GHSA-2823-qmq8-rwvj CVE-2026-105756 PYSEC-2026-4306
vLLM: Loose `cache_salt` validation lets a single request kill EngineCore on LMCache-MP deployments — uncaught downstream `ValueError` denial of service
- Severity
- 6.5 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.33%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 26.39% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
0.30.0- Upgrade vllm to this version or later
Description
Affected
- Ecosystem / package: pip /
vllm - Affected versions: vLLM ≤ 0.25.1 (confirmed on 0.25.1, commit
752a3a504485). The lower bound predates 0.25.1; maintainers can confirm how far back the loosecache_saltvalidator and unguarded scheduling-path lookup reach.
Summary
vLLM's OpenAI-compatible request models (Completions, Chat Completions, Responses) accept a client-supplied cache_salt field and validate it only as "must be a non-empty string" — no character or length restrictions. On a deployment with the built-in LMCache-MP KV connector enabled, that value is stored verbatim on the request tracker and forwarded unguarded as a keyword argument into the scheduler's per-step cache lookup. The downstream LMCache library applies a stricter check in IPCCacheServerKey.__post_init__, which raises ValueError for any cache_salt containing @, /, \, or NUL (or longer than 128 characters).
Neither the LMCache-MP connector lookup call site nor Scheduler.schedule() wraps that call in a request-scoped try/except, so the ValueError propagates uncaught into EngineCore's top-level handler, which treats any uncaught exception as fatal and kills the whole engine process. A single publicly reachable request with, for example, cache_salt="/" therefore takes down the engine for all concurrent users. vLLM's boundary validator is looser than the downstream consumer's, and the gap is never converted into a request-scoped failure on the scheduling path.
Affected code
Links pinned to the confirmed commit 752a3a504485 (v0.25.1):
- The three
check_cache_salt_supportvalidators require only a non-empty string — no character or length bound:vllm/entrypoints/openai/completion/protocol.py#L502-L508(field at#L172),vllm/entrypoints/openai/chat_completion/protocol.py#L913-L919(field at#L425), andvllm/entrypoints/openai/responses/protocol.py#L459-L465(field at#L235). The loose test itself is atcompletion #L503-L505,chat_completion #L914-L916,responses #L460-L462. - Two further request models accept
cache_saltwith the same or weaker checking, and should be hardened at the same time:vllm/entrypoints/pooling/base/protocol.py#L74-L85carries the identical non-empty-string-only validator (field at#L59), and the token-in-token-out scale-outGenerateRequestexposes the field with nocache_saltvalidator at all:vllm/entrypoints/scale_out/token_in_token_out/protocol.py#L110. - The LMCache-MP request tracker stores the salt verbatim:
vllm/distributed/kv_transfer/kv_connector/v1/lmcache_mp_connector.py#L189(LMCacheMPRequestTracker), assignment at#L223. - The lookup call forwards
cache_saltwith no surroundingtry:vllm/distributed/kv_transfer/kv_connector/v1/lmcache_mp_connector.py#L733-L774(get_num_new_matched_tokens→maybe_submit_lookup_request(...)at#L770). - The scheduler invokes the connector unguarded:
vllm/v1/core/sched/scheduler.py#L739(self.connector.get_num_new_matched_tokens(...), insideschedule()at #L396). - The generic top-level handler treats the exception as fatal:
vllm/v1/engine/core.py#L1229-L1235— theexcept Exceptioninrun_engine_core(#L1154) logsEngineCore encountered a fatal error., calls_send_engine_dead(), and re-raises. - Downstream strict validator (external LMCache library, not vLLM):
IPCCacheServerKey.__post_init__inlmcache/v1/multiprocess/custom_types.pyrejects@ / \NUL and >128-char salts (_SALT_FORBIDDEN_CHARS = frozenset("@/\\\x00")) by raisingValueError.
The three OpenAI check_cache_salt_support validators are identical; the completion one is representative — a non-empty-string test with no character or length bound:
# vllm/entrypoints/openai/completion/protocol.py Lines 503-509
if data.get("cache_salt") is not None and (
not isinstance(data["cache_salt"], str) or not data["cache_salt"]
):
raise VLLMValidationError(
"Parameter 'cache_salt' must be a non-empty string if provided.",
parameter="cache_salt",
)
On the scheduling path the connector is invoked with no surrounding try — a ValueError from the downstream salt check propagates straight out of schedule():
# vllm/v1/core/sched/scheduler.py Lines 736-742
# Get externally-cached tokens if using a KVConnector.
if self.connector is not None:
ext_tokens, load_kv_async = (
self.connector.get_num_new_matched_tokens(
request, num_new_local_computed_tokens
)
)
run_engine_core's generic handler — the next except up the stack — treats that as fatal, marks the engine dead, and re-raises:
# vllm/v1/engine/core.py Lines 1229-1235
except Exception as e:
if engine_core is None:
logger.exception("EngineCore failed to start.")
else:
logger.exception("EngineCore encountered a fatal error.")
engine_core._send_engine_dead()
raise e
Impact
Availability only. cache_salt is an attacker-controlled, publicly reachable request field that vLLM validates too loosely. A value such as "/" passes vLLM's check, reaches the stricter downstream validator, and its ValueError is never converted into a request-scoped failure — instead it kills the EngineCore process, a denial of service for every concurrent request on that server (HTTP failures, then /health failing).
