LiteLLM / LiteLLM

LiteLLM PyPI Package Compromised — Supply Chain Attack via Malicious .pth File (v1.82.7/v1.82.8)

Check if installed LiteLLM version is compromised, understand scope of credential theft, and remediate Includes evidence for LiteLLM troubleshooting demand.

Source-backed Last updated May 13, 2026 3 sources Needs local verification

Category: LiteLLM
Error signature: CRITICAL: Malicious litellm_init.pth in litellm 1.82.8 — credential stealer (supply chain compromise)
Quick fix: Compare the failing environment with a known working setup, then change one configuration value at a time.
Updated: May 13, 2026
Verification status: Source-backed
Evidence: 3 public source URLs

Before you change production

This page includes public source URLs in the imported troubleshooting record. Compare those references with your version and environment before applying changes.

Reproduce the smallest failing action and save non-secret logs before changing configuration.
Check versions for LiteLLM, related SDKs, package managers, CI runners, and hosting providers.
Change one setting or dependency at a time, then rerun the same failing command or request.
Avoid destructive commands, credential rotation, billing changes, or security relaxations without a rollback plan.

What this error means

CRITICAL: Malicious litellm_init.pth in litellm 1.82.8 — credential stealer (supply chain compromise) is a LiteLLM failure pattern reported for developers trying to check if installed litellm version is compromised, understand scope of credential theft, and remediate. Based on the imported evidence, treat this as a tool-specific troubleshooting page rather than a generic API error.

Why this happens

487+ comments on the primary security issue. The malicious .pth file (34,628 bytes) was double base64-encoded, exfiltrating SSH keys, AWS credentials, kube configs, git credentials, and all environment variables to attacker-controlled server. Compromise originated from trivy security scan dependency. Packages deleted, Mandiant engaged.

Common causes

LiteLLM is a widely-used LLM proxy. Versions 1.82.7 and 1.82.8 on PyPI contained a malicious litellm_init.pth file that executed a credential-stealing script on every Python interpreter startup — stealing SSH keys, AWS credentials, Kubernetes configs, API keys, and environment variables. Developers using these versions need immediate remediation guidance.
487+ comments on the primary security issue. The malicious .pth file (34,628 bytes) was double base64-encoded, exfiltrating SSH keys, AWS credentials, kube configs, git credentials, and all environment variables to attacker-controlled server. Compromise originated from trivy security scan dependency. Packages deleted, Mandiant engaged.

Quick fixes

Confirm the exact error signature matches CRITICAL: Malicious litellm_init.pth in litellm 1.82.8 — credential stealer (supply chain compromise).
Check the LiteLLM account, local tool state, and provider configuration involved in the failing workflow.
Compare the failing environment with a known working setup, then change one configuration value at a time.

Platform/tool-specific checks

Verify the command, editor, extension, or API client that produced the error.
Compare local settings with CI, deployment, or editor-level settings when the error appears in only one environment.
Avoid deleting credentials, local model data, or project settings until the failing scope is clear.

Step-by-step troubleshooting

Capture the exact error message and the command, editor action, or request that triggered it.
Check whether the failure is account/auth, quota/rate, model/provider, local runtime, or deployment configuration.
Review the source evidence below and compare it with your environment.
Apply one change at a time and rerun the smallest failing action.
Keep the working fix documented for the team or deployment environment.

How to prevent it

Keep provider/tool configuration documented.
Record non-secret diagnostics such as tool version, provider name, model name, and command path.
Add a lightweight check before CI or production workflows depend on the tool.

Diagnostic flow for this page

Match CRITICAL: Malicious litellm_init.pth in litellm 1.82.8 — credential stealer (supply chain compromise) exactly before applying the quick fix.
Compare the failing environment with LiteLLM versions, account scope, provider settings, and deployment context.
Check the listed common causes in order, starting with the cause that best matches your logs.
Use the evidence status below to decide whether to confirm against public sources or official documentation.
Apply one reversible change, rerun the smallest failing action, and keep rollback notes.

FAQ

What does CRITICAL: Malicious litellm_init.pth in litellm 1.82.8 — credential stealer (supply chain compromise) mean in LiteLLM?

CRITICAL: Malicious litellm_init.pth in litellm 1.82.8 — credential stealer (supply chain compromise) indicates the workflow described by "LiteLLM PyPI Package Compromised — Supply Chain Attack via Malicious .pth File (v1.82.7/v1.82.8)" failed in a LiteLLM context. Start by confirming the exact signature and the component that emitted it.

What should I check first for CRITICAL: Malicious litellm_init.pth in litellm 1.82.8 — credential stealer (supply chain compromise)?

Check whether this cause matches your environment: LiteLLM is a widely-used LLM proxy. Versions 1.82.7 and 1.82.8 on PyPI contained a malicious litellm_init.pth file that executed a credential-stealing script on every Python interpreter startup — stealing SSH keys, AWS credentials, Kubernetes configs, API keys, and environment variables. Developers using these versions need immediate remediation guidance.

Is the CRITICAL: Malicious litellm_init.pth in litellm 1.82.8 — credential stealer (supply chain compromise) guidance source-backed?

The "LiteLLM PyPI Package Compromised — Supply Chain Attack via Malicious .pth File (v1.82.7/v1.82.8)" page is labeled source-backed. It has 3 public source URLs from github.com, news.ycombinator.com, so use that evidence status when deciding how much additional verification you need.

When should I avoid the quick fix for CRITICAL: Malicious litellm_init.pth in litellm 1.82.8 — credential stealer (supply chain compromise)?

For "LiteLLM PyPI Package Compromised — Supply Chain Attack via Malicious .pth File (v1.82.7/v1.82.8)", avoid applying "Compare the failing environment with a known working setup, then change one configuration value at a time." when the error text differs, the affected version or provider is different, or the change would touch credentials, billing, DNS, production deploy settings, or irreversible data.

What should I collect before debugging CRITICAL: Malicious litellm_init.pth in litellm 1.82.8 — credential stealer (supply chain compromise)?

For "LiteLLM PyPI Package Compromised — Supply Chain Attack via Malicious .pth File (v1.82.7/v1.82.8)", collect the failing LiteLLM command or request, non-secret configuration, versions, timestamps, request IDs when available, and the smallest reproduction that still triggers the signature.