CVE-2025-46722
Vllm 0.7.0 – 0.9.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:LSummary
CVE-2025-46722 is a medium-severity Incomplete Comparison with Missing Factors (CWE-1023) vulnerability in Vllm Vllm. Its CVSS base score is 4.2 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Masquerading (T1036); ranked at the 20th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as NLP and Transformers; in the Data-Related Vulnerabilities risk domain.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-16188
Vulnerability Data
vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). In versions starting from 0.7.0 to before 0.9.0, in the file vllm/multimodal/hasher.py, the MultiModalHasher class has a security and data integrity issue in its image hashing method. Currently,…
more
it serializes PIL.Image.Image objects using only obj.tobytes(), which returns only the raw pixel data, without including metadata such as the image’s shape (width, height, mode). As a result, two images of different sizes (e.g., 30x100 and 100x30) with the same pixel byte sequence could generate the same hash value. This may lead to hash collisions, incorrect cache hits, and even data leakage or security risks. This issue has been patched in version 0.9.0.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- NLP and Transformers
- Risk Domain
- Data-Related Vulnerabilities
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: llms, vllm
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V6.3.4V6.3.5V6.1.3V6.5.7
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SI-10 requires validity checks on supplied inputs, directly stopping acceptance of internally inconsistent complex data.
Mandating that access-control decisions apply the full set of required rules to each request structurally eliminates missing-factor comparisons.
Access enforcement requires that every authorization decision evaluate all relevant entity attributes, directly stopping incomplete comparisons from being used.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices (reviews, testing, static analysis) directly prevent incomplete comparison flaws from being introduced.
Authentication decisions often rely on multi-factor comparisons; incomplete comparisons directly weaken this control.
Enforcing access policy requires complete evaluation of all relevant attributes; missing factors undermine authorization decisions.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect missing comparison factors, yet testing is only one part of the control's scope.
Secure development lifecycle requires input validation and consistency checks that directly address CWE-1288.
Application security requirements can mandate complete multi-factor comparisons, but the control is broader than this single weakness.
Secure architecture principles can require exhaustive entity comparisons, yet the control addresses many other design concerns.
Secure coding standards can forbid incomplete comparisons, but the control covers a wide range of coding issues.