Skip to content

GHSA-q8gq-377p-jq3r CVE-2026-41523 PYSEC-2026-2300

vLLM: Security Check Bypass via assert Statement in Activation Function Loading Allows Arbitrary Code Execution

High PyPI
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.91%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 60.09% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-617 Reachable Assertion
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
0.22.0
Upgrade vllm to this version or later

Description

Summary

An assert-based security check in vLLM's activation function loading allows any unauthenticated attacker to achieve arbitrary code execution on the server by publishing a malicious HuggingFace model, when vLLM runs in Python optimized mode (python -O or PYTHONOPTIMIZE=1).

Details

vLLM uses an assert statement at vllm/model_executor/layers/pooler/activations.py:48 as its sole security control to restrict which activation functions can be loaded from a HuggingFace model's config.json:

# vllm/model_executor/layers/pooler/activations.py:35-53
function_name: str | None = None
if (
    hasattr(config, "sentence_transformers")
    and "activation_fn" in config.sentence_transformers
):
    function_name = config.sentence_transformers["activation_fn"]
elif (
    hasattr(config, "sbert_ce_default_activation_function")
    and config.sbert_ce_default_activation_function is not None
):
    function_name = config.sbert_ce_default_activation_function

if function_name is not None:
    assert function_name.startswith("torch.nn.modules."), (
        "Loading of activation functions is restricted to "
        "torch.nn.modules for security reasons"
    )
    fn = resolve_obj_by_qualname(function_name)()

Python's assert statements are stripped at compile time when running in optimized mode (python -O or PYTHONOPTIMIZE=1). When the assert is absent, the attacker-controlled function_name from the model's config.json is passed directly to resolve_obj_by_qualname() — an unrestricted import gadget:

def resolve_obj_by_qualname(qualname: str) -> Any:
    module_name, obj_name = qualname.rsplit(".", 1)
    module = importlib.import_module(module_name)
    return getattr(module, obj_name)

This is the same vulnerability class as CVE-2017-1000433 (pysaml2 assert-based auth bypass), flagged by Bandit B101 and Ruff S101, and the reason Django proactively replaced all assert-based security checks (ticket #32508).

Attacker-controlled input sources:

  • config.sentence_transformers["activation_fn"] (line 40)
  • config.sbert_ce_default_activation_function (line 45)

Affected call sites — get_act_fn() is called via resolve_classifier_act_fn() from:

  • vllm/model_executor/layers/pooler/seqwise/poolers.py:122 — SequencePooler
  • vllm/model_executor/layers/pooler/tokwise/poolers.py:130 — TokenPooler

Broader systemic risk: resolve_obj_by_qualname is called from ~20 locations across the codebase with no validation of its own. Any future caller feeding user-controlled input to it without validation creates the same vulnerability class.

Suggested fix: Replace the assert with an explicit conditional raise:

if not function_name.startswith("torch.nn.modules."):
    raise ValueError(
        "Loading of activation functions is restricted to "
        "torch.nn.modules for security reasons"
    )

Impact

Arbitrary code execution. A malicious model author publishes a HuggingFace model with a crafted config.json. When a victim loads this model with vLLM running under python -O or PYTHONOPTIMIZE=1, arbitrary code executes during model initialization with the privileges of the vLLM process.

The attack requires:

  1. Victim loads a malicious model from HuggingFace (user interaction)
  2. vLLM runs under python -O or PYTHONOPTIMIZE=1 (documented in production use)
  3. Model uses a cross-encoder architecture (e.g. BERT or RoBERTa with sequence classification)

Coordinated disclosure note: This vulnerability was also reported via huntr.com on April 2, 2026 (https://huntr.com/bounties/dcb05b04-e625-41e7-adbc-bbae0cc2d64c). A GitHub Security Advisory was also filed because it is vLLM's stated preferred disclosure channel per SECURITY.md.

Fix

A fix for this was introduced in this commit: https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/commit/b3c7ffcab82c2439726f8cb213800f6f38c023d3

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
vllm
< 0.22.0
0.22.0

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 → 0.22.0

pip
pip install --upgrade "vllm>=0.22.0"
poetry
poetry add "vllm>=0.22.0"
uv
uv add "vllm>=0.22.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-617: Reachable Assertion

The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Make sensitive open/close operation non reachable by directly user-controlled data (e.g. open/close resources)
  • Implementation: Perform input validation on user data.

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

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