CVE-2026-116691

CVE-2026-116691 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in mlflow (pip), affecting versions >= 2.19.0, < 3.17.0. It is fixed in 3.17.0.

Does this CVE actually affect you?

Kodem shows which CVEs are reachable and running in your applications, so you fix what's exploitable, not just what's listed.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Runtime intelligence, not another scanner.

Summary

MLflow CrewAI autologging records LLM provider API keys in logged trace spans

mlflow.crewai.autolog() leaks CrewAI LLM provider API keys into MLflow trace telemetry.

When a CrewAI Agent is instrumented with MLflow autologging, MLflow serializes the agent's __dict__ and converts its fields to strings. The llm field contains the CrewAI LLM object, whose string representation includes its api_key in plaintext.

As a result, an application that calls mlflow.crewai.autolog() can unintentionally send its LLM provider API key to the MLflow trace backend or configured OTLP destination.

The application does not need to explicitly log the credential or place it in a span attribute. The credential is extracted automatically by MLflow's instrumentation.

This was verified on MLflow 3.16.0 with CrewAI 1.15.18 using MLflow's own OTLP exporter. The fake credential appeared in 5 attribute locations across 2 spans.

Details

The primary issue is in:

mlflow/crewai/autolog.py::_get_agent_attributes()

The function walks the CrewAI Agent.__dict__ and converts agent fields to strings. tools and embedder receive special handling, but credential-bearing objects such as the following are not sanitized:

  • llm
  • function_calling_llm
  • agent_executor
  • crew

For example, agent.llm is a CrewAI LLM object. In CrewAI 1.15.18, the underlying LLM model contains api_key as a normal field. Its string representation therefore contains the credential:

llm_type='openai' model='gpt-4.1-mini' ... api_key='sk-proj-...' ...

MLflow subsequently stores this string as a span attribute.

There is an important indication that this is an unintended disclosure: MLflow's dedicated LLM attribute extraction already explicitly excludes api_key in _get_llm_attributes(). The LLM span therefore does not expose the credential, while the broader Agent __dict__ serialization bypasses that protection.

There is also a second, independent serialization path in:

mlflow/crewai/autolog.py::_construct_full_inputs()

This code uses:

v.__dict__ if hasattr(v, "__dict__") else v

on call arguments. During CrewAI execution, the Agent object is passed as an argument, causing its __dict__ to be expanded and the credential-bearing LLM object to be included in mlflow.spanInputs.

Therefore, there are two independent leakage paths:

  1. Agent span attributes through _get_agent_attributes()
  2. Span inputs through _construct_full_inputs()

Fixing only the Agent attribute serialization would leave the mlflow.spanInputs path vulnerable.

A safer approach would be to avoid recursively serializing arbitrary object __dict__ values. Agent telemetry should use an explicit allowlist of non-sensitive scalar fields, and credential-bearing objects such as llm, function_calling_llm, agent_executor, and crew should either be reduced to safe metadata or omitted.

Similarly, _construct_full_inputs() should not automatically expand arbitrary objects through __dict__, or the resulting values should pass through the same sanitization mechanism before being attached to a span.

PoC

Environment:

MLflow: 3.16.0
CrewAI: 1.15.18
Python: 3.12.3
opentelemetry-exporter-otlp-proto-http: 1.42.1

1. Direct serialization proof

The following demonstrates the vulnerability without starting a Crew, making a network request, or requiring an MLflow server:

import importlib
from crewai import LLM, Agent

autolog = importlib.import_module("mlflow.crewai.autolog")

llm = LLM(
    model="gpt-4.1-mini",
    api_key="sk-proj-EXAMPLE1234567890",
)

agent = Agent(
    role="r",
    goal="g",
    backstory="b",
    llm=llm,
)

attrs = autolog._get_agent_attributes(agent)

assert "sk-proj-EXAMPLE1234567890" in attrs["llm"]

print(attrs["llm"])

The output contains the API key in plaintext, for example:

llm_type='openai' model='gpt-4.1-mini' ... api_key='sk-proj-EXAMPLE1234567890' ...

No provider request is required.

2. End-to-end trace disclosure

The issue can also be reproduced through MLflow's actual OTLP exporter.

