LiteLLM, a widely used AI gateway, reuses one cryptographic context for stored secrets and session tokens, so any authenticated internal user can get the API-key flow to encrypt a forged administrator credential and then replay it as a bearer token. The result is full proxy administrator access and arbitrary command execution through the MCP stdio endpoint, which is why this is rated critical (CVSS 9.9, scope changed, low privileges, no user interaction). Versions after 1.91.0 are exploitable in the default configuration, and 1.87.0 through 1.90.x only when EXPERIMENTAL_UI_LOGIN is enabled. At publication there is no EPSS score, no KEV listing, no public exploit and no Nuclei template, but the commits that fix it are public and show the flaw, so a working exploit should be expected quickly. Upgrade to 1.100.4, 1.101.3, 1.102.2, 1.103.1 or 1.104.0-rc.2 now, rotate the master key, provider keys and any credentials stored on the proxy, and review the audit logs for unexpected admin actions and MCP stdio calls.
What is the risk?
Critical. Exploitation needs only low-privilege authenticated access (any internal user or API key holder), is network-reachable, has low complexity and needs no user interaction. The changed scope reflects that compromising the gateway exposes the host and everything it connects to. Mixing the keys used for secret encryption and session tokens is a design flaw, which makes the exploit reliable and repeatable. No exploitation in the wild is reported and no EPSS or KEV data was available at publication (confidence: MEDIUM on exploitation likelihood, HIGH on technical severity). The risk is highest for multi-tenant gateways where many internal teams or contractors hold virtual keys.
How does the attack unfold?
What systems are affected?
| Package | Ecosystem | Vulnerable Range | Patched |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiteLLM | pip | >= 1.91.0, < 1.100.4 | 1.100.4 |
Do you use LiteLLM? You're affected.
How severe is it?
What is the attack surface?
What should I do?
1 step1) Upgrade to a fixed release: 1.100.4, 1.101.3, 1.102.2, 1.103.1 or 1.104.0-rc.2. 2) On 1.87.0 through 1.90.x, disable EXPERIMENTAL_UI_LOGIN as an interim measure; versions after 1.91.0 have no such workaround, so patch or restrict access. 3) Limit network exposure of the proxy to trusted segments and cut off untrusted internal users. 4) Disable or restrict the MCP stdio endpoint if it is not needed. 5) After patching, rotate the LiteLLM master and salt keys, all virtual keys and the upstream provider credentials, because the encrypted metadata may have been forged earlier. 6) Detect: look for API-key generation requests with unusual metadata, bearer tokens that do not match issued keys, admin actions from non-admin users, and unexpected child processes spawned by the proxy. 7) Run the proxy as a non-root user in a hardened container with minimal egress.
How is it classified?
Which compliance frameworks are affected?
This CVE is relevant to:
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-114612?
LiteLLM, a widely used AI gateway, reuses one cryptographic context for stored secrets and session tokens, so any authenticated internal user can get the API-key flow to encrypt a forged administrator credential and then replay it as a bearer token. The result is full proxy administrator access and arbitrary command execution through the MCP stdio endpoint, which is why this is rated critical (CVSS 9.9, scope changed, low privileges, no user interaction). Versions after 1.91.0 are exploitable in the default configuration, and 1.87.0 through 1.90.x only when EXPERIMENTAL_UI_LOGIN is enabled. At publication there is no EPSS score, no KEV listing, no public exploit and no Nuclei template, but the commits that fix it are public and show the flaw, so a working exploit should be expected quickly. Upgrade to 1.100.4, 1.101.3, 1.102.2, 1.103.1 or 1.104.0-rc.2 now, rotate the master key, provider keys and any credentials stored on the proxy, and review the audit logs for unexpected admin actions and MCP stdio calls.
Is CVE-2026-114612 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-114612 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-114612?
1) Upgrade to a fixed release: 1.100.4, 1.101.3, 1.102.2, 1.103.1 or 1.104.0-rc.2. 2) On 1.87.0 through 1.90.x, disable EXPERIMENTAL_UI_LOGIN as an interim measure; versions after 1.91.0 have no such workaround, so patch or restrict access. 3) Limit network exposure of the proxy to trusted segments and cut off untrusted internal users. 4) Disable or restrict the MCP stdio endpoint if it is not needed. 5) After patching, rotate the LiteLLM master and salt keys, all virtual keys and the upstream provider credentials, because the encrypted metadata may have been forged earlier. 6) Detect: look for API-key generation requests with unusual metadata, bearer tokens that do not match issued keys, admin actions from non-admin users, and unexpected child processes spawned by the proxy. 7) Run the proxy as a non-root user in a hardened container with minimal egress.
