CVE-2025-0628VulnerabilityPublished 20 Mar 2025Updated 15 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-0628: berriai/litellm · Incorrect Privilege Assignment

Affects berriai/litellmSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

8.1High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 Mar 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

1. Immediately audit all API keys issued to users with the 'internal_user_viewer' role and revoke any keys with excessive privileges. 2. Implement strict role-based access control (RBAC) policies ensuring that API keys are generated with the principle of least privilege, limiting access strictly to necessary endpoints. 3. Introduce multi-factor authentication (MFA) for administrative functions to add an additional security layer. 4. Monitor API usage logs for unusual access patterns, especially calls to administrative endpoints from accounts with viewer roles. 5. Engage with BerriAI to obtain patches or updates addressing this vulnerability as soon as they become available. 6. Conduct a thorough security review of authorization mechanisms within litellm and related applications to identify and remediate similar privilege assignment issues. 7. Educate internal teams about the risk and signs of privilege escalation attacks to enhance detection and response capabilities.

Description

An improper authorization vulnerability exists in the main-latest version of BerriAI/litellm. When a user with the role 'internal_user_viewer' logs into the application, they are provided with an overly privileged API key. This key can be used to access all the admin functionality of the application, including endpoints such as '/users/list' and '/users/get_users'. This vulnerability allows for privilege escalation within the application, enabling any account to become a PROXY ADMIN.

Impact

For European organizations, exploitation of this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive user data and administrative controls within the litellm application. This could result in data breaches, unauthorized user management, and potential manipulation or disruption of services relying on litellm. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and government that use BerriAI products may face regulatory compliance violations under GDPR due to unauthorized data exposure. The ability to escalate privileges without user interaction increases the risk of automated or stealthy attacks, potentially compromising internal systems and sensitive information. Additionally, the breach of administrative functions could facilitate further lateral movement within networks, amplifying the overall security risk and operational impact.

Summary

CVE-2025-0628 identifies an incorrect privilege assignment vulnerability (CWE-266) in the BerriAI litellm application. Specifically, users assigned the 'internal_user_viewer' role are erroneously provisioned with API keys that grant them full administrative access, including endpoints that manage user data and administrative functions. This improper authorization flaw allows any user with this role to escalate their privileges to a PROXY ADMIN level, bypassing intended access controls. The vulnerability is remotely exploitable over the network (AV:N), requires low attack complexity (AC:L), and only low privileges (PR:L) but no user interaction (UI:N). The impact on confidentiality and integrity is high, as attackers can access sensitive user information and modify administrative settings. Availability impact is not significant. The vulnerability affects unspecified versions of litellm, and no patches or exploit code are currently publicly available. The flaw stems from a failure in enforcing least privilege principles during API key generation and role assignment, highlighting a critical security design oversight in the authorization mechanism of the application.

CWE-266Incorrect Privilege Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 15 Oct 2025, 13:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-266

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats