CVE-2026-116265

waiting for further signalsZero needs more public information before it can validate it.

GHSA-7m3r-rg8x-jrmh ↗EUVD-2026-112297 ↗

no check availablenot proven exploitable
cve.orgpublic pocExploit code has been published by someone. Source signals can also carry a PoC (Proof of Concept).kevAttacks confirmed in the real world.
MIME-tools < 5.521
fixed in 5.521
CWE-436 Interpretation Conflict
ETK-2026-2893Zero's internal tracking ID, independent of the CVE number., permanent identifier
1d 04h 46msince last run
19mAI analysisAnalysis: how long the AI spent reversing this signal.
timeline
0 = trigger signal
trigger signal (cve.org) +0hwaiting for further signals+0h56m
0
+2h
+4h
+6h
+8h
+10h
+12h

description

MIME-tools versions before 5.521 do not reliably identify ambiguous RFC 2231 multipart boundaries. A remote sender may cause MIME::Parser and other mail readers to interpret message boundaries differently, potentially hiding an attachment from filters that rely on ambiguous_content().

mitigation

Upgrade MIME-tools to version 5.521 or later. Until upgraded, avoid relying solely on ambiguous_content() to validate multipart messages and apply additional attachment inspection controls.

fixed in 5.521

check
no
exploit
no
automationDeterministic: a check that runs on its own, the same request on every target. Contextual: an agentic technique that needs to be applied per target, for bugs that depend on contextual flows.
contextual
auth requiredWhether an attacker needs an account first, based on the CVSS vector's Privileges Required.
–
EPSSEstimate of the chance this CVE is exploited in the next 30 days. Refreshed daily.
–
agent run time
19m
cve.org record, t = 0The moment cve.org publishes the CVE in full.
2026-10-28 17:32Z
Δ to public pocExploit code has been published by someone. Source signals can also carry a PoC (Proof of Concept).
–
Δ to kevAttacks confirmed in the real world.
–

outcome

Contextual, not validated: no deterministic check could cover this one, and no technique passed our review.

source signals

Public signals that triggered or updated the pipeline. These are inputs for the deltas above.

  1. 2026-10-28 17:32Z
    cve_org: trigger signal, started the run

this entry in the feed

GET /api/v1/feed/CVE-2026-116265

{
  "etk_id": "ETK-2026-2893",
  "cve_id": "CVE-2026-116265",
  "display_id": "CVE-2026-116265",
  "ghsa_id": "GHSA-7m3r-rg8x-jrmh",
  "euvd_id": "EUVD-2026-112297",
  "status": "published",
  "anchor_state": "anchored",
  "title": "Multipart boundary validation flaw in MIME-tools",
  "summary": "MIME-tools versions before 5.521 do not reliably identify ambiguous RFC 2231 multipart boundaries. A remote sender may cause MIME::Parser and other mail readers to interpret message boundaries differently, potentially hiding an attachment from filters that rely on ambiguous_content().",
  "mitigation": "Upgrade MIME-tools to version 5.521 or later. Until upgraded, avoid relying solely on ambiguous_content() to validate multipart messages and apply additional attachment inspection controls.",
  "vendor": null,
  "product": "MIME-tools",
  "affected": [
    {
      "affected_notes": [],
      "affected_ranges": [
        ">= 0, < 5.521"
      ],
      "ecosystem": null,
      "fixed_versions": [
        "5.521"
      ],
      "package_name": "MIME-tools",
      "purl": null
    }
  ],
  "cwes": [
    436
  ],
  "cvss_score": null,
  "cvss_src": null,
  "cvss_vector": null,
  "epss_score": null,
  "epss_percentile": null,
  "epss_asof": null,
  "automation": "contextual",
  "check": false,
  "check_confidence_basis": null,
  "exploit": false,
  "pipeline_minutes": 19.101864266666666,
  "t0_at": "2026-10-28T17:32:11.827000+00:00",
  "signals": {
    "trigger_signal": {
      "at": "2026-10-28T17:32:11.827000+00:00",
      "days": 0,
      "is_lower_bound": false,
      "measured_at": "2026-10-28T17:32:11.827000+00:00",
      "url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-116265"
    }
  }
}

published 2026-10-28 18:09Z
last change 2026-10-29 14:14Z

Need the technical details behind an entry?

Every entry here shows what we attempted and when. The technical details, the generated exploit that fired it and the evidence behind the verdict are not public. Tell us about your use case and we’ll get back to you about extended API access.