CVE-2026-84377VulnerabilityPublished 1 Oct 2026Updated 13 Nov 2026

rawdog · LiteLLM: Authenticated SSRF and provider-credential exfiltration via unvalidated request-body routing parameters

Affects rawdogSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-84377· Medium 6.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 0.1.6_29 or 0.1.6_26 when convenient.

Data as of 13 Nov 2026, 23:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 0.1.6_29, 0.1.6_26

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 2 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 13 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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

Upgrade rawdog to 0.1.6_29 or 0.1.6_26.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewrawdog`pkg:brew/rawdog`Other threats	Affected >=0.1.5 <0.1.6_26 >=0.1.6_27 <0.1.6_29	Fixed in 0.1.6_26 0.1.6_29

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Apply the official patches available in versions 0.1.6_26 and 0.1.6_29 or later to remediate the vulnerability. As a workaround, set the configuration parameter `general_settings.allow_client_side_credentials` to `false` to prevent callers from overriding connection parameters. Additionally, restrict proxy keys to trusted callers and block affected parameters such as `api_base`, `base_url`, `model_list`, `fallbacks`, and provider credential fields at a reverse proxy or API gateway.

Description

An authenticated user of the LiteLLM proxy can exploit insufficient request-body validation to redirect outbound provider calls to attacker-controlled destinations, causing the proxy to leak its configured provider credentials. The vulnerability arises because the proxy uses a denylist that misses some sensitive parameters and does not inspect nested parameters, allowing credential exfiltration and Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) against internal services. This issue affects specific versions prior to 0.1.6_26 and 0.1.6_29 and has been fixed in those versions.

Impact

Authenticated users can redirect outbound provider calls to attacker-controlled endpoints, causing the proxy to send its own configured provider credentials to those endpoints. This results in credential exfiltration and enables SSRF attacks against internal services reachable from the proxy. The confidentiality of upstream provider credentials and other configured secrets is compromised. There is no indication of integrity or availability impact. The CVSS 3.1 score is 6.5 (medium severity) with network attack vector, low attack complexity, and privileges required.

Summary

LiteLLM proxy versions before 0.1.6_26 and 0.1.6_29 contain a vulnerability where authenticated users can manipulate routing parameters in the request body that are insufficiently validated. The proxy's denylist validation fails to cover all sensitive parameters and does not inspect nested fields, enabling attackers to override routing or credential values without clearing stored keys. This leads to exfiltration of upstream provider credentials and allows SSRF attacks against internal services accessible from the proxy. The vulnerability is fixed in versions 0.1.6_26 and 0.1.6_29 and later.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 13 Nov 2026, 23:20 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats