security : add note about RPC and server functionality #13061
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rgerganov
approved these changes
Apr 22, 2025
|
Maybe it also worth printing a line on |
we already do this: https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/blob/master/examples/rpc/rpc-server.cpp#L268-L276 |
slaren
approved these changes
Apr 22, 2025
pockers21
pushed a commit
to pockers21/llama.cpp
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 28, 2025
* security : add note about RPC functionality * security : add note about llama-server
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We are generally aware that the RPC backend and
rpc-serverare vulnerable to all sorts of attack vectors. At some point we added a notice in the README to avoid usage of the RPC functionality in sensitive environments: https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/tree/master/examples/rpcHowever, we keep receiving security advisories about the RPC backend that we don't have the capacity to act upon privately. It makes more sense for the time being to resolve such vulnerabilities publicly, so that the community can help in the process.
With this change to the security policy, we categorize such issues as known vulnerabilities and recommend to skip the advisory process. My suggestion is this to be in effect until we feel more confident about the security of the RPC implementation.