Skip to content

GHSA-8wr5-jm2h-8r4f CVE-2026-54234 PYSEC-2026-3542

vLLM has Remote DoS via Invalid Recovered Token Reinjection

High PyPI
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.62%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 49.54% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
Fix
0.24.0
Upgrade vllm to this version or later

Description

Summary

A frontend-legal multi-request speculative workload can make vLLM produce an out-of-vocabulary recovered token equal to vocab_size, convert that value to -1 when choosing the next live token for a request, and then feed that -1 back into the next drafter input ids. On Qwen3 GPTQ this reaches the worker-side drafting / attention path and crashes the engine with a GPU device-side assert.

The same issue is reachable through the public gRPC request surface by sending a specific overlapping Generate / Abort sequence.

Impact

  • A remote client that can send public gRPC generation requests can crash the shared vLLM engine worker
  • The triggering request sequence aborts concurrent requests and prevents later requests from completing until the worker is restarted
  • In shared deployments, this is a service-wide denial of service for other clients, not just a failure isolated to the attacking requests
  • The failure is reproducible, so repeated request sequences can sustain the outage

Affected version

  • Confirmed on vLLM 0.17.1
  • Earlier and later versions have not been checked yet in this report

Repro model

  • Official Hugging Face repo:
  • Anyone wants to reproduce the bug with my PoC scripts should download Qwen3-0.6B-GPTQ-Int8 first

Trigger chain

  1. A legal multi-request speculative workload keeps structured-output state, speculative decoding, overlap, and request cancellation active in the same live engine.
  2. During rejection sampling, vLLM produces a recovered token equal to the model vocab_size boundary value.
  3. That recovered token appears in position 0 of the sampled speculative row for a live request. The same row also contains trailing padding entries equal to -1, but those padding entries are not the key fault by themselves.
  4. The next-token preparation step treats the position-0 recovered token as the real next token for that request and converts that out-of-vocabulary value to -1.
  5. The drafter writes that converted -1 back into the live next-step input-id row for the request.
  6. The drafting / embedding / attention path later consumes that live invalid token and the worker crashes on GPU.

Details

Simple example

The important distinction is:

  • trailing -1 values in a speculative row can be ordinary padding
  • the bug appears when the first live token for a request becomes 151936 == vocab_size, and that live token is then converted into -1

In simplified form, the bad transition looks like this:

sampled speculative row:
[151936, -1, -1, -1, ...]

At this point, the trailing -1 values are only padding. The critical problem is that the first position holds 151936, which is out of vocabulary and is being treated as the request's real next token.

Then vLLM prepares the next-token buffer:

next_token_ids:
[-1, ...]

Finally, that converted -1 is written back into the live model input ids:

input_ids_after:
[-1, 0, 0, 0, ...]

The crash happens because the live next token became -1 and was later consumed by the drafting / embedding / attention path, not merely because the speculative row contained padded -1 entries.

Trigger path in code

  1. The workload is frontend-legal. The requests use normal SamplingParams features such as structured outputs, stop, bad_words, min_tokens, and streaming overlap. No malformed token-id list is required at the request boundary.
  2. In speculative decoding, the rejection sampler can generate recovered tokens when drafted tokens are rejected.
    # vllm/v1/sample/rejection_sampler.py
    def sample_recovered_tokens(...):
        recovered_token_ids = torch.empty_like(draft_token_ids)
        sample_recovered_tokens_kernel[(batch_size, max_spec_len)](...)
        return recovered_token_ids
    
    On the verified Qwen3 run, the recovered-token trace shows recovered_token_ids[0] = 151936, which is exactly vocab_size for this checkpoint.
  3. The speculative proposer then prepares the next-token row from the sampled speculative row.
    # vllm/v1/spec_decode/eagle.py
    def prepare_next_token_ids_padded(...):
        ...
        eagle_prepare_next_token_padded_kernel[grid](
            sampled_token_ids,
            discard_request_mask,
            backup_tokens_gpu,
            next_token_ids,
            valid_sampled_tokens_count,
            gpu_input_batch.vocab_size,
            ...
        )
        return next_token_ids, valid_sampled_tokens_count
    
    In the verified trace, this step receives a sampled row beginning with 151936, followed by -1 padding. The important point is that 151936 occupies the first live token position for the request. This step then produces next_token_ids[0] = -1, meaning the live next token for the request has been converted to -1.
  4. The drafter then rotates the draft input ids and inserts those next_token_ids back into the live input-id buffer.
    # vllm/v1/spec_decode/eagle.py
    def set_inputs_first_pass(...):
        ...
        self.input_ids[token_indices_to_sample] = next_token_ids
    
    In the verified trace, this produces input_ids_after[0] = -1.
  5. The model-side embed path later consumes those input ids.
    # vllm/model_executor/models/qwen2.py
    def embed_input_ids(self, input_ids: torch.Tensor) -> torch.Tensor:
        return self.embed_tokens(input_ids)
    
    In the verified trace, this is the first point where the converted -1 becomes visible as a real model input. The bug is not merely that the sampled speculative row contained padding -1; the bug is that the live next token for the request became -1 and was written back into input ids.
  6. After that point, the visible sink depends on timing and backend state. On the attached Qwen3 reproducer, the engine commonly dies later in the drafting / attention path with CUDA error: device-side assert triggered, for example under flash_attn_varlen_func(...).

