial of Service (DoS) as an authenticated user might not be able to use the intended model, as it will open a different model each time. Additionally, an attacker can exploit this vulnerability to perform data model poisoning by creating a model with the same name, potentially causing an authenticated user to become a victim by using the poisoned model. The issue stems from inadequate validation of model names, allowing for the creation of models with URL-encoded names that are treated as distinct from their URL-decoded counterparts.