Skip to content

GHSA-gw2q-qw9j-rgv7 CVE-2024-10188 PYSEC-2026-1549

LiteLLM Vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS)

High PyPI
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.57%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 47.15% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Fix
1.53.1.dev1
Upgrade litellm to this version or later

Description

A vulnerability in BerriAI/litellm, as of commit 26c03c9, allows unauthenticated users to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) by exploiting the use of ast.literal_eval to parse user input. This function is not safe and is prone to DoS attacks, which can crash the litellm Python server.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
litellm
< 1.53.1.dev1
1.53.1.dev1
litellm
< 1.53.1.dev1
1.53.1.dev1

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.

litellm PyPI → 1.53.1.dev1

pip
pip install --upgrade "litellm>=1.53.1.dev1"
poetry
poetry add "litellm>=1.53.1.dev1"
uv
uv add "litellm>=1.53.1.dev1"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.0 7.5

CVSS:3.0/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-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • 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. 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.
  • 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, or 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 is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-7488-6r32-c95q
LiteLLM: MCP Authentication Bypass via OAuth2 Passthrough Fallback
High Known exploited Also affects litellm
GHSA-v4p8-mg3p-g94g
LiteLLM: Authenticated command execution via MCP stdio test endpoints
High Known exploited Also affects litellm
GHSA-r75f-5x8p-qvmc
LiteLLM has SQL Injection in Proxy API key verification
Critical Known exploited Also affects litellm
GHSA-g5ff-637f-6q2m
LiteLLM: internal_user_viewer arbitrary local file read via `vertex_ai_credentials`
High Also affects litellm
GHSA-hhww-mrg2-969h
LiteLLM vulnerable to reflected XSS in /sso/debug/callback
Medium Also affects litellm
GHSA-7hp6-4w63-5g45
LiteLLM: Privilege Escalation to Proxy Admin via Cross-Domain Reuse of the Salt Key
Critical Also affects litellm
GHSA-hx8v-g79f-8w5f
LiteLLM Proxy has server-side request forgery via the `user_config` request parameter
Medium Also affects litellm
GHSA-3cv6-jpf6-8222
LiteLLM: Authenticated SSRF and provider-credential exfiltration via unvalidated request-body routing parameters
Medium Also affects litellm
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