VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2026Updated 4 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-53537: python-multipart · Content-Disposition parameter smuggling via RFC 2231/5987 extended parameters

Affects gptmeSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-53537· Low 3.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low : upgrade to 0.31.0_12 when convenient.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 00:01 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.31.0_12

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

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

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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

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 4 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 gptme to 0.31.0_12.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewgptme`pkg:brew/gptme`Other threats	Affected >=0.28.0 <0.31.0_12	Fixed in 0.31.0_12

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 0.31.0_12 or later. This version ignores RFC 2231/5987 extended parameters (name*, filename*, and their continuations), ensuring the plain name and filename parameters remain authoritative as mandated by RFC 7578 §4.2. No other mitigation is required as the fix addresses the root cause.

Description

The python-multipart library versions from 0.28.0 up to but not including 0.31.0_12 improperly parse Content-Disposition headers with RFC 2231/5987 extended parameters in multipart/form-data requests. This allows an attacker to smuggle different field names or filenames past upstream inspectors by exploiting interpretation differences, potentially bypassing access controls or causing path traversal if filenames are unsafely used. The issue is fixed in version 0.31.0_12 by ignoring these extended parameters, aligning with RFC 7578 which forbids them in multipart/form-data.

Impact

An attacker able to submit multipart/form-data can present different field names or filenames to upstream body inspectors than those processed by the backend application. This can lead to bypassing field name or filename based access or upload controls. Additionally, if the application constructs filesystem paths from the parsed filename without sanitization, path traversal attacks may be possible through decoded sequences like '..%2F'. Decoded control bytes such as '%00' may also cause discrepancies between upstream validation and backend processing. However, direct file writing path traversal is mitigated by the File class's use of os.path.basename. The CVSS score is low (3.7) reflecting limited impact and attack complexity.

Summary

The vulnerability arises because the parse_options_header function in python-multipart uses email.message.Message which applies RFC 2231/5987 decoding to Content-Disposition headers. This decoding causes extended parameters like filename* or name* to override the plain parameters, despite RFC 7578 forbidding such extended parameters in multipart/form-data. Upstream components that do not implement this decoding see the plain parameter, while the backend receives the decoded extended parameter, enabling parameter smuggling. This affects APIs including parse_options_header, FormParser, create_form_parser, parse_form, and frameworks like Starlette/FastAPI via request.form(). The impact depends on application use of these values, including possible bypass of access controls or path traversal via decoded sequences. The File class mitigates direct file write path traversal by applying os.path.basename. The issue is fixed in python-multipart 0.31.0_12 by ignoring extended parameters.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Nov 2026, 20:35 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats