Medium

vLLM: GLMGA video sampling permits request-driven CPU and memory exhaustion

  • Disclosed: 05.10.2026
  • Updated: 15.10.2026 18:17

Summary

The OpenAI-compatible chat endpoint accepts request-level video loader options through media_io_kwargs. A caller can select the GLMGA sampler and provide large fps and max_frames values. GLMGA first constructs an attacker-sized Python index list and then deduplicates it, even when the supplied video contains only a few frames. This work occurs in the shared media-loading executor before frame reads, allowing a tiny valid video and compact JSON options to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory and delay unrelated media requests.

The demonstrated impact is partial denial of service. No memory corruption, data disclosure, or code execution is claimed.

Affected configuration

The server must expose chat completions for a video-capable model and accept request-level media_io_kwargs. The model does not need to use GLMGA by default because the request value overrides the model's loader mapping. The proof of concept uses an inline two-frame video and explicitly selects the OpenCV decoder, so no external media host or GPU decoder is required.

The request is reachable without vLLM credentials when no API key is configured. With API-key authentication enabled, any caller holding a valid key can reach the same path.

Attack surface

A remote caller submits a valid chat-completion request with a small video and the following request-level options:

js
{
  "media_io_kwargs": {
    "video": {
      "video_backend": "glmga",
      "backend": "opencv",
      "fps": 500000,
      "max_frames": 500000
    }
  }
}

Increasing both numeric values increases temporary list construction and deduplication work even when the final decoded frame set remains unchanged.

Root cause

  1. ChatCompletionRequest exposes media_io_kwargs as request-controlled nested values: protocol.py#L365-L371.
  2. The request options are carried into chat parameters without a numeric work bound on GLMGA's fps or max_frames: protocol.py#L571-L599.
  3. Media options are merged so request values override configured defaults, including video_backend: connector.py#L577-L605.
  4. The connector selects a registered video loader and runs media loading through the shared executor: video.py#L28-L66 and connector.py#L44-L47.
  5. GLMGA calculates extract_t = min(int(duration * fps), max_frames), builds a list with that many entries, and deduplicates it before decoding frames: video.py#L667-L740.
  6. The OpenCV decoder receives the already-deduplicated indices, so a two-frame file can trigger a large intermediate allocation while producing only two decoded frames: opencv.py#L28-L50.

The missing invariant is a strict upper bound on sampling work before the index list is constructed. Bounding decoded output after deduplication does not bound the vulnerable intermediate computation.

Suggested remediation

Validate request-level video sampling options before dispatching work to the media executor. Enforce conservative absolute limits for fps, max_frames, and especially the computed candidate count. Reject non-finite, negative, or otherwise invalid numeric values.

Avoid constructing O(extract_t) intermediate Python lists. Generate bounded unique frame indices directly from the source frame count and output-frame limit. Apply the limit before list construction and before shared executor submission. Add tests showing that extreme request values are rejected or consume constant memory for a fixed output-frame count.

Workarounds

  • Remove or filter request-level video_backend, fps, and max_frames options at the gateway.
  • Do not allow untrusted callers to select GLMGA.
  • Apply authentication, rate limiting, request concurrency limits, and process memory isolation.
  • Use a separate constrained media-loading worker pool where operationally feasible.
  • Existing media byte, pixel, or decoded-frame limits do not necessarily bound this pre-decode candidate-index allocation.

Related advisory

GHSA-cqm8-jxg6-fqfq concerns partial denial of service in the DeepStream video backend through backend confusion and insufficient pixel guarding. This report concerns a different CPU-side GLMGA algorithm: request-controlled sampling values create a large redundant index list before the OpenCV decoder reads a fixed, tiny frame set. The vulnerable backend, resource sink, and required remediation differ.

Affected software

Click a technology to see all vulnerabilities affecting it.

PlatformPackageVulnerable versionsFixed in
Python (PyPI) vllm >= 0.23.0rc2, < 0.30.0 0.30.0

References

CVSS score 5.3/10
CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Weakness (CWE)
CWE-400
Platform
Python (PyPI)
Package
vllm
Disclosed
05.10.2026
Updated
15.10.2026 18:17

Sources and licenses

OSV / GitHub Advisory Database - PYSEC-2026-4307 - PyPA Advisory Database; CC BY 4.0

OSV / GitHub Advisory Database - GHSA-58v5-2m8f-94pr - CC BY 4.0

Vulnerability history: vllm

All published vulnerabilities of this package (Python (PyPI)), newest first. Shows whether this is a one-off slip or a package that needs watching.

All (94) in the archive
Total entries
94
First → latest
09.2024 10.2026
Without a fix
5
Exploited in attacks
0

Severity breakdown

  • Critical 9
  • High 23
  • Medium 47
  • Low 4
  • Unrated 11

Disclosures per year

  1. 2024: 2
  2. 2025: 30
  3. 2026: 62
Severity:
  1. vLLM: GLMGA video sampling permits request-driven CPU and memory exhaustion this entry
    Medium · 5.3 CVE-2026-105760 >= 0.23.0rc2, < 0.30.0 0.30.0
  2. High · 7.5 CVE-2026-54234 >= 0.17.1, < 0.24.0 0.24.0
  3. High CVE-2026-55514 >= 0.12.0, < 0.24.0 0.24.0
  4. Critical · 9.1 CVE-2026-48746 >= 0.3.0, < 0.22.0 0.22.0
  5. Critical · 9.8 CVE-2026-22778 >= 0.8.3, < 0.14.1 0.14.1
  6. High · 8.8 CVE-2026-22807 >= 0.10.1, < 0.14.0 0.14.0
  7. High · 8.8 CVE-2026-56340 >= 0.10.2, < 0.13.0 0.13.0
  8. High · 6.5 CVE-2025-62372 >= 0.5.5, < 0.11.1 0.11.1
  9. High · 8.8 CVE-2025-62164 >= 0.10.2, < 0.11.1 0.11.1
  10. High · 7.5 CVE-2025-59425 < 0.11.0 0.11.0
  11. High · 8.8 CVE-2025-9141 >= 0.10.0, < 0.10.1.1 0.10.1.1
  12. High · 7.5 CVE-2025-48956 >= 0.1.0, < 0.10.1.1 0.10.1.1
  13. Critical · 9.8 CVE-2025-47277 >= 0.6.5, < 0.8.5 0.8.5
  14. High · 8.0 CVE-2025-30165 >= 0.5.2, < 0.10.0 0.10.0
  15. Critical · 10.0 CVE-2025-32444 >= 0.6.5, < 0.8.5 0.8.5
  16. High · 7.5 CVE-2025-30202 >= 0.5.2, < 0.8.5 0.8.5
  17. Critical · 9.8 CVE-2024-11041 <= 0.6.2 no fix
  18. Critical · 9.0 CVE-2025-29783 >= 0.6.5, < 0.8.0 0.8.0
  19. High · 7.5 CVE-2024-8768 < 0.5.5 0.5.5

Know which vulnerabilities affect your application

With the DockRay integration and software inventory enabled, DockRay checks reported component versions against known vulnerabilities and notifies you about confirmed matches. Coverage depends on the supported technology and available advisory data.

Connect your application
DockRay newsletter

Application security in your inbox

Important vulnerabilities, actionable guidance and practical advice for your applications. Choose your technologies and follow what matters to your project.

  • A daily digest of new vulnerabilities, critical ones included.
  • Notifications about important updates.
  • Practical advice on application security and monitoring.

Leave empty to receive updates for every technology.

Free to subscribe. Unsubscribe with one click in any email.