Configure a local OTLP HTTP receiver and set:

export OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_TRACES_ENDPOINT=http://127.0.0.1:4318/v1/traces
export OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_TRACES_PROTOCOL=http/protobuf
export CREWAI_DISABLE_TELEMETRY=true

Then run:

import mlflow

from crewai import Agent, Crew, LLM, Task

mlflow.crewai.autolog()

llm = LLM(
    model="gpt-4.1-mini",
    api_key="sk-proj-EXAMPLE1234567890",
)

agent = Agent(
    role="Support Responder",
    goal="Answer support questions",
    backstory="A support agent",
    llm=llm,
)

task = Task(
    description="Answer the user's question",
    expected_output="A response",
    agent=agent,
)

crew = Crew(
    agents=[agent],
    tasks=[task],
)

crew.kickoff()

A local OTLP receiver can decode the ExportTraceServiceRequest sent by MLflow.

The provider request is expected to fail because the credential is intentionally fake. This does not affect the vulnerability: the sensitive value is added to the MLflow span when the instrumentation starts, before the provider call succeeds or fails.

In the tested environment, the fake API key appeared in the exported telemetry in 5 locations across 2 spans, including:

Support Responder
  attributes.llm
  attributes.function_calling_llm
  attributes.agent_executor
  attributes.mlflow.spanInputs

Task.execute_sync
  attributes.mlflow.spanInputs

The captured value is produced by MLflow's actual telemetry/export path rather than being manually inserted into a span.

All credentials used in the reproduction are locally generated fake values. No real API credential is required.

Remediation

  • Upgrade to mlflow>=3.17.0.
  • Upgrading stops new leakage but does not remove credentials already written. Rotate any LLM provider key that a CrewAI LLM object held (for example one passed as LLM(api_key=...)) while mlflow.crewai.autolog() was enabled on MLflow 2.19.0 through 3.16.x.
  • Delete or redact the affected traces in the MLflow tracking backend and in any OTLP destination they were exported to. The key appears in Agent and Crew span attributes and in mlflow.spanInputs.

Workarounds

If you cannot upgrade yet, disable CrewAI autologging with mlflow.crewai.autolog(disable=True).

Impact

Type: Sensitive Information Disclosure / Credential Disclosure
CWE: CWE-532, Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File

Any application using mlflow.crewai.autolog() with a CrewAI LLM configured with an API key can unintentionally disclose that credential through MLflow traces.

The credential is written to trace telemetry even though the application does not explicitly log it.

Anyone with access to the MLflow trace storage or configured OTLP destination may therefore obtain the provider credential. Depending on the deployment, this can include MLflow users, observability operators, or third-party telemetry providers.

The leaked credential can then potentially be used against the corresponding LLM provider account, including for unauthorized API usage and associated costs.

The issue is particularly significant because the credential crosses a trust boundary: a provider API key intended for use by the application is automatically copied into observability telemetry where a broader set of users or systems may have access.

The vulnerability does not require the developer to intentionally log the secret. The only relevant prerequisite is enabling the CrewAI autologging integration.

CVE-2026-116691 has a CVSS score of 6.5 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, low privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (3.17.0); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Affected versions

mlflow (>= 2.19.0, < 3.17.0)

Security releases

mlflow → 3.17.0 (pip)

Kodem intelligence

Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.

Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.

Already deployed Kodem?

See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →

Remediation advice

Fixed in MLflow 3.17.0 by #25845. mlflow.crewai.autolog() now reduces CrewAI LLM objects to their model name and drops credential-like keys before they are written to span attributes or mlflow.spanInputs.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is CVE-2026-116691? CVE-2026-116691 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in mlflow (pip), affecting versions >= 2.19.0, < 3.17.0. It is fixed in 3.17.0.
  2. How severe is CVE-2026-116691? CVE-2026-116691 has a CVSS score of 6.5 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
  3. Which versions of mlflow are affected by CVE-2026-116691? mlflow (pip) versions >= 2.19.0, < 3.17.0 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-116691? Yes. CVE-2026-116691 is fixed in 3.17.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
  5. Is CVE-2026-116691 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-116691 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
  6. What actually determines whether CVE-2026-116691 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
  7. How do I fix CVE-2026-116691? Upgrade mlflow to 3.17.0 or later.

Other vulnerabilities in mlflow

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.