Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-54745 is a critical-severity Improper Access Control (CWE-284) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 10.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Boot or Logon Initialization Scripts (T1037); ranked at the 37th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as Other AI Platforms.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-67790
Vulnerability Data
Kubeflow Pipelines enables users to build and deploy portable, scalable machine learning workflows. Prior to 2.17.0, the Kubeflow Pipelines frontend exposes an unauthenticated server-side request forgery vulnerability through the /_proxy/ route in frontend/server/proxy-middleware.ts. The _routePathWithReferer() function accepts an arbitrary attacker-controlled…
more
HTTP or HTTPS target and passes its origin to createProxyMiddleware without a host allowlist or filtering for loopback, link-local, RFC1918, or cluster-local addresses. The route remains outside the authorization middleware when ENABLE_AUTHZ=true and is reachable through /apis/v1beta1/_proxy/, /apis/v2beta1/_proxy/, /pipeline/apis/v1beta1/_proxy/, and /pipeline/apis/v2beta1/_proxy/, including through a crafted Referer header. Requests can forward attacker-controlled methods, headers such as Authorization, Cookie, and X-Forwarded-For, and POST bodies to reachable internal services, while returning the upstream response to the unauthenticated client. This can expose cloud metadata credentials, Kubernetes or service APIs, and other cluster-internal endpoints to unauthorized read or modification. This issue is fixed in version 2.17.0.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- Other AI Platforms
- Risk Domain
- N/A
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: machine learning
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 8 hardening rules · 4 OS baselines
V10.3.5V1.3.6V1.5.3V5.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces approved authorizations for logical access, stopping unauthorized actors from reaching resources.
Enforces flow-control policies that restrict information movement between subjects and objects.
Documents duties and assigns access so that no single account can bypass intended restrictions.
Limits each account to the minimum privileges needed, reducing the chance of unauthorized access.
Input validation directly stops untrusted URLs from being accepted and fetched without destination checks.
Defines account types, assigns/removes access, and reviews accounts to ensure only authorized actors can reach resources.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
PR.AA-05 directly enforces policy-based access management and least privilege, eliminating most improper-access-control defects, yet CWE-284 also covers implementation flaws and design gaps outside a single management control.
Hardened baselines and deviation monitoring directly eliminate most configuration-induced access-control defects, yet CWE-284 also encompasses code-level and design flaws outside the scope of configuration management alone.
Secure SDLC practices catch most access-control defects during design/coding/testing (mostly), yet leave residual risk from runtime configuration, architecture, and operational controls (partial).
Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.
PR.AA-01 supplies managed identities/credentials that support but do not implement access-control decisions, so it only partially prevents CWE-284 in either direction.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
High-level policy that explicitly assigns security responsibilities and mandates topic-specific rules (including access control) reduces the chance that developers or administrators will implement systems without proper authorization checks.
The classification scheme is explicitly aligned with the access-control policy, so protective controls are applied consistently and the risk of improper access decisions is lowered.
Defining and enforcing explicit access rights and restrictions for each entity directly stops the assignment of permissions that exceed what is required, eliminating the root condition that allows improper access control.
Requiring one-to-one mapping of identities to entities and timely removal of unused identities directly stops attackers from leveraging stale or shared accounts to bypass access restrictions.
Formal authorization, role-based provisioning, and timely revocation of access rights directly stop the creation of accounts or permissions that exceed what the business actually needs.
Explicitly assigning and documenting who owns each security responsibility reduces the chance that access decisions are left undefined or inconsistently enforced.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (higher-evidence rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
- V-248597 There must be no "shosts.equiv" files on the OL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284
- V-248598 There must be no ".shosts" files on the OL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284
Oracle Linux 9 (2 rules)
- V-271758 OL 9 file systems must not contain .shosts files. prevents CWE-284
- V-271757 OL 9 file systems must not contain shosts.equiv files. prevents CWE-284
RHEL 7 (2 rules)
- V-204606 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not contain .shosts files. prevents CWE-284
- V-204607 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not contain shosts.equiv files. prevents CWE-284
RHEL 8 (2 rules)
- V-230283 There must be no shosts.equiv files on the RHEL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284
- V-230284 There must be no .shosts files on the RHEL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284