CVE-2026-33732
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
A pathname parsing discrepancy in srvx's FastURL allows middleware bypass on the Node.js adapter when a raw HTTP request uses an absolute URI with a non-standard scheme (e.g. file://).
Details
When Node.js receives an absolute URI in the request line (e.g. GET file://hehe?/internal/run HTTP/1.1), req.url is set verbatim to file://hehe?/internal/run. Since this doesn't start with /, NodeRequestURL passes it directly to FastURL as a string, which stores it in #href for lazy manual parsing.
FastURL#getPos() locates the pathname by finding :// then scanning for the next / — but this fails for URLs like file://hehe?/internal/run where a ? appears before the first / after the authority. The manual parser extracts pathname as /internal/run, while native URL correctly parses it as pathname / with search ?/internal/run.
This discrepancy means the router (using the fast-path) matches /internal/run, but if any middleware triggers a deopt to native URL (e.g. by accessing hostname), subsequent middleware sees a different pathname — bypassing route-based middleware guards.
This is a bypass of CVE-2026-33131.
Impact
Route-based middleware (auth guards, rate limiters, etc.) can be bypassed on the Node.js adapter when a prior middleware triggers FastURL deopt. Requires sending a raw HTTP request (not possible from browsers).
Fix
srvx FastURL constructor now deopts to native URL for any string not starting with /, ensuring consistent pathname resolution.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference
Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference
GitHub
2.2
CVSS SCORE
4.8medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| srvx | npm | - | - | <0.11.13 | 0.11.13 |
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).
A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control, requiring investing a measurable amount of effort in research, preparation, or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack.
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 some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
NIST
2.2