CVE-2025-11200
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedMLflow Weak Password Requirements Authentication Bypass Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to bypass authentication on affected installations of MLflow. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the handling of passwords. The issue results from weak password requirements. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to bypass authentication on the system. Was ZDI-CAN-26916.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceMLflow contains a vulnerability in its password handling mechanism where weak password requirements allow remote attackers to bypass authentication entirely. The flaw enables unauthenticated attackers to gain unauthorized access to the system by exploiting insufficient password complexity enforcement. This is a critical authentication bypass with CVSS 9.8 requiring immediate remediation.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 2.21.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed MLflow versionRun 'mlflow --version' or check via pip (pip show mlflow) or package manager to get the exact version numberAffected if The installed version is 2.21.0 or earlier (any version <= 2.21.0)
-
Verify authentication is enabledCheck MLflow server configuration or tracking URI settings to confirm user authentication is configured and activeAffected if Authentication is enabled and the version is <= 2.21.0 (the vulnerability requires auth to be in use)
-
Review password policy configurationInspect MLflow authentication configuration files or environment variables for password complexity requirements (minimum length, character requirements, etc.)Affected if Password policy is missing, not configured, or allows weak/simple passwords
-
Audit existing user accountsQuery user account database or user configuration to identify accounts with weak, default, or easily guessable passwordsAffected if Any user accounts have weak or default passwords stored in the system
A user is affected if MLflow version is 2.21.0 or earlier AND authentication is enabled with weak or absent password complexity enforcement.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataOrganizations should immediately enforce strong password complexity requirements, implement account lockout policies, and consider enabling multi-factor authentication. Review and audit existing user accounts for weak or default passwords.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-11200 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-11200 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data