HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2026 26961 racks greedy multipart boundary parsing can cause
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
Medium · CVSS 5.3CVE-2026-26961GHSA-VGPV-F759-9WX3

Rack's greedy multipart boundary parsing can cause parser differentials and WAF bypass.CVE-2026-26961

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-26961 records a Medium severity (CVSS 5.3) vulnerability in Rack's greedy multipart boundary parsing can cause parser differentials and WAF bypass.. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps rack (rubygems), rack (rubygems), rack (rubygems). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Apr 2, 2026Updated Sep 10, 2026Source checked Oct 25, 2026First seen by HOL Aug 7, 2026Material review Sep 10, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
Medium · CVSS 5.3
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
3 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 5.3. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps rack (rubygems), rack (rubygems), rack (rubygems). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
rackrubygems>=0 <2.2.232.2.23
rackrubygems>=3.0.0.beta1 <3.1.213.1.21
rackrubygems>=3.2.0 <3.2.63.2.6

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for rack, rack, rack.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update rack to 2.2.23; rack to 3.1.21; rack to 3.2.6 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Apr 2, 2026

    Evidence: source:osv:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Sep 10, 2026

    Evidence: source:osv:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Aug 7, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • NVD vulnerability recordnvd.nist.gov
Upstream source description

## Summary `Rack::Multipart::Parser` extracts the `boundary` parameter from `multipart/form-data` using a greedy regular expression. When a `Content-Type` header contains multiple `boundary` parameters, Rack selects the last one rather than the first. In deployments where an upstream proxy, WAF, or intermediary interprets the first `boundary` parameter, this mismatch can allow an attacker to smuggle multipart content past upstream inspection and have Rack parse a different body structure than the intermediary validated. ## Details Rack identifies the multipart boundary using logic equivalent to: ```ruby MULTIPART = %r|\Amultipart/.*boundary=\"?([^\";,]+)\"?|ni ``` Because the expression is greedy, it matches the last `boundary=` parameter in a header such as: ```http Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=safe; boundary=malicious ``` As a result, Rack parses the request body using `malicious`, while another component may interpret the same header using `safe`. This creates an interpretation conflict. If an upstream WAF or proxy inspects multipart parts using the first boundary and Rack later parses the body using the last boundary, a client may be able to place malicious form fields or uploaded content in parts that Rack accepts but the upstream component did not inspect as intended. This issue is most relevant in layered deployments where security decisions are made before the request reaches Rack. ## Impact Applications that accept `multipart/form-data` uploads behind an inspecting proxy or WAF may be affected. In such deployments, an attacker may be able to bypass upstream filtering of uploaded files or form fields by sending a request with multiple `boundary` parameters and relying on the intermediary and Rack to parse the request differently. The practical impact depends on deployment architecture. If no upstream component relies on a different multipart interpretation, this behavior may not provide meaningful additional attacker capability. ## Mitigation * Update to a patched version of Rack that rejects ambiguous multipart `Content-Type` headers or parses duplicate `boundary` parameters consistently. * Reject requests containing multiple `boundary` parameters. * Normalize or regenerate multipart metadata at the trusted edge before forwarding requests to Rack. * Avoid relying on upstream inspection of malformed multipart requests unless duplicate parameter handling is explicitly consistent across components.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Vulnerability
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
Not reported
Source
OSV
Source checked
Oct 25, 2026
References
4 linked sources
Open source record