CVE-2026-13676
Openjsf Fast-Uri 2.3.1 – 3.1.3
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-13676 is a high-severity Interpretation Conflict (CWE-436) vulnerability in Openjsf Fast-Uri. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 31th 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 AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-40093
Vulnerability Data
fast-uri versions 2.3.1 through 3.1.2 and 4.0.0 fail to canonicalize Unicode (IDN) hostnames for HTTP-family URLs. The IDN conversion path calls a helper that does not exist on the global URL constructor, silently leaving the host in its original Unicode…
more
form while normalize() and equal() still return values that differ from a WHATWG-compatible URL parser. Applications that use fast-uri to enforce host-based policy (denylists, loopback filtering, redirect validation, outbound proxy routing) before passing the same URL to Node's URL or fetch can be bypassed when the two implementations resolve the same input to different hosts. Patches: upgrade to fast-uri 3.1.3 for the 3.x line or 4.0.1 for the 4.x line. Workarounds: enforce host policy using the same URL parser used for the actual request, or reject non-ASCII hosts before policy checks.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
AC-3 requires correct enforcement of authorizations on requests, which structurally demands parsing and canonicalization occur first so that the check cannot be bypassed.
Developer testing and evaluation can discover cases where two products interpret the same inputs or state transitions differently.
Strict, consistently applied input validation reduces the chance that one product will accept data the other product rejects or interprets differently.
Applying security engineering principles during design can require unambiguous protocol and data-format specifications that eliminate divergent interpretations between products.
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.
Information access restriction is undermined when authorization occurs before canonicalization.