VulnerabilityPublished 13 Nov 2026

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

Affects travisSource 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 travis when convenient.

Data as of 13 Nov 2026, 21:21 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
Homebrewtravis`pkg:brew/travis`Other threats	Affected >=1.8.8	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 Addressable 2.9.1 or later. As a workaround, installing libidn and the idn-ruby gem enables the native IDNA implementation, reducing affected characters to those added after Unicode 3.2. Additionally, applications can detect bidirectional and invisible characters in displayed hosts and fall back to showing normalized_host instead. No other actions are required.

Description

Addressable library versions >= 2.0.0 (pure-Ruby IDNA) and >= 2.5.2 (native IDNA) have an issue where display_uri can show misleading hostnames containing bidirectional and invisible Unicode characters. This can cause malicious domains to appear visually similar to trusted ones in user interfaces that show display_uri, such as link previews or admin panels. The flaw affects only the displayed form, not the actual host parsing or connections. It is fixed in version 2.9.1, where such labels are returned unchanged.

Impact

This vulnerability allows attackers to craft domain names that visually mimic trusted domains by embedding bidirectional and invisible Unicode characters in Punycode labels. Applications displaying display_uri to users may show misleading hostnames, potentially facilitating phishing or social engineering attacks. However, the actual hostname parsing and network connections are not affected, limiting the impact to user interface deception. The CVSS score is low (3.1) reflecting the requirement for user interaction and the limited scope of impact.

Summary

The vulnerability in Addressable's display_uri method arises from the use of Addressable::IDNA.to_unicode, which decodes Punycode labels containing bidirectional control characters (e.g., U+202E RIGHT-TO-LEFT OVERRIDE) and invisible Unicode characters. These characters can reorder or mask parts of the hostname visually, enabling spoofing attacks where a malicious domain appears as a trusted one. The pure-Ruby IDNA implementation (Addressable >= 2.0.0) decodes all such characters, including those disallowed by IDNA's nameprep profile. The native IDNA implementation (Addressable >= 2.5.2) rejects most but not newer Unicode characters added after version 3.2. The vulnerability is fixed in Addressable 2.9.1 by returning such labels unchanged. Parsing and network connections remain unaffected; only the displayed hostname is impacted.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

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

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats