GHSA-3mwp-wvh9-7528 CVE-2026-34756 PYSEC-2026-2298
vLLM: Unauthenticated OOM Denial of Service via Unbounded `n` Parameter in OpenAI API Server
- Severity
- 6.5 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.42%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 36.48% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
- Fix
0.19.0- Upgrade vllm to this version or later
Description
Summary
A Denial of Service vulnerability exists in the vLLM OpenAI-compatible API server. Due to the lack of an upper bound validation on the n parameter in the ChatCompletionRequest and CompletionRequest Pydantic models, an unauthenticated attacker can send a single HTTP request with an astronomically large n value. This completely blocks the Python asyncio event loop and causes immediate Out-Of-Memory crashes by allocating millions of request object copies in the heap before the request even reaches the scheduling queue.
Details
The root cause of this vulnerability lies in the missing upper bound checks across the request parsing and asynchronous scheduling layers:
- Protocol Layer:
In
vllm/entrypoints/openai/chat_completion/protocol.py, thenparameter is defined simply as an integer without anypydantic.Fieldconstraints for an upper bound.
class ChatCompletionRequest(OpenAIBaseModel):
# Ordered by official OpenAI API documentation
# https://platform.openai.com/docs/api/reference/chat/create
messages: list[ChatCompletionMessageParam]
model: str | None = None
frequency_penalty: float | None = 0.0
logit_bias: dict[str, float] | None = None
logprobs: bool | None = False
top_logprobs: int | None = 0
max_tokens: int | None = Field(
default=None,
deprecated="max_tokens is deprecated in favor of "
"the max_completion_tokens field",
)
max_completion_tokens: int | None = None
n: int | None = 1
presence_penalty: float | None = 0.0
- SamplingParams Layer (Incomplete Validation):
When the API request is converted to internal
SamplingParamsinvllm/sampling_params.py, the_verify_argsmethod only checks the lower bound (self.n < 1), entirely omitting an upper bounds check.
def _verify_args(self) -> None:
if not isinstance(self.n, int):
raise ValueError(f"n must be an int, but is of type {type(self.n)}")
if self.n < 1:
raise ValueError(f"n must be at least 1, got {self.n}.")
- Engine Layer (The OOM Trigger):
When the malicious request reaches the core engine (
vllm/v1/engine/async_llm.py), the engine attempts to fan out the requestntimes to generate identical independent sequences within a synchronous loop.
# Fan out child requests (for n>1).
parent_request = ParentRequest(request)
for idx in range(parent_params.n):
request_id, child_params = parent_request.get_child_info(idx)
child_request = request if idx == parent_params.n - 1 else copy(request)
child_request.request_id = request_id
child_request.sampling_params = child_params
await self._add_request(
child_request, prompt_text, parent_request, idx, queue
)
return queue
Because Python's asyncio runs on a single thread and event loop, this monolithic for-loop monopolizes the CPU thread. The server stops responding to all other connections (including liveness probes). Simultaneously, the memory allocator is overwhelmed by cloning millions of request object instances via copy(request), driving the host's Resident Set Size (RSS) up by gigabytes per second until the OS OOM-killer terminates the vLLM process.
Impact
Vulnerability Type: Resource Exhaustion / Denial of Service
Impacted Parties:
- Any individual or organization hosting a public-facing vLLM API server (
vllm.entrypoints.openai.api_server), which happens to be the primary entrypoint for OpenAI-compatible setups. - SaaS / AI-as-a-Service platforms acting as reverse proxies sitting in front of vLLM without strict HTTP body payload validation or rate limitations.
Because this vulnerability exploits the control plane rather than the data plane, an unauthenticated remote attacker can achieve a high success rate in taking down production inference hosts with a single HTTP request. This effectively circumvents any hardware-level capacity planning and conventional bandwidth stress limitations.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| vllm | >= 0.1.0, < 0.19.0 |
0.19.0 |
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 → 0.19.0
- pip
pip install --upgrade "vllm>=0.19.0"- poetry
poetry add "vllm>=0.19.0"- uv
uv add "vllm>=0.19.0"
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-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
- Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
- Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
- 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.
- Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
- Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/vllm-project/vllm/security/advisories/GHSA-3mwp-wvh9-7528
- github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/37952
- github.com/vllm-project/vllm/commit/b111f8a61f100fdca08706f41f29ef3548de7380
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36005
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36006
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34756
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
- github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/vllm/PYSEC-2026-2298.yaml
- security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-34756.json
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:57380
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:57387
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:57389
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:57390
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:59144
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:59151
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