GHSA-wpfp-gwwc-vwq6 CVE-2026-47102 PYSEC-2026-2600

LiteLLM allows a user to modify their own user_role via the /user/update endpoint

High PyPI

Severity: 0.0 / 10; High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.65%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 51.33% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 1.83.10; Upgrade litellm to this version or later

Description

LiteLLM prior to 1.83.10 allows a user to modify their own user_role via the /user/update endpoint. While the endpoint correctly restricts users to updating only their own account, it does not restrict which fields may be changed. A user who can reach this endpoint can set their role to proxy_admin, gaining full administrative access to LiteLLM including all users, teams, keys, models, and prompt history. Users with the org_admin role have legitimate access to this endpoint and can exploit this vulnerability without chaining any additional flaw.

Affected versions

PyPI

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
litellm	`< 1.83.10`	`1.83.10`
litellm	`< 1.83.10`	`1.83.10`

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 → `1.83.10`

pip

pip install --upgrade "litellm>=1.83.10"

poetry

poetry add "litellm>=1.83.10"

uv

uv add "litellm>=1.83.10"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Attack requirements: None
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system): High
Integrity (vulnerable system): High
Availability (vulnerable system): High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems): None
Integrity (subsequent systems): None
Availability (subsequent systems): None

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Advisories

Packages

Timeline

May 21, 2026 Published
Oct 8, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why 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