CVE-2026-26961
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
Rack::Multipart::Parser extracts the boundary parameter from multipart/form-data using a greedy regular expression. When a Content-Type header contains multiple boundary parameters, Rack selects the last one rather than the first.
In deployments where an upstream proxy, WAF, or intermediary interprets the first boundary parameter, this mismatch can allow an attacker to smuggle multipart content past upstream inspection and have Rack parse a different body structure than the intermediary validated.
Details
Rack identifies the multipart boundary using logic equivalent to:
MULTIPART = %r|\Amultipart/.*boundary=\"?([^\";,]+)\"?|ni
Because the expression is greedy, it matches the last boundary= parameter in a header such as:
Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=safe; boundary=malicious
As a result, Rack parses the request body using malicious, while another component may interpret the same header using safe.
This creates an interpretation conflict. If an upstream WAF or proxy inspects multipart parts using the first boundary and Rack later parses the body using the last boundary, a client may be able to place malicious form fields or uploaded content in parts that Rack accepts but the upstream component did not inspect as intended.
This issue is most relevant in layered deployments where security decisions are made before the request reaches Rack.
Impact
Applications that accept multipart/form-data uploads behind an inspecting proxy or WAF may be affected.
In such deployments, an attacker may be able to bypass upstream filtering of uploaded files or form fields by sending a request with multiple boundary parameters and relying on the intermediary and Rack to parse the request differently.
The practical impact depends on deployment architecture. If no upstream component relies on a different multipart interpretation, this behavior may not provide meaningful additional attacker capability.
Mitigation
- Update to a patched version of Rack that rejects ambiguous multipart
Content-Typeheaders or parses duplicateboundaryparameters consistently. - Reject requests containing multiple
boundaryparameters. - Normalize or regenerate multipart metadata at the trusted edge before forwarding requests to Rack.
- Avoid relying on upstream inspection of malformed multipart requests unless duplicate parameter handling is explicitly consistent across components.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Interpretation Conflict
Interpretation Conflict
Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')
GitHub
2.2
CVSS SCORE
3.7low| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rack | gem | - | - | >=3.2.0,<3.2.6 | 3.2.6 |
| rack | gem | - | - | <2.2.23 | 2.2.23 |
| rack | gem | - | - | >=3.0.0.beta1,<3.1.21 | 3.1.21 |
CVSS:3 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control, requiring investing a measurable amount of effort in research, preparation, or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack.
The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
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.
There is no loss of confidentiality.
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.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
NIST
2.2
CVSS SCORE
3.7lowDebian
-
Ubuntu
-
CVSS SCORE
N/AmediumRed Hat
2.2
CVSS SCORE
3.7lowminimos
MINI-24gf-58c3-jg97
-
minimos
MINI-3f2p-ff55-6569
-
minimos
MINI-73c5-xwvr-p8vp
-
minimos
MINI-cv6g-hr6x-2xvg
-
minimos
MINI-gj4h-jpq5-3r2g
-
minimos
MINI-h4jq-vj2g-54f6
-
minimos
MINI-hrrm-g558-mmcr
-
minimos
MINI-jjx3-vjp2-4c5j
-
minimos
MINI-mc63-cm7p-w7qv
-
minimos
MINI-mjhg-3vmm-52jm
-
minimos
MINI-p3rr-wv5f-289q
-
minimos
MINI-pvph-6fwr-2g6f
-
minimos
MINI-q2mx-4vw7-x5wf
-
minimos
MINI-r465-3rhq-9vvr
-