CVE-2024-1593 is a high severity (CVSS 7.5) path traversal in MLflow caused by improper handling of URL parameters. A semicolon lets path traversal sequences be smuggled into the params part of a URL, giving access to files or directories. The record names no fixed version, so upgrade past 2.9.2.
What's affected
The record describes the flaw in the MLflow repository and names no versions in its text. It is one of several path traversal reports filed on 16 April 2024 against MLflow, most of which name version 2.9.2.
The only reference is a huntr report that I did not retrieve. Use the MLflow release notes to find the first release that covers the parameter smuggling case, and treat 2.9.2 and earlier as at risk.
How to check if you're exposed
Check the version where MLflow runs:
pip show mlflow
Look at the front door too. If a reverse proxy sits in front of MLflow, ask whether it normalises paths and blocks odd characters. If MLflow listens directly on a network, any client can send these URLs.
To check a whole codebase at once, run the free in-browser dependency scan at gold.safeguard.sh/scan. You can also look up the CVE in the Gold directory, and use reachability analysis to see whether your code calls the affected path.
What to do now
- Find MLflow servers and versions.
- Upgrade past 2.9.2 after confirming in the release notes.
- Add authentication and network restrictions.
- Configure the proxy to reject unusual characters in paths.
- Limit the file system access of the server account.
Why it matters
The record classes this as CWE-22, path traversal. The URL syntax permits parameters after a semicolon, and the application did not consider that part when it validated the path, so traversal text passed through.
The record says this resembles earlier reports but uses the semicolon. Each fix that targets one character leaves the next one, which is why allow list validation works better than blocking known bad characters. The record's KEV flag is false. Treat the whole family of MLflow path reports as one upgrade project.
Quick check
How is this different from CVE-2024-1594?
That one uses a fragment marker in an artifact location. This one uses a semicolon in the URL parameters.
Is a fix listed?
Not in the record. Check the release notes.
Sources
- huntr report (listed in the NVD record, not retrieved)
- NVD record data for CVE-2024-1593
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
