By Null Ventures MCP platform
Menu

vulnerability / NVI-00016095 / Revision 1

LiteLLM: Authentication Bypass via Host Header Injection

GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for litellm. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.

source listedactiveGHSA-4xpc-pv4p-pm3wCVE-2026-49468

This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.

01 / Meaning

Why it matters

Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.

CVSS

9.8 critical

GitHub source severity; exploitability and local consequence require separate evidence.

As of · GitHub Advisory Database

02 / Applicability

The affected context

Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.

litellm

source listed
  • < 1.84.0

### Impact A Host-header parsing flaw in the LiteLLM proxy could, under specific conditions, allow unauthenticated access to protected management routes. The auth layer derived the effective route from `request.url.path` in `litellm/proxy/auth/auth_utils.py::get_request_route()`, which Starlette reconstructs from the `Host` header. A crafted `Host` could therefore make the auth gate evaluate a different route from the one FastAPI dispatched. **Most deployments are not affected.** The bypass is blocked by any upstream layer that validates or normalizes `Host`, such as: - a CDN or WAF, such as Cloudflare - a reverse proxy with `server_name` allowlists - a host-based load balancer **LiteLLM Cloud customers are not affected.** ### Patches Fixed in **`1.84.0`**. Upgrade to `1.84.0` or later. No configuration change is required. ### Workarounds If upgrading is not immediately possible, place the proxy behind an upstream component that validates or normalizes the `Host` header before forwarding (a CDN/WAF, a reverse proxy with explicit `server_name` allowlists, or a cloud load balancer with host-based routing rules), or otherwise restrict network access to the proxy listener. ##

GitHub Advisory Database

03 / Response

What to do next

  1. investigate

    Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.

    Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. GitHub Advisory Database

A fixed release is not deployment evidence.

Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.

04 / Limits

What this report cannot establish

  • Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
Read the collection and interpretation limits ↗

05 / Provenance

Sources you can inspect

Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.

  1. GHSA-4xpc-pv4p-pm3w ↗

    GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory

    Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.

Public revision history

Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.

  1. Revision 1 ·

    First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.

Read the public revision data ↗

The next step is private

Bring the question into your environment.

The connected workflow is a development preview for inventory, contextual matching, owner decisions and evidence-based verification. No system-specific result is generated by this page.

See the synthetic workflow preview ↗