GHSA-m732-5p4w-x69g CVE-2025-62610
Hono Improper Authorization vulnerability
- Severity
- 8.1 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.38%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 32.52% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-285 Improper Authorization
- Fix
4.10.2- Upgrade hono to this version or later
Description
Improper Authorization in Hono (JWT Audience Validation)
Hono’s JWT authentication middleware did not validate the aud (Audience) claim by default. As a result, applications using the middleware without an explicit audience check could accept tokens intended for other audiences, leading to potential cross-service access (token mix-up).
The issue is addressed by adding a new verification.aud configuration option to allow RFC 7519–compliant audience validation. This change is classified as a security hardening improvement, but the lack of validation can still be considered a vulnerability in deployments that rely on default JWT verification.
Recommended secure configuration
You can enable RFC 7519–compliant audience validation using the new verification.aud option:
import { Hono } from 'hono'
import { jwt } from 'hono/jwt'
const app = new Hono()
app.use(
'/api/*',
jwt({
secret: 'my-secret',
verification: {
// Require this API to only accept tokens with aud = 'service-a'
aud: 'service-a',
},
})
)
Below is the original description by the reporter. For security reasons, it does not include PoC reproduction steps, as the vulnerability can be clearly understood from the technical description.
The original description by the reporter
Summary
Hono’s JWT Auth Middleware does not provide a built-in aud (Audience) verification option, which can cause confused-deputy / token-mix-up issues: an API may accept a valid token that was issued for a different audience (e.g., another service) when multiple services share the same issuer/keys. This can lead to unintended cross-service access. Hono’s docs list verification options for iss/nbf/iat/exp only, with no aud support; RFC 7519 requires that when an aud claim is present, tokens MUST be rejected unless the processing party identifies itself in that claim.
Note: This problem likely exists in the JWK/JWKS-based middleware as well (e.g., jwk / verifyWithJwks)
Details
- The middleware’s
verifyOptionsenumerate onlyiss,nbf,iat, andexp; there is noaudoption. The same omission appears in the JWT Helper’s “Payload Validation” list. Developers relying on the middleware for complete standards-aligned validation therefore won’t check audience by default. - Standards requirement: RFC 7519 §4.1.3 states that each principal intended to process the JWT MUST identify itself with a value in the
audclaim; if it does not, the JWT MUST be rejected (whenaudis present). Lack of a first-classaudcheck increases the risk that tokens issued for Service B are accepted by Service A. - Real-world effect: In deployments with a single IdP/JWKS and shared keys across multiple services, a token minted for one audience can be mistakenly accepted by another audience unless developers implement a custom audience check.
- For example, with Google Identity (OIDC), iss is always https://accounts.google.com (shared across apps), but aud differs per application because it is that app’s OAuth client ID; therefore, an attacker can host a separate service that supports “Sign in with Google,” obtain a valid ID token (JWT) for the victim user, and—if your API does not verify aud—use that token to access your API with the victim’s privileges.
Impact
Type: Authentication/authorization weakness via token mix-up (confused-deputy).
Who is impacted: Any Hono user who:
- shares an issuer/keys across multiple services (common with a single IdP/JWKS)
- distinguishes tokens by intended recipient using
aud.
What can happen:
- Cross-service access: A token for Service B may be accepted by Service A.
- Boundary erosion: ID tokens and access tokens, or separate API audiences, can be inadvertently intermixed.
- This may causes unauthorized invocation of sensitive endpoints.
Recommended remediation:
- Add
verifyOptions.aud(string | string[] | RegExp) to the middleware and enforce RFC 7519 semantics: In verify method, ifaudis present and does not match with specified audiences, reject. - Ensure equivalent
audhandling exists in the JWK/JWKS flow (jwkmiddleware /verifyWithJwks) so users of external IdPs can enforce audience consistently.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| hono | >= 1.1.0, < 4.10.2 |
4.10.2 |
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.
hono npm → 4.10.2
- npm
npm install hono@4.10.2- yarn
yarn add hono@4.10.2- pnpm
pnpm add hono@4.10.2
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-285: Improper Authorization
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
- 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
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-5r4p-p66f-jhc7 Hono: `serveStatic` decodes the request path a second time, leading to bypass of middleware on static paths | Medium | Also affects hono |
| GHSA-hxh3-vqpv-xpqv hono/jsx renders plain strings unescaped in boundary components, leading to XSS | Low | Also affects hono |
| GHSA-gqvv-2mrq-wpjv Hono: Incomplete fix for CVE-2026-39408: `toSSG()` still writes files outside the output directory | Medium | Also affects hono |
| GHSA-g6gw-c38x-mqfc Hono: Unbounded dot-notation nesting in `parseBody()` can cause memory exhaustion | Medium | Also affects hono |
| GHSA-crvj-82cr-hjcx Hono: Query parser reads parameters after the URL fragment, causing cache-key and proxy interpretation differentials | Medium | Also affects hono |
| GHSA-f23p-vx2j-j53r Hono: `memo()` retains SSR output across requests, leading to cross-user data disclosure | Medium | Also affects hono |
| GHSA-79qm-7rj5-m7r9 Hono: Proxy Helper does not remove response headers listed in the `Connection` header | Low | Also affects hono |
| GHSA-54fx-42gc-7vw4 Hono: Algorithmic Complexity DoS in Language Middleware | Medium | Also affects hono |
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