LLVM Security Group Transparency Reports — LLVM 23.1.0 documentation

# LLVM Security Group Transparency Reports

This page lists the yearly LLVM Security Response group transparency reports.

The LLVM Security Response group started out as the LLVM security group, previous year’s transparency reports keep the original name.

Initially the Chromium issue tracker was used to record issues. This component has been archived and is read-only. A GitHub llvm/llvm-project issue has been created for each issue in the Chromium issue tracker. All of these issues contain an attached PDF with the content of the Chromium issue, and have the SecurityArchive label.

Each Chromium issue has 3 URLs, the first is the original URL recorded in previous transparency reports. The second is the redirect URL to the archive. The third is to the GitHub archive issue.

## 2021

The LLVM security group was established on the 10th of July 2020 by the act of the initial commit describing the purpose of the group and the processes it follows. Many of the group’s processes were still not well-defined enough for the group to operate well. Over the course of 2021, the key processes were defined well enough to enable the group to operate reasonably well:

- We defined details on how to report security issues, see this commit on 20th of May 2021

- We refined the nomination process for new group members, see this commit on 30th of July 2021

- We started writing an annual transparency report (you’re reading the 2021 report here).

Over the course of 2021, we had 2 people leave the LLVM Security group and 4 people join.

In 2021, the security group received 13 issue reports that were made publicly visible before 31st of December 2021. The security group judged 2 of these reports to be security issues:

- original: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=5 redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410043 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/125709

- original: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=11 redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410002 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/127644

Both issues were addressed with source changes: #5 in clangd/vscode-clangd, and #11 in llvm-project. No dedicated LLVM release was made for either.

We believe that with the publishing of this first annual transparency report, the security group now has implemented all necessary processes for the group to operate as promised. The group’s processes can be improved further, and we do expect further improvements to get implemented in 2022. Many of the potential improvements end up being discussed on the monthly public call on LLVM’s security group.

## 2022

In this section we report on the issues the group received in 2022, or on issues that were received earlier, but were disclosed in 2022.

In 2022, the llvm security group received 15 issues that have been disclosed at the time of writing this transparency report.

5 of these were judged to be security issues:

- https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=17 reports a miscompile in LLVM that can result in the frame pointer and return address being overwritten. This was fixed. Redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410008 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/127645

- https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=19 reports a vulnerability in std::filesystem::remove_all in libc++. This was fixed. Redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410010 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/127647

- https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=23 reports a new Spectre gadget variant that Speculative Load Hardening (SLH) does not mitigate. No extension to SLH was implemented to also mitigate against this variant. Redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410015 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/127648

- https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=30 reports missing memory safety protection on the (C++) exception handling path. A number of fixes were implemented. Redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410023 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/127649

- https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=33 reports the RETBLEED vulnerability. The outcome was clang growing a new security hardening feature -mfunction-return=thunk-extern, see https://reviews.llvm.org/D129572. Redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410026 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/127650

No dedicated LLVM releases were made for any of the above issues.

## 2023

In this section we report on the issues the group received in 2023, or on issues that were received earlier, but were disclosed in 2023.

9 of these were judged to be security issues:

> - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=36 reports the presence of .git folder in https://llvm.org/.git. Redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410029 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/131841

> - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=66 reports the presence of a GitHub Personal Access token in a DockerHub imaage. Redirect https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410060 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/131846

> - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=42 reports a potential gap in the Armv8.1-m BTI protection, involving a combination of large switch statements and __builtin_unreachable() in the default case. Redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410035 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/131848

> - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=43 reports a dependency on an old version of xml2js with a CVE filed against it. Redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410036 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/131849

> - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=45 reports a number of dependencies that have had vulnerabilities reported against them. Redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410038 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/131851

> - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=46 is related to issue 43. Redirect https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410039 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/131852

> - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=48 reports a buffer overflow in std::format from -fexperimental-library. Redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410041 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/131856

> - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=54 reports a memory leak in basic_string move assignment when built with libc++ versions <=6.0 and run against newer libc++ shared/dylibs. Redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410047 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/131857

> - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=56 reports an out of bounds buffer store introduced by LLVM backends, that regressed due to a procedural oversight. Redirect https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410049 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/131858

No dedicated LLVM releases were made for any of the above issues.

