AI Threat Alert
CVE-2026-71211
HIGHMLflow's AI Gateway accepts an auth_config.api_base value when creating a gateway secret (mlflow/server/handlers.py, _create_gateway_secret) with no validation of scheme, host, or IP range; the value is stored verbatim. The gateway proxy endpoint (mlflow/server/gateway_api.py, raw_proxy)...
Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.
How severe is it?
What is the attack surface?
What should I do?
No patch available
Monitor for updates. Consider compensating controls or temporary mitigations.
Which compliance frameworks are affected?
Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-71211?
MLflow's AI Gateway accepts an auth_config.api_base value when creating a gateway secret (mlflow/server/handlers.py, _create_gateway_secret) with no validation of scheme, host, or IP range; the value is stored verbatim. The gateway proxy endpoint (mlflow/server/gateway_api.py, raw_proxy) subsequently issues an HTTP request to that stored api_base plus a caller-supplied path and returns the full response body. MLflow's existing SSRF guard, _validate_webhook_url (which blocks non-global and metadata IPs), is never invoked anywhere in this gateway secret/proxy code path. The CreateGatewaySecret action additionally has no entry in the permission-validator map, so it requires only basic authentication rather than any specific scope, meaning any authenticated user — including read-only accounts — can create a secret pointing at an internal address and reach it via the proxy endpoint, potentially exposing cloud-instance IAM credentials via metadata services. This is related to CVE-2026-4035, which addresses a distinct mechanism in the same gateway-secret feature (server-side $ENV_VAR resolution inside the api_key field leaking credentials to the configured upstream); the finding here is an independent missing-validation gap in the api_base destination itself, unaffected by that fix.
Is CVE-2026-71211 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-71211 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-71211?
No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-71211?
CVE-2026-71211 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.1 (HIGH).
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
MLflow's AI Gateway accepts an auth_config.api_base value when creating a gateway secret (mlflow/server/handlers.py, _create_gateway_secret) with no validation of scheme, host, or IP range; the value is stored verbatim. The gateway proxy endpoint (mlflow/server/gateway_api.py, raw_proxy) subsequently issues an HTTP request to that stored api_base plus a caller-supplied path and returns the full response body. MLflow's existing SSRF guard, _validate_webhook_url (which blocks non-global and metadata IPs), is never invoked anywhere in this gateway secret/proxy code path. The CreateGatewaySecret action additionally has no entry in the permission-validator map, so it requires only basic authentication rather than any specific scope, meaning any authenticated user — including read-only accounts — can create a secret pointing at an internal address and reach it via the proxy endpoint, potentially exposing cloud-instance IAM credentials via metadata services. This is related to CVE-2026-4035, which addresses a distinct mechanism in the same gateway-secret feature (server-side $ENV_VAR resolution inside the api_key field leaking credentials to the configured upstream); the finding here is an independent missing-validation gap in the api_base destination itself, unaffected by that fix.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-918 — Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF): The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N