VulnerabilityPublished 9 Sep 2025Updated 10 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-10164: lmsys sglang · Deserialization

Affects lmsys sglangSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
lmsys sglang	Affected =0.4.6	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Restrict network access to services handling serialized_named_tensors to trusted internal networks or VPNs, minimizing exposure to untrusted external sources. 2) Employ strict input validation and sanitization at the application layer to detect and reject malformed or unexpected serialized data before deserialization. 3) Utilize runtime application self-protection (RASP) or web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to monitor and block suspicious deserialization patterns or anomalous payloads targeting the vulnerable function. 4) Isolate the vulnerable component within a sandboxed environment or container to limit the blast radius of a potential compromise. 5) Monitor logs and network traffic for indicators of exploitation attempts, including unusual deserialization activity or remote code execution indicators. 6) Plan and prioritize upgrading to a patched version once available or consider alternative software solutions without this vulnerability. 7) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on deserialization attack vectors to validate the effectiveness of implemented controls.

Description

A security flaw has been discovered in lmsys sglang 0.4.6. Affected by this vulnerability is the function main of the file /update_weights_from_tensor. The manipulation of the argument serialized_named_tensors results in deserialization. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk, especially for those utilizing lmsys sglang 0.4.6 in their machine learning workflows or tensor processing pipelines. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized remote code execution, potentially allowing attackers to compromise sensitive data, disrupt operations, or pivot within internal networks. Given the remote and unauthenticated nature of the exploit, attackers could target exposed services or APIs that process serialized tensor data. This could impact sectors relying on AI/ML infrastructure, including finance, healthcare, manufacturing, and research institutions across Europe. The medium severity rating suggests that while the impact is not catastrophic, it is substantial enough to warrant immediate attention. The absence of vendor patches means organizations must rely on compensating controls to prevent exploitation. Additionally, the public availability of exploit code increases the risk of opportunistic attacks, making timely mitigation critical to protect European digital assets and maintain compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…