Over the course of 2023 we had one person join the LLVM Security Group.

## 2024

### Introduction

In the first half of 2024, LLVM used the Chromium issue tracker to enable reporting security issues responsibly. We switched over to using GitHub’s “privately reporting a security vulnerability” workflow in the middle of 2024.

In previous years, our transparency reports were shorter, since the full discussion on a security ticket in the Chromium issue tracker is fully visible once disclosed. This is not the case with issues using GitHub’s security advisory workflow, so instead we give a longer description in this transparency report, to make the relevant information on the ticket publicly available.

This transparency report doesn’t necessarily mention all issues that were deemed duplicates of other issues, or tickets only created to test the bug tracking system.

### Security issues fixed under a coordinated disclosure process

This section lists the reported issues where we ended up implementing fixes under a coordinated disclosure process. While we were still using the Chromium issue tracker, we did not write security advisories for such issues. Since we started using the GitHub issues tracker for security issues, we’re now publishing security advisories for those issues at https://github.com/llvm/llvm-security-repo/security/advisories/.

1. “Unexpected behavior when using LTO and branch-protection together”
   Details are available at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=58
   redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410051
   archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132185

2. “Security weakness in PCS for CMSE” (CVE-2024-0151)
   Details are available at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=68
   redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410062
   archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132186

3. “CMSE secure state may leak from stack to floating-point registers” (CVE-2024-7883)
   Details are available at GHSA-wh65-j229-6wfp

### Supply chain security related issues and project services-related issues

1. “GitHub User Involved in xz backdoor may have attempted to change to clang in order to help hide the exploit”
   Details are available at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=71
   redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410066
   archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132187

2. “llvmbot account suspended due to suspicious login”
   Details are available at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=72
   redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410067
   archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132243

3. “.git Exposure”
   GHSA-mr8r-vvrc-w6rq
   The .git directory was accessible via web browsers under apt.llvm.org, a site used to serve Debian/Ubuntu nightly packages. This issue has been addressed by removing the directory, and is not considered a security issue for the compiler. The .git directory was an artifact of the CI job that maintained the apt website, and was mirroring an open-source project maintained on github (under opencollab/llvm-jenkins.debian.net). The issue is not believed to have leaked any non-public information.

4. “llvm/llvm-project repo potentially vulnerable to GITHUB_TOKEN leaks”
   GHSA-f5xj-84f9-mrw6
   GitHub access tokens were being leaked in artifacts generated by GitHub Actions workflows. The vulnerability was first reported publicly as ArtiPACKED, generally applicable to GitHub projects, leading to an audit of LLVM projects and the reporting of this security issue. LLVM contributors audited the workflows, found that the “release-binaries” workflow was affected, but only exposed tokens that were ephemeral and read-only, so was not deemed a privilege escalation concern. The workflow was fixed in a configuration change as PR 106310. Older exposed tokens all expired, and the issue is closed as resolved.

5. “RCE in Buildkite Pipeline”
   GHSA-2j6q-qcfm-3wcx
   A Buildkite CI pipeline (llvm-project/rust-llvm-integrate-prototype) allowed Remote Code Execution on the CI runner. The pipeline automatically runs a test job when PRs are filed on the rust-lang/rust repo, but those PRs point to user-controlled branches that could be maliciously modified. A security researcher reported the issue, and demonstrated it by modifying build scripts to expose the CI runner’s internal cloud service access tokens. The issue has been addressed with internal configuration changes by owners of the Buildkite pipeline.

