VulnerabilityPublished 10 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-125111: Rack · Multipart parsing allows DoS via unbounded scan buffer growth

Affects rackSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-125111· High 7.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 2.2.25 soon.

Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 20:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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	7.5

Patch: Available – fixed in 2.2.25, 3.1.23, 3.2.8

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 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 `Rack::Multipart::Parser` reads the request body in chunks of `rack.multipart.buffer_size` (1 MiB by default) into an internal scan buffer. Parsed bytes are only discarded from that buffer when a chunk ends inside a part body. A request whose parts are sized so that every chunk ends inside, or immediately after, a part's headers is never compacted, so the buffer grows to the size of the request. This results in a denial of service condition through memory exhaustion for applications that parse multipart requests. ## Details The parser appends each chunk read from the input to a `StringScanner` and advances through boundaries, headers, and bodies. In the body state, when no closing boundary is found, the consumed prefix is removed before more data is read. In the header state, and in the body state when no body bytes have been consumed yet, the parser requests more data without removing anything. Bytes skipped between parts are not counted against any limit. An attacker can therefore construct parts that each fit within one chunk and align the chunk boundaries with the part headers. The existing limits on buffered non-file field data, header size, and preamble size do not apply, because each individual part remains small. With default limits the buffer can reach roughly 4 GiB (4096 parts of about 1 MiB). Ordinary file uploads aligned the same way are bounded by the file part limit at roughly 128 MiB per request. ## Impact Any application that parses multipart requests with Rack is affected in its default configuration. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a single request to hold memory proportional to its size for the duration of parsing, exhausting worker memory. The attack requires only a well-formed multipart body. ## Mitigation * Update to a patched version of Rack in which the parser discards parsed bytes from its scan buffer before reading more data. * Limit the request body size at a reverse proxy or application boundary. * Set `RACK_MULTIPART_PARSER_BYTESIZE_LIMIT` to the largest multipart body the application needs to accept, which bounds the memory a single request can hold.

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).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-400

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats