CVE-2026-53538

ADVISORY - github

Summary

Summary

QuerystringParser treated ; as a field separator in application/x-www-form-urlencoded bodies, in addition to &. The WHATWG URL standard, modern browsers, and Python's urllib.parse (since the CVE-2021-23336 fix) treat only & as a separator. This creates a parser differential: the same bytes are tokenized into different fields than a WHATWG compliant intermediary would produce, allowing an attacker to smuggle extra form fields past an upstream body inspecting component.

Details

In python_multipart/multipart.py, the FIELD_NAME and FIELD_DATA states located the next separator by scanning for & and, failing that, for ;:

sep_pos = data.find(b"&", i)
if sep_pos == -1:
    sep_pos = data.find(b";", i)

As a result, ; acted as a field boundary. Because the fallback only triggered when no & remained in the current chunk, tokenization also depended on unrelated bytes later in the buffer and on how the body was split across write() calls. This is the same class of issue as CVE-2021-23336 in CPython's urllib.parse.

For example, a body inspecting WAF or gateway that follows the WHATWG rule (only & separates fields) receives:

role=user&x=;role=admin

The upstream parses two fields, role=user and x=";role=admin", sees a benign role=user, and forwards the request. QuerystringParser parsed the same bytes as three fields: role="user", x="", and role="admin". The application (for example via Starlette/FastAPI request.form(), where the last value wins) then received role=admin, a value the upstream validator never saw.

The parser is reachable through the public QuerystringParser class, the high level FormParser, create_form_parser, and parse_form APIs, and Starlette/FastAPI request.form() for url encoded bodies.

Impact

Interpretation conflict / HTTP parameter pollution. An attacker can smuggle extra or overriding form fields past an upstream component that applies the WHATWG separator rule, reaching the backend with parameters the intermediary did not observe.

Mitigation

Upgrade to python-multipart 0.0.30 or later, which treats only & as a field separator per the WHATWG URL standard. ; is parsed as ordinary field data, matching urllib.parse, browsers, and other compliant parsers.

Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)

ADVISORY - github

Interpretation Conflict

Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')


GitHub

CREATED

UPDATED

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

2.2

EXPLOITS FOUND
-
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)

CVSS SCORE

3.7low
PackageTypeOS NameOS VersionAffected RangesFix Versions
python-multipartpypi--<0.0.300.0.30

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.

minimos

CREATED

UPDATED

ADVISORY ID

MINI-4qfp-xphg-jfmq

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

-

EXPLOITS FOUND
-
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)-
RATING UNAVAILABLE FROM ADVISORY

minimos

CREATED

UPDATED

ADVISORY ID

MINI-5xj9-3hxh-hr3g

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

-

EXPLOITS FOUND
-
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)-
RATING UNAVAILABLE FROM ADVISORY

minimos

CREATED

UPDATED

ADVISORY ID

MINI-93wv-qg5w-6844

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

-

EXPLOITS FOUND
-
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)-
RATING UNAVAILABLE FROM ADVISORY

minimos

CREATED

UPDATED

ADVISORY ID

MINI-xwp5-28jg-2p7h

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

-

EXPLOITS FOUND
-
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)-
RATING UNAVAILABLE FROM ADVISORY