A Agência de Segurança Cibernética e Infraestrutura dos EUA (CISA) alertou que atores de ameaça estão explorando ativamente uma vulnerabilidade crítica no MLflow (CVE-2026-64849), conforme atualização do catálogo de vulnerabilidades conhecidas exploradas publicada em 19 de agosto.
A Agência de Segurança Cibernética e Infraestrutura dos EUA (CISA) alertou que atores de ameaça estão explorando ativamente uma vulnerabilidade crítica no MLflow (CVE-2026-64849), conforme atualização do catálogo de vulnerabilidades conhecidas exploradas publicada em 19 de agosto.
Em contexto
- Tema: Cibersegurança — Risco, identidade, resposta a incidentes e compliance.
- Fonte: CISO Advisor
- Publicado: 20/08/2026
Continuar lendo na fonte original →
Trecho publicado automaticamente pelo radar do site. O texto completo pertence ao veículo e está vinculado acima.
Why it matters
Every time I read a case like this I think the same thing: security is not bought, it is operated. You can own every tool on the market and remain exposed if nobody reviews the alerts, if patches get applied when there is time, or if the backup was never tested by actually restoring it.
I separate technical risk from business risk, because they do not always match. A critical vulnerability in an isolated system matters less than a medium one in the system that issues invoices. Prioritising by severity without looking at where the money is is an expensive way to work hard and protect little.
What usually goes wrong
What I see fail most is the backup. It is configured, it runs every night, nobody checks it. The day you need to restore, it turns out it had been failing silently for four months, or that everything was backed up except exactly what was needed. A backup never restored is an assumption.
What to watch
- Whether third parties or suppliers were in the chain, because the perimeter now includes partners.
- How long it took to detect, usually the most revealing metric in the whole case.
- Whether initial access came from a legitimate account handled badly, which is the most frequent pattern.
How I read this entry
If this happened near an organisation I advise, the conversation I would force is not about tools. It is about the rehearsal. How many times the incident was simulated, who calls whom, what gets said to customers and when. A plan never rehearsed is not a plan, it is a document.
The original story is published in another language; the excerpt is quoted as the publisher delivers it and the commentary is written in English.
Living through this in your own team?
Open the chat and tell me how you're handling it. I'm interested in comparing notes.
