CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
MEDIUM

CVE-2026-59823

CVE-2026-59823 — LiteLLM: Server-side request forgery via the `user_config` request parameter in LiteLLM Proxy

LiteLLM is a proxy server (AI Gateway) to call LLM APIs in OpenAI (or native) format. Prior to 1.83.9, an authenticated LiteLLM Proxy caller with a valid virtual key can place api_base inside the user_config request body to bypass is_request_body_safe, which blocks top-level api_base and base_url but previously did not inspect or reject user_config. Because user_config constructs the outbound router, the nested destination redirects a server-side request to an internal or external host selected by the caller and can expose endpoints the caller cannot otherwise access. This issue is fixed in version 1.83.9.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

berriai

litellm

CVSS base

5.3

MEDIUM

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

Products (1)

litellm

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
5.3CVSS 4.0MEDIUM——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-918

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • berriaievery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-918other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.