CVE-2026-26962
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
Rack::Multipart::Parser unfolds folded multipart part headers incorrectly. When a multipart header contains an obs-fold sequence, Rack preserves the embedded CRLF in parsed parameter values such as filename or name instead of removing the folded line break during unfolding.
As a result, applications that later reuse those parsed values in HTTP response headers may be vulnerable to downstream header injection or response splitting.
Details
Rack::Multipart::Parser accepts folded multipart header values and unfolds them during parsing. However, the unfolding behavior does not fully remove the embedded line break sequence from the parsed value.
This means a multipart part header such as:
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="file"; filename="test\r\n foo.txt"
can result in a parsed parameter value that still contains CRLF characters.
The issue is not that Rack creates a second multipart header field. Rather, the problem is that CRLF remains embedded in the parsed metadata value after unfolding. If an application later uses that value in a security-sensitive context, such as constructing an HTTP response header, the preserved CRLF may alter downstream header parsing.
Affected values may include multipart parameters such as filename, name, or similar parsed header attributes.
Impact
Applications that accept multipart form uploads may be affected if they later reuse parsed multipart metadata in HTTP headers or other header-sensitive contexts.
In affected deployments, an attacker may be able to supply a multipart parameter value containing folded line breaks and cause downstream header injection, response splitting, cache poisoning, or related response parsing issues.
The practical impact depends on application behavior. If parsed multipart metadata is not reused in HTTP headers, the issue may be limited to incorrect parsing behavior rather than a direct exploit path.
Mitigation
- Update to a patched version of Rack that removes CRLF correctly when unfolding folded multipart header values.
- Avoid copying upload metadata such as
filenamedirectly into HTTP response headers without sanitization. - Sanitize or reject carriage return and line feed characters in multipart-derived values before reusing them in response headers, logs, or downstream protocol contexts.
- Where feasible, normalize uploaded filenames before storing or reflecting them.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')
Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')
Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')
GitHub
2.2
CVSS SCORE
4.8medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rack | gem | - | - | >=3.2.0,<3.2.6 | 3.2.6 |
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 some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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
4.8mediumDebian
-
Ubuntu
-
CVSS SCORE
N/AmediumRed Hat
2.2
CVSS SCORE
4.8mediumminimos
MINI-3493-hh35-8q5w
-
minimos
MINI-f7j9-m4hx-x6pc
-
minimos
MINI-w224-mvmm-cpj8
-