Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.54% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-84377High confidence
LiteLLM: Authenticated SSRF and provider-credential exfiltration via unvalidated request-body routing parameters
BerriAI · litellm
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-3CV6-JPF6-8222 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
6.5MediumCVSS 3.1
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix
Fix availability varies by productMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 9 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Apply the linked authoritative mitigation while planning the permanent fix.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs BerriAI litellm and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Remediation availability differs by product scope
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 9 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
- Red Hat Product Security: 9 affected or under-investigation product states without a fixed product state in the same current advisory
Open-source package ranges19 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPIlitellm | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0; fixed 1.88.6 | 1.88.6 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 1 Oct 2026 |
| PyPIlitellm | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.89.0; fixed 1.89.7 | 1.89.7 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 1 Oct 2026 |
| PyPIlitellm | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.90.0; fixed 1.90.7 | 1.90.7 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 1 Oct 2026 |
| PyPIlitellm | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.91.0; fixed 1.91.5 | 1.91.5 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 1 Oct 2026 |
| PyPIlitellm | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.92.0; fixed 1.92.2 | 1.92.2 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 1 Oct 2026 |
| PyPIlitellm | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.93.0; fixed 1.93.2 | 1.93.2 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 1 Oct 2026 |
| PyPIlitellm | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.94.0; fixed 1.94.3 | 1.94.3 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 1 Oct 2026 |
| PyPIlitellm | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.95.0; fixed 1.95.1 | 1.95.1 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 1 Oct 2026 |
| PyPIlitellm | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.96.0; fixed 1.96.2 | 1.96.2 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 1 Oct 2026 |
| PyPIlitellm | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0; fixed 1.88.6; introduced 1.89.0; fixed 1.89.7; introduced 1.90.0; fixed 1.90.7; introduced 1.91.0; fixed 1.91.5; introduced 1.92.0; fixed 1.92.2; introduced 1.93.0; fixed 1.93.2; introduced 1.94.0; fixed 1.94.3; introduced 1.95.0; fixed 1.95.1; introduced 1.96.0; fixed 1.96.2 | 1.88.6, 1.89.7, 1.90.7, 1.91.5, 1.92.2, 1.93.2, 1.94.3, 1.95.1, 1.96.2 | OSV record ↗source linked ecosystem record · 1 Oct 2026 |
| piplitellm | < 1.88.6 | 1.88.6 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 30 Sep 2026 |
| piplitellm | >= 1.89.0, < 1.89.7 | 1.89.7 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 30 Sep 2026 |
| piplitellm | >= 1.90.0, < 1.90.7 | 1.90.7 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 30 Sep 2026 |
| piplitellm | >= 1.91.0, < 1.91.5 | 1.91.5 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 30 Sep 2026 |
| piplitellm | >= 1.92.0, < 1.92.2 | 1.92.2 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 30 Sep 2026 |
| piplitellm | >= 1.93.0, < 1.93.2 | 1.93.2 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 30 Sep 2026 |
| piplitellm | >= 1.94.0, < 1.94.3 | 1.94.3 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 30 Sep 2026 |
| piplitellm | >= 1.95.0, < 1.95.1 | 1.95.1 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 30 Sep 2026 |
| piplitellm | >= 1.96.0, < 1.96.2 | 1.96.2 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 30 Sep 2026 |
Direct vendor intelligence
1 currentAuthoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
CVE-2026-84377 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitylitellm: LiteLLM: Authenticated Server-Side Request Forgery and credential exposure
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
- exploit-intelligence-tech-preview/vulnerability-analysis-rhel9 as a component of Exploit Intelligence
- lightspeed-core/lightspeed-stack-rhel9 as a component of Lightspeed Core
- ansible-automation-platform-26/lightspeed-chatbot-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- ansible-automation-platform-27/lightspeed-chatbot-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- rhoai/odh-llama-stack-core-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)
- rhoai/odh-mlflow-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)
- rhoai/odh-th-torch-cpu-py312-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)
- rhoai/odh-th-torch-cuda-py312-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)
- rhoai/odh-trustyai-garak-lls-provider-dsp-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)
- Summary
- A flaw was found in LiteLLM, a proxy server for Large Language Model (LLM) APIs. An authenticated remote attacker could exploit incomplete request validation to redirect outbound provider calls to an attacker-controlled destination. This Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability could lead to the exposure of configured provider credentials and other secrets, and allow server-side requests to internal services reachable by the proxy.
