Loading
Loading
We use strictly necessary cookies to run this site, and analytics cookies to understand how it's used. See our Privacy Policy for details.
A GitHub-reviewed security advisory, not necessarily under active exploitation the way our CISA KEV advisories are, but a real, disclosed vulnerability in an open-source dependency.
Affected packages
Vulnerable: < 0.0.0-20260831164314-ba9ae72cc860
Patched in 0.0.0-20260831164314-ba9ae72cc860
Vulnerable: = 1.7.0-alpha.3
Details
The Kubeflow Pipelines API server decompresses uploaded pipeline archives without adequately bounding expanded data in affected versions. A small ZIP or gzip-compressed tar archive can consume disproportionately large amounts of memory while the server locates or reads the pipeline file, potentially exhausting API-server resources and interrupting service.
Multipart pipeline and pipeline-version upload processing decompresses the archive before namespace authorization, so a caller who can reach those endpoints does not need a successful pipeline-create authorization decision to trigger the issue. External authentication and network controls can restrict reachability. URL-import handlers authorize before fetching and decompressing a remote archive.
The amount of expansion needed to exhaust memory depends on deployment resource limits and concurrent activity; no particular archive is guaranteed to crash every deployment.
Upgrade the API server to Kubeflow Pipelines 2.18.0. Versions through 2.17.3 are affected; the first affected release has not been established.
PR #14171 bounds compressed input and extracted pipeline data. PR #14186 strengthens the total tar traversal budget, including metadata and skipped entries. The 2.18 release also includes configurable upload and specification limits; operators should review the shipped settings and resource budget. These controls address pipeline archive amplification and do not establish general HTTP-body, temporary-disk, concurrency, or CPU limits.
Until upgrading, restrict access to upload and import endpoints and apply deployment-level request and resource controls. A compressed upload-size limit alone does not prevent decompression amplification. Regression tests cover compressed input, selected-entry boundaries, and tar traversal budgets; no deployed-server OOM test was performed for this assessment.
bugbunny.ai discovered and reported the issue. Ayush Gupta (@Ayush-kathil) authored the archive fixes in #14171 and #14186, with Jeff Spahr (@jeffspahr) contributing regression coverage to #14171.
@BrianWillows later submitted a mixed report that included source analysis of pipeline-archive decompression.
EPSS, exploit probability
Low0.50%
estimated chance of real-world exploitation in the next 30 days, higher than 42.5% of every CVE FIRST.org scores
Refreshed 10/31/2026, via FIRST.org's EPSS model, not CVSS, this measures likelihood of exploitation, not how severe it would be.
Talk to us about this
Find out whether this dependency (or others like it) is actually reachable in your codebase.
Get help patching, or building dependency-scanning into your pipeline going forward.
A secure code review or supply chain review finds this before an advisory does.