What systems are affected by CVE-2026-114612?
This vulnerability affects the following AI/ML architecture patterns: LLM gateways and proxies, Agent frameworks using MCP, Multi-tenant model serving, RAG pipelines routed through LiteLLM, Centralized LLM API key management.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-114612?
CVE-2026-114612 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.9 (CRITICAL). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.32%.
What is the AI security impact?
Affected AI Architectures
MITRE ATLAS Techniques
AML.T0012Valid AccountsAML.T0049Exploit Public-Facing ApplicationAML.T0050Command and Scripting InterpreterAML.T0053AI Agent Tool InvocationAML.T0091.000Application Access TokenCompliance Controls Affected
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
LiteLLM is a proxy server (AI Gateway) to call LLM APIs in OpenAI (or native) format. From 1.87.0 until 1.100.4, 1.101.3, 1.102.2, 1.103.1, and 1.104.0-rc.2, the proxy reuses one cryptographic context for at-rest secrets and session tokens, allowing an authenticated internal user to have crafted metadata containing a forged administrator credential encrypted and returned by the API-key flow. Replaying that ciphertext as a bearer token causes the proxy to trust the forged proxy administrator identity, permitting administrative access and arbitrary commands through the MCP stdio endpoint. Versions 1.87.0 through 1.90.x require EXPERIMENTAL_UI_LOGIN to be enabled, while versions after 1.91.0 are exploitable in the default configuration. This issue was fixed in LiteLLM 1.100.4, 1.101.3, 1.102.2, 1.103.1, and 1.104.0-rc.2.
Exploitation Scenario
An attacker holds a low-privilege internal LiteLLM key, for example a developer virtual key or a stolen key from a leaked repository. They call the API-key generation flow with crafted metadata that contains a serialized proxy administrator credential, and the proxy returns it encrypted with the same cryptographic context used for session tokens. The attacker replays that ciphertext as a bearer token, and the proxy accepts it as the proxy administrator. They then call the MCP stdio endpoint to run commands on the host, dump provider API keys and environment variables, and install persistence, or silently log all prompts that pass through the gateway.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-269Improper Privilege ManagementPrimaryCWE-269Improper Privilege ManagementPrimaryCWE-345Insufficient Verification of Data AuthenticityPrimaryCWE-345Insufficient Verification of Data AuthenticityPrimaryCWE-441Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')PrimaryCWE-441Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')PrimaryCWE-269Improper Privilege ManagementCWE-345Insufficient Verification of Data AuthenticityCWE-441Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')CWE-269 — Improper Privilege Management: The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an 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] Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HReferences
- github.com/advisories/GHSA-7hp6-4w63-5g45
- nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-114612
- github.com/BerriAI/litellm/commit/1d5fdc87fed66b49e1df8cf7d708ad93249eb7d0
- github.com/BerriAI/litellm/commit/9161d7f9d6073603ba61ee4aa5e2c0ef5b37a81b
- github.com/BerriAI/litellm/commit/9fa1a641119dd0d4fe43e93622eae5f482ceb63f
- github.com/BerriAI/litellm/commit/a80eacacee118fbed54e3d98f239d17a63fac818
- github.com/BerriAI/litellm/commit/f7cd90f09e9716652b38daec9f0640cdf49d582b
- github.com/BerriAI/litellm/releases/tag/v1.100.4
- github.com/BerriAI/litellm/releases/tag/v1.101.3
- github.com/BerriAI/litellm/releases/tag/v1.102.2
- github.com/BerriAI/litellm/releases/tag/v1.103.1
- github.com/BerriAI/litellm/releases/tag/v1.104.0-rc.2
- github.com/BerriAI/litellm/security/advisories/GHSA-7hp6-4w63-5g45
Timeline
Related Vulnerabilities
CVE-2026-306239.8LiteLLM: RCE via unsanitized MCP server config
Same package: litellmCVE-2026-370049.8LiteLLM: unauth SSTI in /prompts/test enables RCE
Same package: litellmCVE-2026-422089.8LiteLLM: SQL injection exposes LLM API credentials
Same package: litellmCVE-2026-543529.6Budibase: zip symlink bypass exposes all server secrets
Same package: litellmCVE-2026-350309.1LiteLLM: auth bypass via JWT cache key collision
Same package: litellm