GHSA-2pc9-4j83-qjmr CVE-2026-22807 PYSEC-2026-2010

vLLM affected by RCE via auto_map dynamic module loading during model initialization

Critical PyPI

Severity: 8.8 / 10; Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.98%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 62.24% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix: 0.14.0; Upgrade vllm to this version or later

Description

Summary

vLLM loads Hugging Face auto_map dynamic modules during model resolution without gating on trust_remote_code, allowing attacker-controlled Python code in a model repo/path to execute at server startup.

Impact

An attacker who can influence the model repo/path (local directory or remote Hugging Face repo) can achieve arbitrary code execution on the vLLM host during model load.
This happens before any request handling and does not require API access.

Affected Versions

All versions where vllm/model_executor/models/registry.py resolves auto_map entries with try_get_class_from_dynamic_module without checking trust_remote_code (at least current main).

Details

During model resolution, vLLM unconditionally iterates auto_map entries from the model config and calls try_get_class_from_dynamic_module, which delegates to Transformers’ get_class_from_dynamic_module and executes the module code.

This occurs even when trust_remote_code is false, allowing a malicious model repo to embed code in a referenced module and have it executed during initialization.

Relevant code

vllm/model_executor/models/registry.py:856 — auto_map resolution
vllm/transformers_utils/dynamic_module.py:13 — delegates to get_class_from_dynamic_module, which executes code

Fixes

https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/32194

Credits

Reported by bugbunny.ai

Affected versions

PyPI

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
vllm	`>= 0.10.1, < 0.14.0`	`0.14.0`

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 → `0.14.0`

pip

pip install --upgrade "vllm>=0.14.0"

poetry

poetry add "vllm>=0.14.0"

uv

uv add "vllm>=0.14.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: None
User interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Weakness

CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].

References

Advisories

Packages

github.com/vllm-project/vllm

Timeline

Jan 21, 2026 Published
Sep 10, 2026 Last updated by the source
Nov 1, 2026 Latest EPSS score

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

Is this in your code?

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