Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
MLflow can extract a crafted model artifact outside its intended folder and overwrite files. In environments that accept MLflow artifacts from users or tenants, this could let an attacker tamper with application files and may lead to code execution. The sources do not identify a fixed version.
Executive priority
Treat as high priority for ML platforms that accept external or multi-tenant artifacts. Prioritize containment and vendor guidance review because arbitrary file overwrite can affect confidentiality and integrity, and the fix details are not clear in the supplied sources.
Technical view
The issue is CWE-22 path traversal in MLflow pyfunc extraction. Tar archive entries using parent-directory or absolute paths may be extracted without path validation, enabling arbitrary file writes outside the intended directory. The supplied CVSS is 8.1 high.
Likely exposure
Exposure is most likely where MLflow ingests untrusted or cross-tenant pyfunc/model artifacts, especially tar.gz artifacts. Single-user, tightly controlled MLflow deployments have lower practical exposure, but version ranges are unspecified in the bundle.
Exploitation context
The bundle does not report known active exploitation and KEV is false. Exploitation requires a crafted artifact reaching MLflow's pyfunc extraction path. Sources describe possible arbitrary overwrite and potential code execution, but do not provide observed attack details.
Researcher notes
Evidence is strongest for a path traversal design flaw in tar extraction. The public bundle lacks precise affected versions, patch status, and exploit-in-the-wild confirmation. Avoid assuming every MLflow deployment is exploitable without confirming artifact trust boundaries and the relevant extraction path.
Mitigation direction
- Check MLflow and vendor advisories for fixed versions or official workarounds.
- Do not ingest MLflow artifacts from untrusted users or tenants.
- Isolate MLflow processing with least-privilege filesystem permissions.
- Restrict artifact upload sources and enforce tenant separation.
- Monitor for unexpected file changes during artifact extraction.
Validation and detection
- Inventory MLflow deployments and artifact ingestion workflows.
- Identify systems processing pyfunc or tar.gz model artifacts.
- Confirm whether artifacts can be supplied by users, tenants, or external pipelines.
- Review advisory sources for affected and fixed version details.
- Check logs and file integrity telemetry for unexpected writes.
Public sources used
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
CWE-22: File access and web shell behavior lookup
File traversal and upload weaknesses can lead teams to review file, web shell, execution, and collection telemetry. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupExecution behavior lookup
The CVE wording references code or command execution, so execution technique review may help defensive triage. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupFile access behavior lookup
The CVE wording references file access or upload behavior, so file telemetry and web shell review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCVE-2025-15031 mapping review
Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.
Open ATT&CK lookup- Severity
- High
- CVSS
- 8.1 (3.0)
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
Vector: CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
SSVC decision data
CVSS vector scores
2 official scoresWe collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N2.85.2@huntr_aiCVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N2.85.2redhat-SADPVulnerability scoring details
Base CVSS 3.1 score
8.1HighVector: CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Base CVSS 3.0 score
8.1HighVector: CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Vulnerability timeline
Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.
- CVE reservedCVE Program
The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.
- ADP timelineredhat-SADP
Made public.
- CVE publishedCVE Program
The CVE record was published.
- ADP timelineredhat-SADP
Reported to Red Hat.
- CVE updatedCVE Program
The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.
ADP provider summaries
- 2026-03-18T23:01:53.910Z: Reported to Red Hat.
- 2026-03-18T22:06:47.300Z: Made public.
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- https://huntr.com/bounties/09856f77-f968-446f-a930-657d126efe4eCVE reference, @huntr_ai
- https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-15031CVE reference, redhat-SADP · vdb-entry, x_refsource_REDHAT
- RHBZ#2448912CVE reference, redhat-SADP · issue-tracking, x_refsource_REDHAT
- https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2025/cve-2025-15031.jsonCVE reference, redhat-SADP · x_sadp-csaf-vex
Products and packages named in the record
CWE details
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.