GHSA-x567-49g5-p4cf CVE-2026-115918 PYSEC-2026-4349

vLLM: Responses API bypasses trust_request_chat_template for chat_template_kwargs

Medium PyPI

Severity: 6.5 / 10; Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.35%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 28.70% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption; CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix: 0.32.0; Upgrade vllm to this version or later

Description

Summary

vLLM's /v1/responses endpoint accepts request-level chat_template_kwargs, but does not apply the --trust-request-chat-template gate that protects Chat Completions, render, tokenize, and pooling paths.

When the server is run with the documented default trust_request_chat_template=False and no explicit --chat-template, a Responses request can pass:

{"chat_template_kwargs": {"chat_template": "<attacker Jinja template>"}}

That key is preserved by ChatParams.get_apply_chat_template_kwargs() and then bound as the chat_template parameter to the shared HF renderer. Prior vLLM advisories establish that request-controlled Jinja chat templates can cause CPU/memory exhaustion. This report covers the current-head Responses sibling path missed by the earlier fixes.

Technical Details

The shared OpenAI frontend has a validation helper that rejects request-supplied chat templates unless the trust flag is enabled. It explicitly checks both top-level chat_template and chat_template_kwargs["chat_template"].

Responses is a separate serving path:

vllm/entrypoints/openai/responses/protocol.py exposes chat_template_kwargs.
ResponsesRequest.build_chat_params() merges request kwargs.
OpenAIServingResponses._effective_chat_template_kwargs() uses those kwargs.
ChatParams.get_apply_chat_template_kwargs() preserves a request chat_template key when the server chat template is None.
vllm/renderers/hf.py unpacks the result into safe_apply_chat_template.

There is no equivalent trust gate in vllm/entrypoints/openai/responses/serving.py.

Impact

An authenticated caller who can submit /v1/responses requests can supply a request-controlled Jinja chat template despite the trust flag being disabled. The expected fixed behavior is the same as Chat Completions: reject chat_template_kwargs["chat_template"] unless the server was started with --trust-request-chat-template.

Suggested Fix

Add trust_request_chat_template to OpenAIServingResponses.
Pass args.trust_request_chat_template when constructing the Responses serving object.
Reject request.chat_template_kwargs["chat_template"] before rendering when trust is false.
Keep ordinary kwargs such as enable_thinking working.
Add regression tests for default-deny and opt-in-allow behavior on /v1/responses.

Affected Package/Versions

Source sweep found the affected shape in:

v0.16.0
v0.18.0
v0.20.0
v0.21.0
v0.22.0
v0.22.1
v0.23.0
current checkout 470229c37efaf69c86e8bc97482b0b1ff7551c65
current origin/main b3f0a0a0df76dda92ec4b2c9335f77e84adad911

Suggested affected range:

>= 0.16.0, <= 0.23.0

Appendix: Duplicate Research

This is related to, but distinct from:

GHSA-6fvq-23cw-5628 / CVE-2025-61620
GHSA-69j4-grxj-j64p / CVE-2025-62426

Those advisories establish the security impact of request-controlled Jinja templates and chat_template_kwargs, but they cover older Chat Completions/tokenize implementations. This report covers a current /v1/responses sibling path that still lacks the trust gate.

Local prior submissions this report..029 do not cover this root cause.

This advisory was fixed in MR50300.

Affected versions

PyPI

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
vllm	`>= 0.16.0, < 0.32.0`	`0.32.0`
vllm	`>= 0.16.0, < 0.32.0`	`0.32.0`

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 → `0.32.0`

pip

pip install --upgrade "vllm>=0.32.0"

poetry

poetry add "vllm>=0.32.0"

uv

uv add "vllm>=0.32.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.5

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

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: Low
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.

CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.

How to prevent it

Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
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, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. 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.
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.
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, typically by using increasing time delays 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 can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).

References

Advisories

Fixes and patches

Packages

github.com/vllm-project/vllm

Timeline

Oct 26, 2026 Published
Oct 30, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why 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-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
PYSEC-2026-4353 vLLM from 0.20.0 before 0.30.0 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows remote attackers to crash the engine by sending inconsistent multimodal…	High	Also affects vllm

Credits: jperezdealgaba, rexpository

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