### Issues deemed to not require coordinated action before disclosing publicly

1. “Clang Address Sanitizer gives False Negative for Array Out of Bounds Compiled with Optimization”
   Details are available at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=57
   redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410050
   archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132191

2. “Found exposed .svn folder”
   Details are available at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=59
   redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410052 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132192

3. “Arbitrary code execution when combining SafeStack + dynamic stack allocations + __builtin_setjmp/longjmp”
   Details are available at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=60
   redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410054 archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132220

4. “RISC-V: Constants are allocated in writeable .sdata section”
   Details are available at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=61
   redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410055
   archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132223

5. “Manifest File with Out-of-Date Dependencies with CVEs”
   Details are available at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=62
   redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410056
   archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132225

6. “Non-const derived ctor should fail compilation when having a consteval base ctor”
   Details are available at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=67
   redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410061
   archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132226

7. “Wrong assembly code generation. Branching to the corrupted “LR”.”
   Details are available at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=69
   redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410063
   archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132229

8. “Security bug report”
   Details are available at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=70
   redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410065
   archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132233

9. “Using ASan with setuid binaries can lead to arbitrary file write and elevation of privileges”
   Details are available at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=73
   redirect: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/42410068
   archive: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132235

10. “Interesting bugs for bool variable in clang projects and aarch64 modes outputting inaccurate results.”
    GHSA-w7qc-292v-5xh6
    The issue reported is on a source code example having undefined behaviour (UB), somewhat similar to this: https://godbolt.org/z/vo4P7bPYr. Therefore, this issue was closed as not a security issue in the compiler.
    As part of the analysis on this issue, it was deemed useful to document this example of UB and similar cases to help users of compilers understand how UB in source code can lead to security issues.
    We concluded that probably the best option to do so is to create a regular public issue at https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues, with the same title as the security issue, and to attach a PDF (which should easily be created using a “print-to-pdf” method in the browser) containing all comments. Such public tickets probably need some consistent way to indicate they come from security issues that after analysis were deemed to be outside the LLVM threat model or weren’t accepted as a needs-resolution-work-in-private security issue for other reasons. The LLVM Security Response group has so far not taken action to progress this idea.
    There was also a suggestion of potentially adding a short section in https://llsoftsec.github.io/llsoftsecbook/#compiler-introduced-security-vulnerabilities that summarizes a short example showing that type aliasing UB can and is causing security vulnerabilities.

11. “llvm-libc qsort can use very large amounts of stack if an attacker can control its input list”
    GHSA-gw5j-473x-p29m
    If the llvm-libc qsort function is used in a context where its input list comes from an attacker, then the attacker can craft a list that causes qsort’s stack usage to be linear in the size of the input array, potentially overflowing the available memory region for the stack.
    After discussion with stakeholders, including maintainers for llvm-libc, the conclusion was that this doesn’t have to be processed as a security issue needing coordinated disclosure. An improvement to qsort’s implementation was implemented through pull request https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110849.

12. “VersionFromVCS.cmake may leak secrets in released builds”
    GHSA-rcw6-jqvr-fcrx
    The LLVM build system may leak secrets of VCS configuration into release builds if the user clones the repo with an https link that contains their username and/or password.
    Mitigations were implemented in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/105220, https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/57dc09341e5eef758b1abce78822c51069157869. An issue was raised to suggest one more mitigation to be implemented at https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/109030.

### Invalid issues

The LLVM security group received 5 issues which were created accidentally or were not related to the LLVM project. The subject lines for these were:

- “Found this in my android”

- “[Not a new security issue] Continued discussion for GHSA-w7qc-292v-5xh6”

- “please delete it.”

- “Please help me to delete it.”

- “llvm code being used in malicious hacking of network and children’s devices”

Furthermore, we had 2 tickets that were created to test the setup and workflow as part of migrating to GitHub’s “security advisory”-based reporting:

1. “Test if new draft security advisory gets emailed to LLVM security group”
   GHSA-82m9-xvw3-rvpv

2. “Test that a non-admin can create an advisory (no vulnerability).”
   GHSA-34gr-6c7h-cc93

## 2025

### Introduction

2025 was the first year all reports were submitted using Github. We report on the issues the group received in 2025, or on issues that were received earlier, but were disclosed in 2025.

We group the issues into the following categories:

1. Security issues fixed under a coordinated disclosure process (2 issues)

2. Supply chain security related issues and project services-related issues (2 issues)

3. Issues deemed to not require coordinated action before disclosing publicly (11 issues)

4. Invalid issues (5 issues)

In 2025, we received 2 invalid issues that we believe that have been created automatically and 1 issue appeared to be created using generative AI. That issue was considered to be invalid.

