VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2026Updated 9 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-54283: Starlette · request.form() limits silently ignored for application/x-www-form-urlencoded enable DoS

Affects fastapiSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-54283· High 7.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 0.137.0 soon.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 20:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 0.137.0

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 9 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 fastapi to 0.137.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewfastapi`pkg:brew/fastapi`Other threats	Affected >=0.111.0 <0.137.0	Fixed in 0.137.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade to Starlette or FastAPI version 0.137.0 or later, where the max_fields and max_part_size parameters are properly forwarded and enforced for application/x-www-form-urlencoded requests. This prevents accumulation of excessive fields or large field sizes by raising errors before resource exhaustion. Until upgrade, consider limiting request body sizes at the proxy level, though this does not fully mitigate the risk.

Description

Starlette's request.form() method does not enforce configured limits on max_fields and max_part_size for application/x-www-form-urlencoded content types, allowing unauthenticated attackers to send requests with very large numbers of fields or very large field sizes. This can cause denial of service by blocking the event loop or forcing excessive memory allocation. The issue affects Starlette and FastAPI applications using vulnerable versions. A patch is available in version 0.137.0 that enforces these limits for urlencoded form data.

Impact

This vulnerability allows unauthenticated attackers to cause denial of service on affected Starlette or FastAPI applications by sending application/x-www-form-urlencoded requests with excessive numbers of fields or very large field sizes. The event loop can be blocked for several seconds by parsing a large number of fields, preventing the worker from handling other requests. Large field sizes cause excessive memory allocation, potentially exhausting system resources. Although reverse proxies limiting request body size can reduce exposure, sub-10MB payloads are sufficient to trigger event loop blocking, so the risk remains significant until patched.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Nov 2026, 20:02 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats