Nixpkgs security tracker

Login with GitHub
⚠️ You are using a production deployment that is still only suitable for demo purposes. Any work done in this might be wiped later without notice.

Suggestion detail

Untriaged
Permalink CVE-2026-53537
3.7 LOW
  • CVSS version (CVSS): 3.1
  • Attack Vector (AV): Network (N)
  • Attack Complexity (AC): High (H)
  • Privileges Required (PR): None (N)
  • User Interaction (UI): None (N)
  • Scope (S): Unchanged (U)
  • Confidentiality (C): None (N)
  • Integrity (I): Low (L)
  • Availability (A): None (N)
  • Modified Attack Vector (MAV): Network (N)
  • Modified Attack Complexity (MAC): High (H)
  • Modified Privileges Required (MPR): None (N)
  • Modified User Interaction (MUI): None (N)
  • Modified Confidentiality (MC): None (N)
  • Modified Scope (MS): Unchanged (U)
  • Modified Integrity (MI): Low (L)
  • Modified Availability (MA): None (N)
created 3 weeks, 2 days ago Activity log
  • Created suggestion
Python-Multipart: Content-Disposition parameter smuggling via RFC 2231/5987 extended parameters

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.

Affected products

python-multipart
  • ==< 0.0.30

Matching in nixpkgs

Package maintainers