Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-53721 is a high-severity Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity (CWE-178) vulnerability in Nuxt Nuxt. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Data Obfuscation (T1001); ranked at the 42th 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-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-36427
Vulnerability Data
Nuxt is an open-source web development framework for Vue.js. From versions 3.11.0 to before 3.21.7 and 4.0.0 to before 4.4.7, there is a route-rule middleware bypass via case-sensitivity mismatch between vue-router and the routeRules matcher. This issue has been patched…
more
in versions 3.21.7 and 4.4.7.
- 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 directly requires correct enforcement of authorization decisions on every access request, structurally preventing incorrect checks.
AC-24 ensures access-control decisions are made and applied consistently, reducing the chance of an incorrect authorization result.
A reference monitor that is always invoked and tamper-proof forces every authorization decision through a verified, correct path.
Least-privilege assignments shrink the set of authorizations that must be checked correctly, limiting exposure to flawed checks.
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 can catch and prevent case-sensitivity flaws during code review or testing, but fixing one CWE achieves negligible coverage of the broad control.
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.
Requiring consistency between access rights and classification plus formal approval steps ensures that the authorization logic correctly distinguishes between entities that should and should not be granted access.
A.5.18's provisioning, revocation, review and adjustment of access rights (incl. before role changes/termination, with segregation and owner approval) directly stops incorrect authorization decisions from being exploitable in the vast majority of cases; the bounded remainder is incorrectness inside the authorization logic itself (e.g. flawed conditional or missing check) rather than rights that were wrongly granted.
Secure SDLC practices should include case-sensitivity requirements in design and coding standards.
Application security requirements must specify case handling for identifiers and paths.
Architecture principles should enforce canonical, case-aware resource naming.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-863, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.