Read the docs
TI-2026-83785 Aliases CVE-2026-117518

Path traversal in @fastify/reply-from via backslash dot-segments

Priority MEDIUM 42CWE-22Published · Updated

Key facts

Attack vector
Network
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
Low
Impact type
—
Confidentiality · integrity · availability
High · Low · None
Fix status
Fixed

Attack profile from CVSS 3.1 · CNA. Fix status from CNA.

Summary

@fastify/reply-from before 12.8.1 forwards requests to an upstream HTTP server. Its path check only catches forward-slash dot-segments, but the WHATWG URL parser turns backslash dot-segments into forward slashes on http, https, ws and wss, so the traversal check is bypassed (CWE-22). An unauthenticated remote attacker can reach upstream endpoints outside the intended prefix, mainly exposing confidential data.

Written with Claude Haiku 5.5 from the sources below · 2026-11-06

Description from the CNA

@fastify/reply-from is a Fastify plugin that forwards requests to an upstream HTTP server. In versions up to and including 12.8.0, the plugin validated proxy paths against forward-slash dot-segments only and then built the target with the WHATWG URL parser, which normalizes a backslash and its percent-encoded form to a forward slash on the http, https, ws, and wss schemes. A path that uses backslash dot-segments therefore bypasses the traversal check and resolves to a different upstream path, so an application that scopes proxying to an upstream prefix, or relies on route guards in front of the forwarding call, can have an unauthenticated request escape the intended prefix and reach other upstream endpoints. The resulting access to unintended upstream resources is primarily a confidentiality impact with limited integrity impact. The issue is fixed in @fastify/reply-from 12.8.1, where the path is normalized and any segment resolving to a single or double dot, along with control characters and ambiguous whitespace, is rejected before the URL is constructed, and users should upgrade to 12.8.1 or later. There is no workaround other than upgrading.

Why it matters now

Exploitation None reported CISA SSVC · not in CISA KEV
EPSS 0.00464 40th percentileScored 2026-11-07
Fix Fixed @fastify/reply-from (@fastify/reply-from): 12.8.1

SSVC decision points

CISA ADP · SSVC 2.0.3

Exploitation
None
Automatable
Yes
Technical impact
Partial

The decision (Track, Attend, Act) also depends on your mission and well-being impact; see CISA's SSVC guide.

Affected products

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed inStatusSource
@fastify/reply-from@fastify/reply-frombefore 12.8.112.8.1Patch availableCNA
  • @fastify/reply-from Vendor@fastify/reply-from Affected before 12.8.1 Fixed in 12.8.1 Patch available CNA

Remediation

Upgrade @fastify/reply-from to 12.8.1 or later, which fixes the issue. The sources list no workaround other than upgrading.

Written with Claude Haiku 5.5 from the sources below · 2026-11-06

  • Fix · CNA @fastify/reply-from (@fastify/reply-from) Fixed in 12.8.1

Vendor assessments

Red Hat

Red Hat's page for this CVE →

Not affected: 1 product
  • Red Hat

Timeline

  1. 2026-11-02 Threatist record created from CVE-2026-117518
  2. 2026-11-02 CISA SSVC decision points changed
  3. 2026-11-02 Priority changed: MEDIUM → LOW
  4. 2026-11-04 Priority changed: LOW → MEDIUM
  5. 2026-11-06 Affected versions changed · Red Hat
  6. 2026-11-06 CVSS score added · Red Hat

References

  • TI-2026-69753 Improper certificate validation in @fastify/reply-from transports CVSS 3.1HIGH 7.4

Sources