Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.05089

Cooldown Landmines: Cross-Tenant Interference Attacks on LLM Gateways

Abstract

LLM gateways enforce separate tenant quotas while sharing model deployments and cooldown records that temporarily exclude failing backends. However, a tenant's request failure can update these shared records and restrict other tenants' access to serviceable deployments. We identify two attacks that exploit this gap in LiteLLM. The first uses requests rejected at the key's requests-per-minute (RPM) limit: caller-supplied identifiers for known registered deployments reach failure handling, allowing two rejected requests to redirect another tenant to fallback with zero upstream calls from those requests. The second uses admitted traffic to create cooldown records that persist after backend capacity recovers. To address these failures, we design an origin check that blocks deployment updates from key RPM rejections and tenant-scoped cooldown that preserves the triggering tenant's back-off while retaining shared records for backend faults. Experiments with authenticated proxies and self-hosted vLLM demonstrate that the attacks can force fallback or denial while deployments remain serviceable. Across five paired four-worker runs, tenant scoping reduces victim fallback after recovery from 54/60 to 0/60, while increasing attempts against exhausted shared quotas. These findings show that tenant isolation must cover both request admission and the failure handling that governs shared deployment availability.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yudong Gao, Linghan Chen, Wenhan Wu, Quan Shi, Xutao Mao, Mia Zhou, Junjian Li, Xiaolong Liu, Jiyao Wang, Mingyu Guo, Honglong Chen. 2026-10-04. Cooldown Landmines: Cross-Tenant Interference Attacks on LLM Gateways. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.05089

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

PPFedIT: Towards Privacy-Preserving Federated Instruction Tuning with Few-shot Local Examples

Instruction tuning aligns large language models (LLMs) with human intentions but requires diverse, high-quality data that are difficult to collect in privacy-sensitive domains. Federated instruction tuning (FedIT) enables collaborative training across data owners, yet existing methods typically assume sufficient local data. In realistic few-shot settings, limited samples can cause overfitting, degrade performance, and increase vulnerability to training data extraction attacks. We propose PPFedIT, a federated algorithm that improves both model performance and privacy protection in federated few-shot learning. It comprises three client-side steps: (1) synthetic data generation, which uses LLMs to diversify and enrich local data; (2) parameter isolation training, which updates the shared global LLM on synthetic data and local LLMs on private local data to mitigate synthetic-data noise; and (3) local aggregation then sharing, which mixes global and local model parameters before uploading them for server aggregation to mitigate data extraction attacks. Experiments on three open-source datasets show that PPFedIT improves model performance by an average of 8.4% and reduces the risk of data extraction attacks by approximately 20% in challenging federated few-shot settings.

cs.CR↗

Logit-Gap Steering: A Forward-Pass Diagnostic for Alignment Robustness

RLHF-style alignment trains language models to refuse unsafe requests, but how much operational margin does this refusal rest on? We introduce the refusal-affirmation logit gap: the difference between the top refusal-token logit and the top affirmative-token logit at the first decoding step. This single scalar quantifies the per-prompt safety margin that alignment provides. Empirically, alignment widens the gap on 97.5-99.8% of toxic prompts across three model families, and median gap closure co-varies with True-ASR ranking across suffix strategies (an internal consistency check, since our method optimises gap closure). To validate the metric's practical significance, we present logit-gap steering, a gradient-free, forward-pass-only method that discovers short in-distribution suffixes ($<$10 tokens per component) whose cumulative effect closes the gap. The method requires ${\approx}26{,}000$ forward-pass equivalents per family (${\approx}2$~min on one A100), ${\approx}125\times$ less than a single GCG search. Suffixes discovered on 0.5B--2B models transfer without modification to 72B within family. An 8-suffix ensemble reaches 38-96\% True ASR across 13 models on AdvBench and HarmBench, with most suffixes having $10^{3}$-$10^{4}\times$ lower perplexity than GCG-meaning published perplexity-filter defenses that collapse GCG (64.7%$\to$1.0%) leave our suffixes nearly intact (76.9%$\to$76.0%). These results demonstrate that current alignment margins, while consistently present, can be thin and efficiently measurable, and that defense strategies must account for in-distribution suffixes.

cs.CR↗

Spoofing Missed-Detection Bounds for PRF GNSS Ranging Authentication Under AWGN Models

Pseudorandom-function (PRF) ranging codes, such as those used in Galileo's encrypted E6-C under the Signal Authentication Service (SAS), enable a receiver to authenticate pseudoranges once the PRF secret is revealed. This work bounds how much authentication security the receiver obtains under Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) assumptions. Against a spoofer that does not estimate the code before submitting its forgery, PRF security makes the forged correlation zero-mean up to the security of the underlying PRF, allowing integration time and C/N$_0$ to mostly determine probability of missed detection (PMD) and probability of false alarm (PFA). Against such a spoofer at a conservative 30 dB-Hz, 400 ms of E6-C aggregation certifies a PMD below $2^{-128}$ (plus any PRF advantage). For a spoofer that estimates chips before submitting a forgery, I derive the receiving-antenna gain at which authentication security breaks, which is about 12 dB for E6-C for the adversaries modeled. This work can be used to design a PRF GNSS ranging code protocol and a receiver capable of correctly asserting PRF ranging security assuming an AWGN model.

cs.CR↗