- Remediation
- Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 9 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by product01
What, why and how
LiteLLM is a proxy server (AI Gateway) to call LLM APIs in OpenAI (or native) format. Prior to versions 1.88.6 and 1.96.2, any authenticated LiteLLM proxy user could redirect an outbound provider call to a destination the user controls and cause the proxy to send its configured provider credentials to that destination. Request validation in litellm/proxy/auth/auth_utils.py, litellm/proxy/common_request_processing.py, litellm/proxy/health_endpoints/_health_endpoints.py, litellm/proxy/image_endpoints/endpoints.py, and litellm/proxy/litellm_pre_call_utils.py used incomplete checks that did not cover every sensitive parameter or inspect equivalent values across nested request fields, path values, and bracket-notation form data. Routing and credential parameters including api_base, base_url, model_list, fallbacks, and litellm_credential_name could therefore be applied without clearing the operator's stored key, exposing upstream provider credentials and other configured secrets and permitting server-side requests to internal services reachable by the proxy. This issue is fixed in versions 1.88.6 and 1.96.2.
What
LiteLLM is a proxy server (AI Gateway) to call LLM APIs in OpenAI (or native) format. Prior to versions 1.88.6 and 1.96.2, any authenticated LiteLLM proxy user could redirect an outbound provider call to a destination the user controls and cause the proxy to send its configured provider credentials to that destination. Request validation in litellm/proxy/auth/auth_utils.py, litellm/proxy/common_request_processing.py, litellm/proxy/health_endpoints/_health_endpoints.py, litellm/proxy/image_endpoints/endpoints.py, and litellm/proxy/litellm_pre_call_utils.py used incomplete checks that did not cover every sensitive parameter or inspect equivalent values across nested request fields, path values, and bracket-notation form data. Routing and credential parameters including api_base, base_url, model_list, fallbacks, and litellm_credential_name could therefore be applied without clearing the operator's stored key, exposing upstream provider credentials and other configured secrets and permitting server-side requests to internal services reachable by the proxy. This issue is fixed in versions 1.88.6 and 1.96.2.
Why
The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
LiteLLM is a proxy server (AI Gateway) to call LLM APIs in OpenAI (or native) format. Prior to versions 1.88.6 and 1.96.2, any authenticated LiteLLM proxy user could redirect an outbound provider call to a destination the user controls and cause the proxy to send its configured provider credentials to that destination. Request validation in litellm/proxy/auth/auth_utils.py, litellm/proxy/common_request_processing.py, litellm/proxy/health_endpoints/_health_endpoints.py, litellm/proxy/image_endpoints/endpoints.py, and litellm/proxy/litellm_pre_call_utils.py used incomplete checks that did not cover every sensitive parameter or inspect equivalent values across nested request fields, path values, and bracket-notation form data. Routing and credential parameters including api_base, base_url, model_list, fallbacks, and litellm_credential_name could therefore be applied without clearing the operator's stored key, exposing upstream provider credentials and other configured secrets and permitting server-side requests to internal services reachable by the proxy. This issue is fixed in versions 1.88.6 and 1.96.2.
Why
The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-918 ↗
CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix availability varies by product
- Affected
- exploit-intelligence-tech-preview/vulnerability-analysis-rhel9 as a component of Exploit Intelligence
- lightspeed-core/lightspeed-stack-rhel9 as a component of Lightspeed Core
- ansible-automation-platform-26/lightspeed-chatbot-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- ansible-automation-platform-27/lightspeed-chatbot-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- rhoai/odh-llama-stack-core-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)
- rhoai/odh-mlflow-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)
- rhoai/odh-th-torch-cpu-py312-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)
- rhoai/odh-th-torch-cuda-py312-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)
- rhoai/odh-trustyai-garak-lls-provider-dsp-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)
- Action
- Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
- Workaround
- Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 2 Sept 2026 · Last source change 3 Sept 2026, 14:31 UTC · CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-03
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-70236
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD awaiting enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed from remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-84377 to remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-84377.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-84377
- After
- remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-84377
- Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Mitigation available.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- Awaiting fix
- After
- Mitigation available
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-70236 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-70236"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.