CVE-2026-48746
Vllm 0.3.0 – 0.22.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-48746 is a critical-severity HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444) vulnerability in Vllm Vllm. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 36% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as APIs and Models.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and AC-16 (Security and Privacy Attributes) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-38401
Vulnerability Data
vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). From 0.3.0 until 0.22.0, a vulnerability in ASGI web servers and starlette's trust on those web servers enables an authentication bypass of the OpenAI API AuthenticationMiddleware. It allows…
more
to use the API without providing the configured VLLM_API_KEY or --api-key. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.22.0.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- APIs and Models
- Risk Domain
- N/A
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: openai
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V4.1.3V4.2.4V1.5.3V4.1.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement directly stops trusted and untrusted data from being combined by applying rules that govern allowable data movements and combinations.
Associating explicit security attributes with data objects enables enforcement mechanisms that keep trust levels from being mixed inside structures.
Boundary protection at external interfaces can enforce consistent HTTP request/response parsing rules between intermediaries and endpoints.
Validating HTTP inputs at the intermediary prevents malformed messages from being interpreted inconsistently downstream.
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.
Configuration management can enforce uniform HTTP parsing rules across intermediaries, directly mitigating inconsistent interpretation.
Secure-development practices (coding standards, reviews, validation) directly prevent mixing trusted and untrusted data inside the same structures.
Network monitoring can detect smuggling attempts via anomalous HTTP traffic or logs, while eliminating the inconsistency directly aids detection of such events.
Documented data-flow representations make trust boundaries explicit and help surface mixing of trusted/untrusted data.
Network protections can enforce consistent HTTP proxy/firewall behavior to block smuggling, and removing the weakness helps prevent unauthorized access via request smuggling.
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.
Secure architecture principles require explicit trust zones and data segregation, mitigating mixing of trusted/untrusted data.
Secure coding standards can enforce input validation and data tagging, but do not guarantee architectural separation.
Security testing can detect HTTP request smuggling vulnerabilities in intermediary components.
Network security controls can enforce consistent HTTP parsing and proxy behavior that mitigates request smuggling.
Secure network services include hardening proxies and gateways against inconsistent HTTP interpretation.
Secure SDLC practices require threat modeling and testing for HTTP parsing inconsistencies in intermediaries.