Skip to main content

Threats Tagged 'cve-2026-53537'

View all threats tagged with 'cve-2026-53537'. Filter and sort to focus on specific types of threats.

Pro Console Lifetime

Stop chasing alerts. Route them.

Start free, then upgrade once to turn Radar into an automated delivery engine for your security stack.

Custom feeds / Automations: email, Slack, webhooks, SIEM/MISP / API access (baseline limits)

View Plans & Pricing

API access activates after upgrading in Console -> Billing.

Breach by OffSeqOFFSEQFRIENDS — 25% OFF

Check if your credentials are on the dark web

Instant breach scanning across billions of leaked records. Free tier available.

Scan now

Filter Threats

Narrow down the results by type, severity, or affected countries

Search threats by title, CVE ID, or description. Maximum 100 characters.
Active filters (1):Tag: cve-2026-53537

Threats Tagged 'cve-2026-53537'

Click on any threat for detailed analysis and mitigation recommendations

### Summary `parse_options_header` parsed `Content-Disposition` (and `Content-Type`) headers with [`email.message.Message`](https://docs.python.org/3/library/email.compat32-message.html#email.message.Message), which transparently applies [RFC 2231](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2231)/[5987](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5987) decoding. The extended parameter syntax (`filename*=charset'lang'value`, `name*=...`, and the `filename*0`/`filename*1` continuation form) is decoded and surfaced under the bare `filename`/`name` key, and overrides the plain parameter when both are present. [RFC 7578 §4.2](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7578#section-4.2) explicitly forbids the `filename*` form in `multipart/form-data`. Components that follow RFC 7578, or that do not implement RFC 2231/5987 decoding for `multipart/form-data` (WAFs, proxies, gateways), may interpret such a header differently. An attacker can exploit that difference to smuggle a different field name or filename past an upstream inspector to the backend. ### Details Given both a plain and an extended parameter, the extended value won. For example: ``` Content-Disposition: form-data; name="comment"; name*=utf-8''role ``` An inspector following RFC 7578 sees the field `comment`, while the returned value was `name=role`. The same applies to filenames: ``` Content-Disposition: form-data; name="upload"; filename="safe.txt"; filename*=utf-8''evil.php ``` The inspector sees `safe.txt`, while the returned value was `filename=evil.php`. Continuation parameters (`filename*0`, `filename*1`, and so on) were likewise reassembled into a `filename` invisible to a plain `filename=` match, and percent encoded sequences in the extended value were decoded (so `..%2F`, `%00`, and similar appeared in the returned filename). This affects the high level `parse_options_header`, `FormParser`, `create_form_parser`, and `parse_form` APIs, and reaches Starlette/FastAPI through `request.form()`, where the smuggled value is exposed as the form field name or [`UploadFile.filename`](https://www.starlette.io/requests/#request-files). ### Impact This is an interpretation conflict ([CWE-436](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/436.html)) with other `multipart/form-data` parsers. An attacker able to submit `multipart/form-data` can present a different field name or filename to an upstream body inspecting component than the one delivered to the application. Concrete consequences depend on how the application uses these values, and may include bypassing a field name or filename based access/upload control, or, for an application that builds filesystem paths from the parsed filename without sanitization, path traversal via decoded `..%2F` sequences. Decoded control bytes such as `%00` can likewise cause confusion between an upstream validator and the backend. The `File` class applies `os.path.basename`, so file writing through it is not directly affected. ### Mitigation Upgrade to `python-multipart` `0.0.30` or later, which ignores RFC 2231/5987 extended parameters (`name*`, `filename*`, and their continuations) so the plain `name`/`filename` parameter remains authoritative. RFC 7578 §4.2 forbids `filename*` for `multipart/form-data`; `name*` and the continuation forms are dropped for the same reason, since they are not valid `multipart/form-data` parameters either.

Join the discussion

This update includes the following RPMs: opentelemetry-collector-contrib: * opentelemetry-collector-contrib-0.155.0-0.1.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * opentelemetry-collector-contrib-0.155.0-0.1.hum1.src (src)

Join the discussion

Python-Multipart is a streaming multipart parser for Python. Prior to 0.0.30, parse_options_header parsed Content-Disposition (and Content-Type) headers with email.message.Message, which transparently applies RFC 2231/5987 decoding. The extended parameter syntax (filename*=charset'lang'value, name*=..., and the filename*0/filename*1 continuation form) is decoded and surfaced under the bare filename/name key, and overrides the plain parameter when both are present. RFC 7578 §4.2 explicitly forbids the filename* form in multipart/form-data. Components that follow RFC 7578, or that do not implement RFC 2231/5987 decoding for multipart/form-data (WAFs, proxies, gateways), may interpret such a header differently. An attacker can exploit that difference to smuggle a different field name or filename past an upstream inspector to the backend. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.0.30.

Join the discussion

Showing 1 to 3 of 3 results

Filters:Tag: cve-2026-53537
Page 1 of 1
OffSeq TrainingCredly Certified

Lead Pen Test Professional

Technical5-day eLearningPECB Accredited
View courses