Top
Best
New

Posted by abhisek 8 hours ago

Compromised LiteLLM 1.107.0 on PyPI Installs a Credential Stealer and Backdoor(safedep.io)
358 points | 118 commentspage 2
tech_solver 7 hours ago|
its litellm again. I wonder about maintainer trustworthiness
rcleveng 7 hours ago||
Seriously again for litellm? I really with that things like Google ADK didn't add this to my deps.
cyanydeez 6 hours ago||
all popular, free, ungated software will be poisoned; like kesler syndrome but for the world of open source software.
taylorfinley 5 hours ago||
Horrifying framing, I will remember that analogy viscerally. Well done.
rcleveng 6 hours ago||
[dead]
hmokiguess 6 hours ago||
https://github.com/BerriAI/litellm/issues/47826#issuecomment...

> OSS Users > For the time being, please pin your version to 1.106.2 or any explicit version published prior to now.

> Enterprise Customers > There currently exists a private LiteLLM registry for enterprise customers, in which we are distributing an embargoed release that remediates a vulnerability whose disclosure date is scheduled for October 27. Our private registry is not affected. If you are an enterprise customer pulling from our private registry you are not affected.

wongarsu 5 hours ago|
So they sell advance access to information that will allow me to hack other people's LiteLLM instances?

Seems a little unethical

ctxc 5 hours ago||
I'm not following, what did you mean?
wongarsu 4 hours ago||
They are saying that

1. there is a second vulnerability that will be disclosed next Tuesday (can't be this one because talking about it as undisclosed in the GH issue disclosing it makes no sense)

2. the patch for that vulnerability is somewhere in the diff between $current_public_release and $current_enterprise_release

3. You have to pay to get $current_enterprise_release

They might not be selling the vulnerability directly, but they are selling access to the patch that fixes it. Which would be enough of a hint even in pre-LLM times. And unlike other vendors they don't just claim "you get faster updates and additional features" or something like that, they directly point out that if you buy now you get advance access to the fix to an unannounced vuln

I'm not saying they are advertising this to bad actors. But if they wanted to do that with a shred of plausible deniability, this would be the way to do it

chias 3 hours ago||
Note: I work at LiteLLM

There exists a critical vulnerability which affects only Enterprise LiteLLM deployments, and does not affect OSS deployments.

We have provided our customers with patched releases distributed via a private registry and are allowing them some time to update their deployments before we release the fix in our public registry and disclose the vulnerability details. Releasing the fix publicly in an open source product would be a de-facto vulnerability disclosure.

avereveard 5 hours ago||
Again this is the second time this year
nairboon 3 hours ago||
Isn't that at least the second time that LiteLLM got compromised?
mihaaly 2 hours ago|
Déjà vu for both of us, huh?
santiago-pl 7 hours ago||
I wish all the best to LiteLLM team with handling it again. I can imagine how challenging are situations like this one.

However, if anyone is looking for 20x faster and less "targeted" LiteLLM alternative - I'm work on one in Go. That's why GoModel it's called. https://github.com/ENTERPILOT/GoModel/

ghrl 7 hours ago||
Sounds like a reasonable choice of a language.

I myself have written a small llm proxy in Go, doing nothing but injecting the real API key to outgoing requests while itself validating virtual keys it generates, and it works great.

santiago-pl 7 hours ago||
Definitely it was a deliberated decision. Also enterprises adapt Go more and more.
TZubiri 6 hours ago||
If you don't use any LLM router, it's infinity times faster, and infitesimally as targetted.
verdverm 4 hours ago|||
I have GoModel running at home, being deployed at work. There are many good reasons to run a gateway, some include

- being resilient to upstream provider downtime

- centrally managed config/controls

- visibility and allocation into usage and costs

We are deploying a gateway at work primarily for these three.

At home, GoModel's virtual models have been super helpful for testing out new open weights. I can change the model deployed in vLLM without having to change any of my downstream tools, which get a stable name.

https://gomodel.enterpilot.io/docs/features/virtual-models

toxik 4 hours ago|||
Yeah, this DIY MITM attack is entirely avoidable.
merelydev 4 hours ago||
A bad day for opensource, but I guess this is how we get stronger patch by patch.
infecto 7 hours ago||
Any package hosts that scan and include cooldowns by default that operate on a consumption model? The ones I have seen all charge a lot.
wallrat 2 hours ago||
Bytesafe (https://bytesafe.dev). Pure Dependency Firewall, not a package host, with usage based pricing.
edoceo 6 hours ago|||
This one ? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46909037

I use it, I don't cooldown, proper version pinning for me.

abhisek 6 hours ago|||
Not sure about a service, but PMG enforces dependency cooldown and sandbox on package install. https://github.com/safedep/pmg
TZubiri 6 hours ago|||
Socket.dev

Tell em Tom Zubiri sent ya (I don't get a commission, just good karma)

cyanydeez 6 hours ago|||
man, people are going to be sorely disappointed in what's free on the internet in a couple of years.

Agents and malware will eradicate all goodwill left.

Good by internet.

jacobalcock 5 hours ago||
[flagged]
syntaxing 6 hours ago||
I figured LLMs nowadays would be good enough to catch issues like this. Is it because it’s too costly to do it?
abhisek 6 hours ago|
Yes if you use LLM to analyse everything. Not really if you analyse diffs, with heuristics to select candidates for LLM/agent based analysis. But at the cost of missing out novel attacks.
1-6 6 hours ago|
This is the 2nd time. I'm glad I moved away from this platform.
More comments...