Skip to content

CVE-2026-4137

Is CVE-2026-4137 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
7.8 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-378
CWE

High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Real, but low real-world risk

A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

In mlflow/mlflow versions prior to 3.11.0, the `get_or_create_nfs_tmp_dir()` function in `mlflow/utils/file_utils.py` creates temporary directories with world-writable permissions (0o777), and the `_create_model_downloading_tmp_dir()` function in `mlflow/pyfunc/__init__.py` creates directories with group-writable permissions (0o770). These insecure permissions allow local attackers to tamper with model artifacts, such as cloudpickle-serialized Python objects, and achieve arbitrary code execution when the tampered artifacts are deserialized via `cloudpickle.load()`. This vulnerability is particularly critical in environments with shared NFS mounts, such as Databricks, where NFS is enabled by default. The issue is a continuation of the vulnerability class addressed in CVE-2025-10279, which was only partially fixed.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-4137
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-4137/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-4137)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-4137"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-4137/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-4137"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.