CVE-2026-14198
Fastify\/Middie 9.1.0 – 9.3.3
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-14198 is a critical-severity Interpretation Conflict (CWE-436) vulnerability in Fastify Fastify\/Middie. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 22th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-40946
Vulnerability Data
@fastify/middie versions 9.1.0 through 9.3.2 decode the encoded slash %2F inside path parameter values before matching middleware paths, while Fastify's underlying router preserves the encoding during route lookup. The two layers disagree on the canonical request path, so the middleware…
more
fails to match a URL that the route handler does match. When middleware is used for authentication, authorization, rate limiting, or auditing on parameterized paths, an attacker can reach the protected handler by sending a single crafted URL with an encoded slash in the parameter position. The bypass is HTTP method agnostic and requires no authentication or special preconditions. Patches: upgrade to @fastify/middie 9.3.3. Workarounds: avoid parameterized middleware paths for security decisions, or enforce authentication at the route handler or via a Fastify hook that runs after the router has resolved the request.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
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.