CVE-2026-35200
Parseplatform Parse-Server ≤ 8.6.73
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-35200 is a low-severity Interpretation Conflict (CWE-436) vulnerability in Parseplatform Parse-Server. Its CVSS base score is 2.1 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 6th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-19473
Vulnerability Data
Parse Server is an open source backend that can be deployed to any infrastructure that can run Node.js. Prior to 8.6.73 and 9.7.1-alpha.4, a file can be uploaded with a filename extension that passes the file extension allowlist (e.g., .txt)…
more
but with a Content-Type header that differs from the extension (e.g., text/html). The Content-Type is passed to the storage adapter without consistency validation. Storage adapters that store and serve the provided Content-Type (such as S3 or GCS) serve the file with the mismatched Content-Type. The default GridFS adapter is not affected because it derives Content-Type from the filename at serving time. This vulnerability is fixed in 8.6.73 and 9.7.1-alpha.4.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Content-Type mismatch on file upload to public Parse Server enables direct exploitation of the exposed application for malicious file serving.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation of uploaded file metadata to reject Content-Type values that conflict with the allowed filename extension.
Enforces policy-based information flow rules that can require Content-Type to be consistent with filename extension before the object is accepted or forwarded to a storage adapter.
Boundary-protection mechanisms at the upload ingress can inspect and drop requests whose Content-Type header does not match the extension allow-list policy.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly reduce the chance of introducing parser or state-machine inconsistencies.
Correlating logs from multiple products can surface discrepancies caused by interpretation conflicts.
Runtime monitoring of software behavior can detect adverse outcomes stemming from differing interpretations.
Supplier risk assessments can identify products whose differing interpretations create systemic exposure.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect and correct cases where one component misinterprets another’s state or messages.
Secure development lifecycle can require consistent interface contracts and canonicalization rules that reduce interpretation conflicts between components.
Explicit application security requirements can mandate unambiguous protocol and data-format specifications that prevent divergent interpretations.
Secure architecture principles include well-defined component boundaries and shared data models that limit conflicting state perceptions.
Secure coding standards can enforce canonical input handling and strict protocol compliance to avoid misinterpretation between products.