fast-uri is a dependency-free RFC 3986 URI parser for Node.js, used by Fastify and ajv. In versions before 2.4.7, from 3.0.0 through 3.1.7, and from 4.0.0 through 4.1.4, fast-uri folds the host to lowercase before it percent-decodes the host, so a percent-encoded uppercase octet such as %41 decodes to a literal A that is never folded. For a scheme-relative reference such as //host there is no scheme, so the host canonicalization that would normally repair this does not run, and parse, normalize, and equal then disagree on the same host. An application that makes a case-sensitive host decision on fast-uri output, for example a host allowlist or denylist that compares the parsed host or uses equal, can be steered past the check with a percent-encoded uppercase octet, and because hostnames are case-insensitive in DNS and HTTP the evading spelling still reaches the host the check meant to gate. The issue is fixed in fast-uri 2.4.7, 3.1.8, and 4.1.5, and users should upgrade to one of those versions or later. As a workaround, compare hosts case-insensitively by lowercasing the parsed host before any allowlist or denylist decision.
Weakness
The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Hardened Images | RedHat | grafana12-4-main-12.4.10-0.4.hum1 | * |
| Red Hat Hardened Images | RedHat | grafana13-1-main-13.1.6-0.3.hum1 | * |
| Red Hat Hardened Images | RedHat | grafana13-2-main-13.2.1-0.7.hum1 | * |
Extended Description
Improperly handled case sensitive data can lead to several possible consequences, including:
Potential Mitigations
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.