CVE-2026-54283 — starlette
HIGHCVE-2026-54283 is a high-severity (CVSS 7.5) CWE-770 vulnerability in starlette. A fix is available for starlette — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Starlette: request.form() limits silently ignored for application/x-www-form-urlencoded enable DoS
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
- CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2026-54283.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
CVE-2026-54283 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 379,145 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
starletteReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Summary
request.form() accepts max_fields and max_part_size to bound resource consumption while parsing form data. These limits are enforced for multipart/form-data, but silently ignored for application/x-www-form-urlencoded. An unauthenticated attacker can therefore send a urlencoded body with an arbitrarily large number of fields or an arbitrarily large field, even when the application configured limits it believed would apply.
Details
request.form() dispatches to a different parser depending on the Content-Type. For multipart/form-data the max_files, max_fields, and max_part_size limits are forwarded to the parser, but for application/x-www-form-urlencoded the parser is constructed without them. It has no max_fields or max_part_size parameter to receive them, and it appends every field with no count check and accumulates each field's name and value with no size check. The configured limits are therefore both unreachable and unenforced for url-encoded bodies.
Because the url-encoded parser does its work synchronously between stream reads, the two attack shapes have different effects:
- Field count drives CPU and event-loop blocking. A body of ~1,000,000 fields (a sub-10MB payload such as
f0=v&f1=v&...) blocks the worker's event loop for several seconds while parsing, during which the worker serves no other request. - Field size drives memory. A single large field value (e.g. a 50MB value) is buffered in full to build the
FormData, forcing memory allocation proportional to the request body.
The equivalent multipart/form-data request is correctly rejected with 400 Too many fields / 400 Field exceeded maximum size.
Impact
This Denial of service (DoS) vulnerability affects all applications built with Starlette (or FastAPI) that call request.form() on application/x-www-form-urlencoded requests. A single request with a very large number of fields blocks the event loop for several seconds, and a single request with a very large field forces unbounded memory allocation; in either case, parallel requests can render the service unusable. A reverse proxy that enforces a request body size limit reduces but does not eliminate the exposure, since a sub-10MB body is already enough to block the event loop.
Mitigation
Upgrade to a patched version, which forwards max_fields and max_part_size to the url-encoded parser and enforces them while parsing, raising before the oversized field or excess fields are accumulated. The defaults match multipart/form-data (max_fields=1000, max_part_size=1MB) and can be customized via request.form(max_fields=..., max_part_size=...).
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | starlette | ≥ 0.4.1&&< 1.3.1 | 1.3.1pip install --upgrade 'starlette==1.3.1' |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for starlette, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update starlette to 1.3.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-54283 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Cap what an attacker can consume: apply request size, rate and timeout limits in front of the affected component, and run it with memory and CPU limits so exhaustion degrades one worker rather than the whole service.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like CVE-2026-54283 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to CVE-2026-54283. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Fixing This On Your OS
If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.
A flaw was found in Starlette where the request.form() method silently ignores configured resource limits (max_fields and max_part_size) when parsing application/x-www-form-urlencoded data. An unauthenticated attacker can exploit this by sending a urlencoded request body with an arbitrarily large number of fields or…
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base or stability.Source: Red Hat security advisory for CVE-2026-54283 (CC BY 4.0)
| Product | Fixed in | Advisory |
|---|---|---|
| Red Hat AI Inference Server 3.2 | rhaiis/vllm-cuda-rhel9:1782951012 | RHSA-2026:36005 |
| Red Hat AI Inference Server 3.2 | rhaiis/vllm-rocm-rhel9:1782951244 | RHSA-2026:36006 |
| Red Hat AI Inference Server 3.2 | rhaiis/vllm-cuda-rhel9:1787860580 | RHSA-2026:61627 |
| Red Hat AI Inference Server 3.4 | rhaii/vllm-spyre-rhel9:1789681201 | RHSA-2026:69464 |
| Red Hat AI Inference Server 3.4 | rhaii/vllm-cpu-rhel9:1789681128 | RHSA-2026:69466 |
| Red Hat AI Inference Server 3.4 | rhaii/vllm-cuda-rhel9:1789681126 | RHSA-2026:69467 |
| Red Hat AI Inference Server 3.4 | rhaii/vllm-rocm-rhel9:1789681126 | RHSA-2026:69469 |
| Red Hat AI Inference Server 3.4 | rhaii/vllm-cpu-rhel9:1790075793 | RHSA-2026:70965 |
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-54283 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds CVE-2026-54283 across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.