SSRF in berriai/litellm
Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: not blocked.
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in berriai/litellm version 1.38.10. This vulnerability allows users to specify the `api_base` parameter when making requests to `POST /chat/completions`, causing the application to… More
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in berriai/litellm version 1.38.10. This vulnerability allows users to specify the `api_base` parameter when making requests to `POST /chat/completions`, causing the application to send the request to the domain specified by `api_base`. This request includes the OpenAI API key. A malicious user can set the `api_base` to their own domain and intercept the OpenAI API key, leading to unauthorized access and potential misuse of the API key.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 3.0Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.Unchanged
- Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.High
- Integrity impactData cannot be changed by the attacker.None
- Availability impactThe component keeps working normally.None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NPublic exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.
At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.
A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.
Public exploits
1 found- NucleiCVE-2024-6587.yamldetection template, replayed in our lab
Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.
Timeline
- 2024-09-13CVE publishedCVE List
- 2025-07-21Cloudflare ships a ruleBerriAI - SSRF - CVE:CVE-2024-6587
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it throughparanoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked itparanoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
First rule 2025-07-21, 311 days after the CVE was published.
BerriAI - SSRF - CVE:CVE-2024-6587. Previous action: Log. New action: Log. This is a New Detection
BerriAI - SSRF - CVE:CVE-2024-6587. Previous action: Log. New action: Disabled. This is a New Detection
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.