
Loading

Loading
We use strictly necessary cookies to run this site, and analytics cookies to understand how it's used. See our Privacy Policy for details.
A GitHub-reviewed security advisory, not necessarily under active exploitation the way our CISA KEV advisories are, but a real, disclosed vulnerability in an open-source dependency.
Affected packages
Vulnerable: < 2.2.25
Patched in 2.2.25
Vulnerable: >= 3.0.0, < 3.1.23
Patched in 3.1.23
Vulnerable: >= 3.2.0, < 3.2.8
Patched in 3.2.8
Details
The guard added for CVE-2026-26961 (GHSA-vgpv-f759-9wx3), which rejects multipart requests with more than one boundary parameter, only inspects the part of the Content-Type header after the boundary it extracts. A Content-Type whose first boundary parameter is empty or begins with a quote, semicolon, or comma is skipped by the extraction pattern, so a second boundary parameter is accepted silently and Rack parses the body with a boundary that a conforming parser would not derive from the header.
Rack::Multipart::Parser.parse_boundary extracts the boundary with a regular expression that uses a lazy prefix and a value class excluding ", ;, and ,. For a header such as multipart/form-data; boundary=";boundary=AaB03x" or multipart/form-data; boundary=; boundary=AaB03x, the pattern skips the first boundary= and anchors on the second, and the subsequent check for another boundary= in the remaining text finds nothing. Rack then uses AaB03x.
RFC 9110 parses the first header as a single parameter whose value is ;boundary=AaB03x, which is not a legal boundary under RFC 2046, so the only conformant outcome is rejection. Inspecting intermediaries that implement the standard grammar, such as ModSecurity, see a different boundary or no multipart body at all.
The fix counts boundary= occurrences across the entire header value and rejects the request when there is more than one.
As with CVE-2026-26961, an attacker can craft a multipart request that a web application firewall or other inspecting proxy in front of a Rack application interprets differently from Rack, so form fields and file uploads reach the application without inspection. Rack itself grants no capability beyond that of a well-formed request with the same body. All supported versions, including 2.2, are affected.
Content-Type contains more than one boundary parameter at the reverse proxy.EPSS, exploit probability
Low0.24%
estimated chance of real-world exploitation in the next 30 days, higher than 15.2% of every CVE FIRST.org scores
Refreshed 11/10/2026, via FIRST.org's EPSS model, not CVSS, this measures likelihood of exploitation, not how severe it would be.
More rubygems advisories
Talk to us about this
Find out whether this dependency (or others like it) is actually reachable in your codebase.
Get help patching, or building dependency-scanning into your pipeline going forward.
A secure code review or supply chain review finds this before an advisory does.