### Security issues fixed under a coordinated disclosure process

This section lists the reported issues where we ended up implementing fixes under a coordinated disclosure process. The security advisories for those issues can be found at https://github.com/llvm/llvm-security-repo/security/advisories/.

1. “CMSE secure state may leak from stack to floating-point registers”
   Details are available at GHSA-wh65-j229-6wfp

2. “Binary executable injection vulnerability in clang-linker-wrapper.exe”
   Details are available at GHSA-hrx2-grgx-9vhg

### Supply chain security related issues and project services-related issues

1. “Critical Supply Chain Vulnerability in RockstarGames/llvm-project (CVE-2025-30066)”
   Details are available at GHSA-3fq9-qcq4-8jjr
   The issue had already been fixed with commit 6616acd80cd91.

2. “CVE-2022-25883 and CVE-2022-3517 with respect to llvm-project/mlir/utils/vscode/package-lock.json”
   Details are available at GHSA-g72r-487m-m6hh
   Packages have been updated with PR 144479.

### Issues deemed to not require coordinated action before disclosing publicly

1. “Coroutine Frame-Oriented Programming: A new exploitation method using C++ coroutines”
   Details are available at GHSA-v8pv-j8f5-qqcg
   The researchers shared a new exploitation method that leverages the implementation of C++ routines. Their paper describing the technique has been published and is available publicly.

2. “Security Bug in String Assign Function (libc++)”
   Details are available at GHSA-m967-6j3p-jrwc
   There has been an agreement that the proof of concept had undefined behavior which makes it out of scope according to the LLVM threat model.

3. “[clangd] heap-use-after-free in clangd when generating diagnostics”
   Details are available at GHSA-5426-9r4h-7whf
   It has been agreed this report fell out of scope because it was caused by untrusted inputs, as described in the LLVM threat model.

4. “A compiler optimization bug may cause signed integer overflow detection be bypassed”
   Details are available at GHSA-w6jm-h8j9-q33r
   There has been an agreement that the PoC had undefined behavior which makes it out of scope according to the LLVM threat model.

5. “libomp: Crash (OOB Write / ASan BUS Error) involving omp_init_lock under high concurrency”
   Details are available at GHSA-cfhc-jxq2-97mf
   The group agreed to close this as not a security issue because the code was written without taking into consideration the expectations from the OpenMP specification.

6. “[MLIR] head-use-after-free in mlir-lsp-server on completion request”
   Details are available at GHSA-8j9r-qc4r-q9fh
   This report fell out of scope because it was caused by untrusted inputs, as described in the LLVM threat model.

7. “[clangd/clang] heap-buffer-overflow in clang/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp:9144”
   Details are available at GHSA-qq8q-r524-8vw9
   This issue and the following 3 were concluded to be outside of the LLVM threat model.

8. “[clangd] heap-buffer-overflow in clang/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp:8876”
   Details are available at GHSA-3xm9-vccr-fxx5

9. “[clangd/clang] heap-use-after-free at clang/Sema/Ownership.h:81”
   Details are available at GHSA-qj36-2p7g-83gv

10. “Clang 20.1.0 Compiler Internal Error (Crash) during AST Parsing of C++23”
    Details are available at GHSA-p2g2-89wf-7gcm

11. “Compiler-induced non-constant-time code”
    Details are available at GHSA-627p-g235-23pm
    The reporters shared a pre-print article evaluating non-constant-time code generated by Clang. We all agreed this did not need coordinated disclosure because Clang offers no guarantees of constant-time code.

### Invalid issues

The LLVM security group received 5 issues which were created accidentally or were not related to the LLVM project. The subject lines for these were:

1. “llvm-Bug”

2. “Potential Negative Number Used as Index”

3. “I was recently hacked… maybe you folks might know the dev?”

4. “ASP.NETconfiguration: Creating Debug Binary in `[![Labelling new pull requests](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/actions/workflows/new-prs.yml/badge.svg?event=create)](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/actions/workflows`”

5. “ASP.NETconfiguration: Creating Debug Binary in `[![Labelling new pull requests](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/actions/workflows/new-prs.yml/badge.svg?event=create)](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/actions/workflows`”