CVE-2026-125108VulnerabilityPublished 10 Nov 2026

Rack: Multipart boundary ambiguity guard

Affects rackSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-26961

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-125108· Low 3.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low : upgrade to 2.2.25 when convenient.

Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 20:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	3.7

Patch: Available – fixed in 2.2.25, 3.1.23, 3.2.8

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 9 Nov 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 10 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 rack to 2.2.25; rack to 3.1.23; rack to 3.2.8.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
RubyGemsrack	Affected <2.2.25	Fixed in 2.2.25
RubyGemsrack	Affected >=3.0.0 <3.1.23	Fixed in 3.1.23
RubyGemsrack	Affected >=3.2.0 <3.2.8	Fixed in 3.2.8

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

Description

## Summary The guard added for CVE-2026-26961 (GHSA-vgpv-f759-9wx3), which rejects multipart requests with more than one `boundary` parameter, only inspects the part of the `Content-Type` header after the boundary it extracts. A `Content-Type` whose first `boundary` parameter is empty or begins with a quote, semicolon, or comma is skipped by the extraction pattern, so a second `boundary` parameter is accepted silently and Rack parses the body with a boundary that a conforming parser would not derive from the header. ## Details `Rack::Multipart::Parser.parse_boundary` extracts the boundary with a regular expression that uses a lazy prefix and a value class excluding `"`, `;`, and `,`. For a header such as `multipart/form-data; boundary=";boundary=AaB03x"` or `multipart/form-data; boundary=; boundary=AaB03x`, the pattern skips the first `boundary=` and anchors on the second, and the subsequent check for another `boundary=` in the remaining text finds nothing. Rack then uses `AaB03x`. RFC 9110 parses the first header as a single parameter whose value is `;boundary=AaB03x`, which is not a legal boundary under RFC 2046, so the only conformant outcome is rejection. Inspecting intermediaries that implement the standard grammar, such as ModSecurity, see a different boundary or no multipart body at all. The fix counts `boundary=` occurrences across the entire header value and rejects the request when there is more than one. ## Impact As with CVE-2026-26961, an attacker can craft a multipart request that a web application firewall or other inspecting proxy in front of a Rack application interprets differently from Rack, so form fields and file uploads reach the application without inspection. Rack itself grants no capability beyond that of a well-formed request with the same body. All supported versions, including 2.2, are affected. ## Mitigation * Update to a patched version of Rack. * Reject requests whose `Content-Type` contains more than one `boundary` parameter at the reverse proxy.

CWE-436Interpretation Conflict (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
HTTP Request Splitting (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Response Smuggling (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Response Splitting (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-436

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats