CVE-2024-4264
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in the berriai/litellm project due to improper control of the generation of code when using the `eval` function unsafely in the `litellm.get_secret()` method. Specifically, when the server utilizes Google KMS, untrusted data is passed to the `eval` function without any sanitization. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability by injecting malicious values into environment variables through the `/config/update` endpoint, which allows for the update of settings in `proxy_server_config.yaml`.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe berriai/litellm project contains an RCE vulnerability in the `litellm.get_secret()` method where untrusted data from Google KMS is passed to the unsafe `eval` function without sanitization. Attackers can exploit this by injecting malicious payloads into environment variables via the `/config/update` endpoint, which updates settings in `proxy_server_config.yaml`.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed litellm versionRun `pip show litellm` or `pip list | grep litellm` to identify the installed versionAffected if Version is within the range that contains the vulnerable get_secret() method using eval
-
Locate and inspect the get_secret() methodSearch the litellm source code for the `get_secret` function definition and examine if it uses the `eval` functionAffected if The get_secret() method contains an `eval` call without proper sanitization of KMS data
-
Verify if /config/update endpoint is accessibleCheck proxy configuration files (e.g., proxy_server_config.yaml) for endpoint settings and whether the /config/update route is enabledAffected if The /config/update endpoint is enabled and allows updating configuration via HTTP
-
Inspect proxy config for KMS-related environment variablesExamine proxy_server_config.yaml for environment variables that pull data from Google KMS (look for kms:// prefixes or KMS key references)Affected if Environment variables configured to retrieve secrets from Google KMS are present in the proxy configuration
A user is affected if litellm is installed with the vulnerable get_secret() method that uses eval, the /config/update endpoint is accessible, and the configuration uses Google KMS for environment variables.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataReplace the unsafe `eval` usage in `get_secret()` with secure alternatives (such as ast.literal_eval for literals or removing eval entirely), implement proper input validation/sanitization for KMS data, and restrict or disable the `/config/update` endpoint if not required.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-4264 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-4264 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data