Local script breakdown

repro_g4_recovered_minus1_local.py is a standalone local reproducer.

  • It reads the Qwen3 checkpoint path from VLLM_POC_G4_MODEL or the built-in /path/to/qwen3 placeholder
  • It creates EngineCore directly without any external helper dependency
  • It submits one fixed multi-request workload that preserves the same overlap and speculative-decoding state needed for the bug
  • It writes:
    • request_payloads.json
    • repro_config.json
    • timeline.json
    • responses.json
    • error.txt
    • recovered_chain_trace.jsonl
  • recovered_chain_trace.jsonl is the key attribution artifact. It records the recovered-token chain directly from the standalone reproducer

gRPC script breakdown

repro_g4_recovered_minus1_grpc.py is a standalone public gRPC reproducer.

  • It reads the Qwen3 checkpoint path from VLLM_POC_G4_MODEL or the built-in /path/to/qwen3 placeholder
  • It starts a temporary vllm.entrypoints.grpc_server process
  • It sends only public Generate and Abort RPCs
  • It submits one fixed overlapping request sequence that preserves the same speculative-decoding state needed for the bug
  • After the crash window, it sends one more public Generate probe request to confirm that later gRPC requests also fail after the worker dies
  • It writes:
    • request_payloads.json
    • timeline.json
    • server_command.json
    • responses.json
    • post_crash_probe.json
    • server.stdout.log
    • server.stderr.log

Observed result

Local repro typically ends with:

  • a recovered-token trace showing:
    • sample_recovered_tokens_return -> recovered_token_ids[0] = 151936
    • prepare_next_token_ids_padded -> next_token_ids[0] = -1
    • set_inputs_first_pass -> input_ids_after[0] = -1
    • embed_input_ids_out_of_range -> input_ids[0] = -1
  • CUDA error: device-side assert triggered
  • a fatal engine-side failure

gRPC repro typically ends with:

  • the triggering gRPC requests failing with INTERNAL: EngineCore encountered an issue. See stack trace (above) for the root cause.
  • server logs showing the worker dies with CUDA error: device-side assert triggered
  • a later public probe request also failing after the worker is dead

This demonstrates that the issue is reachable through the public gRPC request surface, not only through a local reproducer.

Log snippets

Local recovered-chain trace

sample_recovered_tokens_return:
  recovered_token_ids = [151936, ...]
  vocab_size = 151936

prepare_next_token_ids_padded:
  sampled_token_ids_head = [[151936, -1, -1, ...], ...]
  next_token_ids = [-1, ...]

set_inputs_first_pass:
  input_ids_after = [-1, 0, 0, 0, ...]

embed_input_ids_out_of_range:
  input_ids = [-1, 0, 0, 0, ...]

gRPC server log

torch.AcceleratorError: CUDA error: device-side assert triggered
...
vllm.v1.engine.exceptions.EngineDeadError: EngineCore encountered an issue. See stack trace (above) for the root cause.
...
Error in Generate for request post_crash_probe
vllm.v1.engine.exceptions.EngineDeadError: EngineCore encountered an issue. See stack trace (above) for the root cause.

Root cause

This is a speculative-decoding state-handling bug, not an invalid frontend token-id input bug.

The root cause is that a recovered speculative token can become equal to vocab_size, then be selected as the live next token for a request, then be converted to -1, and that converted -1 is still written back into live drafter input ids and later consumed by the drafting / embedding / attention path.

For the Qwen3 checkpoint used here:

  • 151936 == vocab_size

This value should be described as the model vocab_size boundary value, not as a legal token id.

Attachments

The attached bundle for this report should contain:

  • repro_g4_recovered_minus1_local.py
  • repro_g4_recovered_minus1_grpc.py

These two standalone scripts are sufficient to reproduce the issue and its public gRPC reachability.

Fix

A fix for this vulnerability has been merged in: https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/44744

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
vllm
>= 0.17.1, < 0.24.0
0.24.0

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 → 0.24.0

pip
pip install --upgrade "vllm>=0.24.0"
poetry
poetry add "vllm>=0.24.0"
uv
uv add "vllm>=0.24.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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