Applicability: the built-in LMCache-MP KV connector must be enabled (lmcache >= 0.4.4), which is itself an opt-in KV-connector boundary. On such deployments no other special configuration is required, and the crash is a resource-availability failure rather than expected behavior of the opt-in feature.
Suggested Fix
Two independent fixes:
- Tighten admission — add one shared
validate_cache_salt()helper (for example invllm/entrypoints/openai/engine/protocol.py) that matches or exceeds the downstreamIPCCacheServerKeyrules — reject@,/,\, NUL, and >128-character salts at the HTTP boundary with a 4xx — and route every request model that exposescache_saltthrough it: the threecheck_cache_salt_supportvalidators above, the pooling base request, and the token-in-token-outGenerateRequest(which has no validator today). - Defense in depth — wrap the LMCache-MP lookup call reached from
Scheduler.schedule()so a downstream validatorValueErrorbecomes a request-scoped failure instead of an EngineCore-fatal exception. This is the fix that also covers future divergence between vLLM's and LMCache's salt rules; the right failure semantics (fail the request vs. fall back to a cold lookup) is a maintainer design call.
The core of fix 1 is a single shared helper; each check_cache_salt_support body then becomes validate_cache_salt(data.get("cache_salt")), and GenerateRequest gains an equivalent mode="before" validator:
# vllm/entrypoints/openai/engine/protocol.py — new shared helper
_CACHE_SALT_FORBIDDEN_CHARS = frozenset("@/\\\x00")
_MAX_CACHE_SALT_LENGTH = 128
def validate_cache_salt(cache_salt: object) -> None:
"""Validate cache salts before they reach downstream cache backends."""
if cache_salt is None:
return
if not isinstance(cache_salt, str) or not cache_salt:
raise VLLMValidationError(
"Parameter 'cache_salt' must be a non-empty string if provided.",
parameter="cache_salt",
)
if len(cache_salt) > _MAX_CACHE_SALT_LENGTH or any(
char in _CACHE_SALT_FORBIDDEN_CHARS for char in cache_salt
):
raise VLLMValidationError(
"Parameter 'cache_salt' must be at most 128 characters and must "
"not contain '@', '/', '\\\\', or NUL.",
parameter="cache_salt",
)
This distinguishes the finding from GHSA-6qc9-v4r8-22xg: that advisory fixed only the guided_json/xgrammar trigger of the same schedule()-into-run_engine_core fatal-handler family, so the cache_salt admission gap and the schedule()-level defense-in-depth (fix 2) survive its published fix. A patch implementing fix 1 across all five request models, with a regression test covering the rejected ("/", 129-char) and accepted salt shapes, applies to v0.25.1 with line offsets and no fuzz.
Credit
Reported by: Patch the Planet (Trail of Bits + OpenAI collaboration)
This vulnerability was discovered using GPT-5.5-Cyber as part of the Patch the Planet security initiative.
Proposed fix: a fix for this issue is proposed in a public pull request: https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/51444
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| vllm | < 0.30.0 |
0.30.0 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
vllm PyPI → 0.30.0
- pip
pip install --upgrade "vllm>=0.30.0"- poetry
poetry add "vllm>=0.30.0"- uv
uv add "vllm>=0.30.0"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 6.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
- Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
- Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
- Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
CWE-248: Uncaught Exception
An exception is thrown from a function, but it is not caught.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-8397-8qf6-f2gm vLLM: Phi-4 multimodal audio encoder materializes and retains full attention matrices: a single max-length audio OOM-crashes the vLLM engine | Medium | Also affects vllm |
| GHSA-x567-49g5-p4cf vLLM: Responses API bypasses trust_request_chat_template for chat_template_kwargs | Medium | Also affects vllm |
| GHSA-vvpg-rrww-wpmh vLLM: Permissive default CORS origins allow cross-origin requests to the vLLM HTTP server | Medium | Also affects vllm |
| GHSA-q97c-p368-75c4 vLLM: Out-of-vocabulary prompt token id passes input validation and triggers a CUDA device-side assert (engine crash / DoS) | Medium | Also affects vllm |
| GHSA-h3rc-j82p-2c3h vLLM: Untrusted EPS inputs can trigger denial of service or Ghostscript RCE | High | Also affects vllm |
| GHSA-gq5q-89c7-vhvx vLLM DeepSeek-OCR image processing vulnerable to denial of service | Medium | Also affects vllm |
| GHSA-6757-hggm-hp2w vLLM: Public multimodal SHM handle forgery reaches worker-side `pickle.loads()` with insecure serialization disabled | High | Also affects vllm |
| GHSA-542m-9234-8gvf vLLM: DoS via unbounded chat_template Jinja2 rendering exhausts the renderer thread pool | Medium | Also affects vllm |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor