GCVE Workshop - 22 September 2026 (14:00-18:00), Luxembourg Before The Vulnopticon Conference - Registration

GHSA-F989-C77F-R2CQ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-16 21:00 – Updated: 2026-06-16 21:00
VLAI
Summary
Crawl4AI: LLM credential exfiltration in Docker server via request base_url and env: token resolution
Details

Summary

The Docker API server let a request control where LLM calls were sent and which environment variable an LLM token resolved from. Both could be abused to exfiltrate server-held secrets. The Docker API is unauthenticated by default.

Vector 1 - attacker base_url

/md, /llm, and /llm/job accepted a base_url in the request and used it as the LLM endpoint while still attaching the server's configured provider API key. An attacker set base_url to a server they control and received the provider key (and any provider keys the server holds) in the inbound request.

Vector 2 - arbitrary environment variable read via env:

LLMConfig(api_token="env:NAME") resolved NAME from the server environment with os.getenv. Because request bodies were deserialized into LLMConfig (via a crawler config / extraction strategy), an attacker could set api_token="env:SECRET_KEY" (or env:REDIS_PASSWORD, etc.) and, paired with an attacker base_url, exfiltrate that secret. Reading the server's SECRET_KEY enables forging authentication tokens.

Impact

Disclosure of LLM provider API keys and other server secrets to an attacker-controlled endpoint; reading the JWT SECRET_KEY can lead to authentication bypass.

Fix

  • The LLM endpoints ignore a request-supplied base_url; the endpoint is always derived server-side from the provider name. The field is still accepted but no longer honored (no breaking 4xx).
  • LLMConfig refuses env: resolution of protected environment-variable names (names containing SECRET/PASSWORD/PRIVATE, prefixes CRAWL4AI/AWS_SECRET, and SECRET_KEY/REDIS_PASSWORD/TOKEN). Normal provider keys (e.g. OPENAI_API_KEY) are unaffected.

Workarounds

  • Upgrade to the patched version.
  • Enable authentication (CRAWL4AI_API_TOKEN).
  • Do not place sensitive secrets in the server environment alongside provider keys.

Credits

  • Geo (geo-chen) - reported the LLM credential exfiltration via request base_url.
  • Internal security audit (Crawl4AI maintainers) - the env: arbitrary-variable read.
Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.8.7"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "crawl4ai"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.8.8"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-200",
      "CWE-522",
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-16T21:00:31Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\nThe Docker API server let a request control where LLM calls were sent and which environment variable an LLM token resolved from. Both could be abused to exfiltrate server-held secrets. The Docker API is unauthenticated by default.\n\n### Vector 1 - attacker base_url\n\n`/md`, `/llm`, and `/llm/job` accepted a `base_url` in the request and used it as the LLM endpoint while still attaching the server\u0027s configured provider API key. An attacker set `base_url` to a server they control and received the provider key (and any provider keys the server holds) in the inbound request.\n\n### Vector 2 - arbitrary environment variable read via `env:`\n\n`LLMConfig(api_token=\"env:NAME\")` resolved `NAME` from the server environment with `os.getenv`. Because request bodies were deserialized into `LLMConfig` (via a crawler config / extraction strategy), an attacker could set `api_token=\"env:SECRET_KEY\"` (or `env:REDIS_PASSWORD`, etc.) and, paired with an attacker `base_url`, exfiltrate that secret. Reading the server\u0027s `SECRET_KEY` enables forging authentication tokens.\n\n### Impact\n\nDisclosure of LLM provider API keys and other server secrets to an attacker-controlled endpoint; reading the JWT `SECRET_KEY` can lead to authentication bypass.\n\n### Fix\n\n- The LLM endpoints ignore a request-supplied `base_url`; the endpoint is always derived server-side from the provider name. The field is still accepted but no longer honored (no breaking 4xx).\n- `LLMConfig` refuses `env:` resolution of protected environment-variable names (names containing SECRET/PASSWORD/PRIVATE, prefixes CRAWL4AI*/AWS_SECRET*, and SECRET_KEY/REDIS_PASSWORD/TOKEN). Normal provider keys (e.g. OPENAI_API_KEY) are unaffected.\n\n### Workarounds\n\n- Upgrade to the patched version.\n- Enable authentication (`CRAWL4AI_API_TOKEN`).\n- Do not place sensitive secrets in the server environment alongside provider keys.\n\n### Credits\n\n- Geo ([geo-chen](https://github.com/geo-chen)) - reported the LLM credential exfiltration via request base_url.\n- Internal security audit (Crawl4AI maintainers) - the env: arbitrary-variable read.",
  "id": "GHSA-f989-c77f-r2cq",
  "modified": "2026-06-16T21:00:31Z",
  "published": "2026-06-16T21:00:31Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/unclecode/crawl4ai/security/advisories/GHSA-f989-c77f-r2cq"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/unclecode/crawl4ai"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Crawl4AI: LLM credential exfiltration in Docker server via request base_url and env: token resolution"
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…

Related by attack behaviour

Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.


Loading…