CVE-2026-18446
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Impact
fast-uri v4.1.1 and earlier require a literal // to recognize a URI authority, so a reference that uses \\, /\, or \/ as the authority introducer (in place of //, after an optional scheme) is parsed with no authority: the sequence and everything after it fold into the path. Node's native WHATWG URL (used by fetch(), undici, and Node's http/https clients) instead treats \ as interchangeable with / for special schemes (http, https, ws, wss, ftp, file), so the two parsers extract different hosts from the same input.
For example, fast-uri resolves \\evil.com/path against base https://allowed.com/ to https://allowed.com/%5C%5Cevil.com/path (confined to the trusted host), while Node's WHATWG URL resolves the same reference to https://evil.com/path.
Applications that use fast-uri to enforce host-based policy (allowlists, denylists, loopback/SSRF filtering, redirect validation, outbound proxy routing) before passing the same URL into Node's URL or fetch() consumers see a policy/use desync and can be steered to an unintended destination.
Patches
Upgrade to fast-uri v4.1.2, v3.1.5, v2.4.4.
Workarounds
None. Upgrade to the patched version.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Interpretation Conflict
Interpretation Conflict
GitHub
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fast-uri | npm | - | - | >=3.0.0,<3.1.5 | 3.1.5 |
| fast-uri | npm | - | - | <2.4.4 | 2.4.4 |
| fast-uri | npm | - | - | >=4.0.0,<4.1.2 | 4.1.2 |
CVSS:3 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
There is no loss of confidentiality.
There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any or all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
NIST
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5highDebian
-