Hacker News Reader

Comment by hmokiguess | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

So they sell advance access to information that will allow me to hack other people's LiteLLM instances?

Seems a little unethical

I'm not following, what did you mean?

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com