Apache Wicket enforces the upload limits configured on a form or upload field while parsing a multipart request with Apache Commons FileUpload. If the request body has already been consumed by another component, Commons FileUpload returns no items and Wicket falls back to reading the upload through HttpServletRequest#getParts(). The per-file size limit (for example Form#setFileMaxSize) and the file count limit (Form#setFileCountMax) are not applied to the parts obtained that way, and no exception is raised, so the upload is processed as though those limits had been satisfied. A remote uploader can therefore submit files that are larger, or more numerous, than the application permits, up to whatever the component that parsed the request allows. A part carrying no Content-Type header is additionally read into memory in full during parsing, so the size of that allocation is determined by the request and bounded only by those same external limits.
The total upload size limit (Form#setMaxSize) is not affected. Commons FileUpload compares the declared Content-Length against it before reading the body, so a request declaring an oversized length is rejected before the fallback is reached.
The fallback is reached in deployments where a servlet or filter has already parsed the request body — for example a servlet annotated with @MultipartConfig, Spring Boot's multipart resolver, or any filter that calls HttpServletRequest#getParameter() on a multipart request. It applies to the Wicket components that accept uploads on that path, including Form with FileUploadField, FileUploadToResourceField and AjaxFileDropBehavior. Applications that configure neither a per-file nor a file-count limit are not affected, as Wicket applies neither by default.
This issue affects Apache Wicket: from 8.0.0 through 8.18.0, from 9.0.0 through 9.23.0, from 10.0.0 through 10.10.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 8.19.0, 9.24.0 or 10.11.0, which fix the issue. Users of Apache Wicket 7.x or older, which are no longer supported, should upgrade to a supported version. As a workaround, configure equivalent limits in the component that parses the request — for example spring.servlet.multipart.max-file-size and max-request-size, or maxFileSize and maxRequestSize in @MultipartConfig or in the web.xml element.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it