4.x - Handle %2f in routing more consistently - #19539
Merged
Merged
Conversation
markstory
changed the title
Currently path prefix matching does not treat %2f as /, and `Route` has an option for it. In the past we've made changes in this area (#18050, #16110) to make urldecoding optional, and to intentionally decode urlencoding in path segments to support non-ascii applications. We got a report on the security list for a potential issue where *if* an application enforced authorization within path prefixed scopes, and had fallback routes enabled, then one could potentially bypass the scoped middleware and hit the fallback routes which inconsistently handle %2f. These changes align the behavior of urldecoding between RouteCollection and Route with a new shared internal function. I thought a function was better than exposing a static method on a public class. Thanks to Rotem Reiss for reporting this issue.
markstory
force-pushed
the
backport-19537
branch
from
July 12, 2026 17:29
dfb0a82 to
ef788d6
Compare
markstory
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 15, 2026
Handle %2f in routing more consistently Currently path prefix matching does not treat %2f as /, and `Route` has an option for it. In the past we've made changes in this area (#18050, #16110) to make urldecoding optional, and to intentionally decode urlencoding in path segments to support non-ascii applications. We got a report on the security list for a potential issue where *if* an application enforced authorization within path prefixed scopes, and had fallback routes enabled, then one could potentially bypass the scoped middleware and hit the fallback routes which inconsistently handle %2f. These changes align the behavior of urldecoding between RouteCollection and Route with a new shared internal function. I thought a function was better than exposing a static method on a public class. Thanks to Rotem Reiss for reporting this issue.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently path prefix matching does not treat %2f as /, and
Routehas an option for it. In the past we've made changes in this area (#18050, #16110) to make urldecoding optional, and to intentionally decode urlencoding in path segments to support non-ascii applications.We got a report on the security list for a potential issue where if an application enforced authorization within path prefixed scopes, and had fallback routes enabled, then one could potentially bypass the scoped middleware and hit the fallback routes which inconsistently handle %2f.
These changes align the behavior of urldecoding between RouteCollection and Route with a new shared internal function. I thought a function was better than exposing a static method on a public class.
Thanks to Rotem Reiss for reporting this issue.