GHSA-wjr9-j795-jxcr CVE-2026-110180
fast-uri vulnerable to host confusion via unchecked WHATWG host canonicalization
- Severity
- 4.8 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.26%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 17.12% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
2.4.8- Upgrade fast-uri to this version or later
Description
Impact
fast-uri versions >= 2.4.2, <= 2.4.7, >= 3.1.3, <= 3.1.8, and >= 4.0.1, <= 4.2.2 can silently rewrite the host of an HTTP-family URL (http, https, ws, wss, or any scheme with domainHost: true). For those schemes canonicalizeHost() passes the parsed host to the WHATWG URL parser and adopts its .hostname without checking that the parser read the whole input as a host. RFC 3986 permits @ inside the host group and the WHATWG parser strips TAB, LF, and CR, so the authority fast-uri reports is rewritten by that second parser with no error set: data before an @ is dropped and whitespace is removed.
For example, fast-uri parses http://a@b@evil.example/ to host evil.example (dropping the b segment), and a host containing a raw TAB, CR, or LF has those characters stripped. equal() then treats a whitespace-smuggled host as the same as the clean one, and resolve() rewrites the authority the same way.
Applications that use fast-uri to enforce host-based policy (denylists, loopback filtering, redirect validation, outbound proxy routing) on one representation, such as the raw input, see a policy/use desync: the canonical host fast-uri returns differs from what was checked, and traffic can be steered to an unintended destination.
Patches
Upgrade to fast-uri 2.4.8, 3.1.9, or 4.2.3.
Workarounds
Reject URIs whose authority contains more than one @, or contains TAB, CR, or LF, before calling fast-uri. Alternatively, treat any non-empty parse(x).error as fatal, and compare hosts only from the same parse() result.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| fast-uri | >= 2.4.2, < 2.4.8 |
2.4.8 |
| fast-uri | >= 3.1.3, < 3.1.9 |
3.1.9 |
| fast-uri | >= 4.0.1, < 4.2.3 |
4.2.3 |
| fast-uri | >= 2.4.2, < 2.4.8 |
2.4.8 |
| fast-uri | >= 3.1.3, < 3.1.9 |
3.1.9 |
| fast-uri | >= 4.0.1, < 4.2.3 |
4.2.3 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
fast-uri npm → 2.4.8
- npm
npm install fast-uri@2.4.8- yarn
yarn add fast-uri@2.4.8- pnpm
pnpm add fast-uri@2.4.8
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 4.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
- Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
- Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
- Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
CWE-436: Interpretation Conflict
Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.
References
Advisories
Fixes and patches
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-333x-w4r6-6crp fast-uri vulnerable to scheme injection via an unescaped first-segment colon in suffix references | Low | Also affects fast-uri |
| GHSA-w74x-v6f9-j3xg fast-uri vulnerable to URI scheme spoofing via percent-encoded scheme decoding | Medium | Also affects fast-uri |
| GHSA-xhq7-xmqj-769h fast-uri vulnerable to improper path equivalence in relative reference normalization | Low | Also affects fast-uri |
| GHSA-jvvf-x445-j334 fast-uri vulnerable to mailto header injection via percent-encoded field-name desynchronization | Medium | Also affects fast-uri |
| GHSA-hrr3-gc8f-f4qj fast-uri vulnerable to inconsistent host case normalization via percent-encoded octets | Medium | Also affects fast-uri |
| GHSA-58mr-gqgx-xq4g fast-uri vulnerable to host confusion via an unclosed bracket in the URI authority | High | Also affects fast-uri |
| GHSA-qw65-cvwx-89v3 fast-uri vulnerable to authority injection via an unvalidated port in serialize | High | Also affects fast-uri |
| GHSA-jqff-g426-hqxp fast-uri vulnerable to host confusion via percent-encoded scheme normalization | High | Also affects fast-uri |
Credits: UlisesGascon, mcollina
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor