VulnerabilityPublished 22 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-53539: Kludex python-multipart · Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Affects Kludex python-multipartSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 0.0.30 soon.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.0.30

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 22 Jun 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 5 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade Kludex python-multipart to 0.0.30.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Kludexpython-multipart	Affected <0.0.30	Fixed in 0.0.30
PyPIpython-multipart`pkg:pypi/python-multipart`Other threats	Affected <0.0.30	Fixed in 0.0.30

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Upgrade python-multipart to version 0.0.30 or later where this vulnerability is fixed. Patch status is confirmed by the vendor's versioning. No other mitigations are indicated.

Description

### Summary When parsing `application/x-www-form-urlencoded` bodies, `QuerystringParser` located the field separator with a two step lookup: it first scanned the entire remaining buffer for `&`, and only when no `&` existed anywhere ahead did it fall back to scanning for `;`. For a body that uses `;` as the separator and contains no `&`, every field iteration performed a full failed `&` scan over the entire remaining buffer before locating the nearby `;`. With N semicolon separated fields in a chunk of size B, this yields O(B^2) byte comparisons per chunk. An attacker can submit a small crafted body of the form `a;a;a;...` and cause the parser to spend seconds of CPU per request. A handful of concurrent requests can exhaust worker processes. ### Details In `python_multipart/multipart.py`, both the `FIELD_NAME` and `FIELD_DATA` states located the next separator like this: ```python sep_pos = data.find(b"&", i) if sep_pos == -1: sep_pos = data.find(b";", i) ``` `data.find(b"&", i)` scans from `i` to the end of the buffer and returns `-1` only when there is no `&` anywhere in the remainder. For a `;` separated body with no `&`, this failed full buffer scan repeats once per field, making parsing quadratic in the body length. For example, a 1 MiB url encoded body consisting of `a;` repeated ~500,000 times, submitted with `Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded`, causes the parser to perform on the order of 10^11 byte comparisons, consuming several seconds of CPU for a single request. Cost scales quadratically with chunk size. The parser is reachable through the public `QuerystringParser` class and through the high level `FormParser`, `create_form_parser`, and `parse_form` APIs for url encoded bodies. It is also the parser Starlette and FastAPI use for `application/x-www-form-urlencoded` request bodies via `request.form()`. ### Impact Uncontrolled CPU consumption (denial of service). Parsing is synchronous, so a single small crafted form body occupies the handling worker for seconds, blocking any other work on that worker until parsing finishes. Sustained concurrent requests keep workers continuously busy, degrading or denying service. ### Mitigation Upgrade to `python-multipart` `0.0.30` or later, which treats only `&` as a field separator (per the [WHATWG URL standard](https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#urlencoded-parsing)) using a single bounded scan, making parsing linear in the body length.

Impact

The vulnerability causes high CPU consumption leading to denial of service conditions by exhausting worker processes handling requests. It does not impact confidentiality or integrity but affects availability due to resource exhaustion.

Summary

The python-multipart library versions before 0.0.30 contain a performance flaw in the QuerystringParser when parsing application/x-www-form-urlencoded bodies that use semicolon (;) as field separators without ampersands (&). The parser performs a full scan for '&' on each field iteration before falling back to scanning for ';', resulting in O(B^2) byte comparisons for a chunk of size B with N semicolon-separated fields. This inefficiency can be exploited by an attacker sending crafted bodies like 'a;a;a;...' to cause excessive CPU usage and potentially exhaust worker processes. The issue is addressed in version 0.0.30.

CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place.
Architecture and Design
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or; uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Regular Expression Exponential Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Sustained Client Engagement (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-407Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Low
An algorithm in a product has an inefficient worst-case computational complexity that may be detrimental to system performance and can be triggered by an attacker, typically using crafted manipulations that ensure that the worst case is being reached.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/Kludex/python-multipart/security/advisories/GHSA-5rvq-cxj2-64vf (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Jun 2026, 21:51 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-400, CWE-407

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats