Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

BerriAI LiteLLM Command Injection Vulnerability

Exploited · KEV 2026-06-08Metasploit moduleCVE-2026-42271CWE-77CWE-78

Exploited since 2026-06-08. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: not blocked.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
Not blocked
CVSS
8.7
EPSS
91.4% Top 0.2%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2026-05-08
LiteLLM is a proxy server (AI Gateway) to call LLM APIs in OpenAI (or native) format. From version 1.74.2 to before version 1.83.7, two endpoints used to preview an MCP server before saving it — POST /mcp-rest/test/connection and POST… More

LiteLLM is a proxy server (AI Gateway) to call LLM APIs in OpenAI (or native) format. From version 1.74.2 to before version 1.83.7, two endpoints used to preview an MCP server before saving it — POST /mcp-rest/test/connection and POST /mcp-rest/test/tools/list — accepted a full server configuration in the request body, including the command, args, and env fields used by the stdio transport. When called with a stdio configuration, the endpoints attempted to connect, which spawned the supplied command as a subprocess on the proxy host with the privileges of the proxy process. The endpoints were gated only by a valid proxy API key, with no role check. Any authenticated user — including holders of low-privilege internal-user keys — could therefore run arbitrary commands on the host. This issue has been patched in version 1.83.7.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2026-42271: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 4.0
High · 8.7 / 10

Exploitable over the network under specific conditions, with low privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability; other systems can also be hit (full loss of confidentiality).

Over the internetAny user loginNo user actionWorks reliablySpreads beyond the appFull compromise
How the score is built11 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Attack requirementsThe attack only works under specific conditions, such as a race or a particular setup.
    Present
  • Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an ordinary user account.
    Low
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
    High
  • Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can have all their data read.
    High
  • Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.
    None
  • Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.
    None
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationActive

Attackers are exploiting this in the wild.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

2 found
1 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB1 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2026-04-21
    Metasploit module published
    BerriAI LiteLLM Proxy MCP Test Endpoint Command Execution
  2. 2026-05-08
    CVE published
    CVE List
  3. 2026-06-08
    Added to CISA KEV
    Confirmed exploitation in the wild
  4. 2026-09-16
    F5 ships a rule
    LiteLLM Command Execution
  5. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it through
    paranoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
  6. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked it
    paranoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

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 row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

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)No public claim

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 rulesNo public claim

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 patchesBefore feed history

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)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2026-09-16, 131 days after the CVE was published.

2026-09-16New rule200103689Source
Added: signature 200103689 "LiteLLM Command Execution" (Command Execution, risk High), systems: Other Web Server. References: CVE-2026-42271, CVE-2026-30623.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

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.