VulnerabilityPublished 13 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-126349: Licensee · Addressable display_uri can show misleading hosts containing bidi and invisible characters

Affects licenseeSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-126349· Low 3.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.1 Low · fixed in 2.9.1 : update licensee when convenient.

Data as of 13 Nov 2026, 21:18 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.1Low

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	3.1

Patch: Available – fixed in 2.9.1

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 Nov 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 13 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewlicensee`pkg:brew/licensee`Other threats	Affected >=10.1.0	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

A fix is available in Addressable version 2.9.1, which returns such labels unchanged to prevent misleading display. Users should upgrade to this version to fully mitigate the issue. As a workaround, installing libidn and the idn-ruby gem causes Addressable to use the native IDNA implementation, reducing the affected characters to those added after Unicode 3.2. Additionally, applications can detect bidirectional and invisible characters in displayed hosts and fall back to using normalized_host instead of display_uri to avoid spoofing.

Description

Addressable library versions 2.0.0 and later have an issue where the display_uri method can show misleading hostnames containing bidirectional and invisible Unicode characters. This can cause visually deceptive domain names that appear similar to trusted hosts, potentially enabling phishing or spoofing attacks in user interfaces that display these URIs. The underlying host parsing and connections are not affected. The issue is fixed in version 2.9.1.

Impact

The vulnerability allows attackers to craft domain names that appear visually similar to trusted domains by embedding bidirectional and invisible Unicode characters in Punycode labels. This can mislead users in applications that display the display_uri output, such as link previews, chat clients, email clients, or admin interfaces. However, the actual URI parsing and network connections are unaffected, so the risk is limited to visual spoofing and phishing scenarios. The CVSS score is low (3.1) reflecting the limited impact and required user interaction.

Summary

The vulnerability in Addressable's IDNA.to_unicode method allows decoding of Punycode labels containing bidirectional control characters (e.g., U+202E RIGHT-TO-LEFT OVERRIDE) and invisible format characters, which can reorder or mask parts of the displayed hostname. This affects the display_uri method, causing it to show visually misleading hostnames without impacting actual URI parsing or network connections. The pure-Ruby IDNA implementation (Addressable >= 2.0.0) decodes all such characters, while the native IDNA implementation (Addressable >= 2.5.2) using libidn rejects most but not newer Unicode characters added after version 3.2. The issue is resolved in Addressable 2.9.1, where such labels are returned unchanged, preventing misleading display.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 13 Nov 2026, 21:18 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats