BREW-SNYK-AGENT-SCAN-CVE… (GHSA-6JV3-5F52-599M)
Vulnerability from osv_homebrew – Published: 2026-08-13 17:35 – Updated: 2026-11-08 09:47 – Source websiteSummary
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.
{
"affected": [
{
"ecosystem_specific": {
"fix": "bump",
"range_state": "fixed",
"resource": "python-multipart",
"resource_purl": "pkg:pypi/python-multipart@0.0.33",
"upstream_fixed_in": "0.0.30"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Homebrew",
"name": "snyk-agent-scan",
"purl": "pkg:brew/snyk-agent-scan"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.4.3"
},
{
"fixed": "0.5.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"database_specific": {
"confidence": "high",
"source": "matched",
"strategy": "registry",
"upstream_evidence": [
{
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"key": "pkg:pypi/python-multipart@0.0.33",
"name": "python-multipart",
"resource": "python-multipart",
"strategy": "registry",
"subject_version": "0.0.33"
}
]
},
"details": "### Summary\n\n`QuerystringParser` treated `;` as a field separator in `application/x-www-form-urlencoded` bodies, in addition to `\u0026`. The [WHATWG URL standard](https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#urlencoded-parsing), modern browsers, and Python\u0027s `urllib.parse` (since the CVE-2021-23336 fix) treat only `\u0026` 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.\n\n### Details\n\nIn `python_multipart/multipart.py`, the `FIELD_NAME` and `FIELD_DATA` states located the next separator by scanning for `\u0026` and, failing that, for `;`:\n\n```python\nsep_pos = data.find(b\"\u0026\", i)\nif sep_pos == -1:\n sep_pos = data.find(b\";\", i)\n```\n\nAs a result, `;` acted as a field boundary. Because the fallback only triggered when no `\u0026` 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\u0027s `urllib.parse`.\n\nFor example, a body inspecting WAF or gateway that follows the WHATWG rule (only `\u0026` separates fields) receives:\n\n```\nrole=user\u0026x=;role=admin\n```\n\nThe 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.\n\nThe 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.\n\n### Impact\n\nInterpretation 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.\n\n### Mitigation\n\nUpgrade to `python-multipart` `0.0.30` or later, which treats only `\u0026` as a field separator per the [WHATWG URL standard](https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#urlencoded-parsing). `;` is parsed as ordinary field data, matching `urllib.parse`, browsers, and other compliant parsers.",
"id": "BREW-snyk-agent-scan-CVE-2026-53538",
"modified": "2026-11-08T09:47:40Z",
"published": "2026-08-13T17:35:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Kludex/python-multipart/security/advisories/GHSA-6jv3-5f52-599m"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Kludex/python-multipart"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.7.3",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "python-multipart: Semicolon treated as querystring field separator enables parameter smuggling",
"upstream": [
"GHSA-6jv3-5f52-599m",
"CVE-2026-53538",
"PYSEC-2026-3037"
]
}
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.