Skip to content

GHSA-rxc4-3w6r-4v47 CVE-2025-48956 PYSEC-2026-2021

vllm API endpoints vulnerable to Denial of Service Attacks

High PyPI
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.56%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 46.92% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Fix
0.10.1.1
Upgrade vllm to this version or later

Description

Summary

A Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability can be triggered by sending a single HTTP GET request with an extremely large header to an HTTP endpoint. This results in server memory exhaustion, potentially leading to a crash or unresponsiveness. The attack does not require authentication, making it exploitable by any remote user.

Details

The vulnerability leverages the abuse of HTTP headers. By setting a header such as X-Forwarded-For to a very large value like ("A" * 5_800_000_000), the server's HTTP parser or application logic may attempt to load the entire request into memory, overwhelming system resources.

Impact

What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted? Type of vulnerability: Denial of Service (DoS)

Resolution

Upgrade to a version of vLLM that includes appropriate HTTP limits by deafult, or use a proxy in front of vLLM which provides protection against this issue.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
vllm
>= 0.1.0, < 0.10.1.1
0.10.1.1

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 → 0.10.1.1

pip
pip install --upgrade "vllm>=0.10.1.1"
poetry
poetry add "vllm>=0.10.1.1"
uv
uv add "vllm>=0.10.1.1"

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-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-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