Componentpedia / Listings / PyJWT / 1.6.1

PyJWT is a JSON Web Token implementation in Python. Prior to 2.13.0, 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 cause PyJWKClient to read arbitrary local files via file:// (SSRF on local filesystem), cause PyJWKClient to attempt FTP / data-URI fetches (broader SSRF surface), or forge tokens that PyJWT verifies as valid. 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. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.13.0.

At HEAD, get_signing_key(kid) (jwt/jwks_client.py:185-211), on any unknown kid, calls get_signing_keys(refresh=True), and refresh=True bypasses jwk_set_cache unconditionally and forces a fresh fetch_data(). The kid is read from the unverified token header (get_signing_key_from_jwt decodes with verify_signature=False), so no valid token and no authentication is required. lru_cache does not cache the raised exception, so even the same unknown kid repeated re-fetches on every call.

PyJWT is a JSON Web Token implementation in Python. Prior to 2.12.0, 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 vulnerability is fixed in 2.12.0.

PyJWT is a JSON Web Token implementation in Python. Prior to 2.13.0, when the verifier is decoding JSON Web Tokens, while supporting both asymmetric and HMAC algorithms, the library does not validate use of JSON Web Keys in HMAC algorithm, allowing attacker to use the issuer public key as the secret key for HMAC algorithm. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.13.0.

Prerequisites (both conditions must hold; both are deployment properties, not attacker-controlled at request time): The jwt.decode allow-list mixes an HMAC algorithm with an asymmetric one, e.g. algorithms=["ES256", "HS256"] (the RFC 8725 footgun the guard exists to backstop). The verification key is passed as raw PEM text/bytes on the non-PyJWK path, in a byte-form that cryptography's loader accepts but PyJWT's is_pem_format regex does not recognize (marker-adjacent whitespace/indentation, CR-only line terminators, or the PEM folded to a single line). Such forms arise naturally from an indented YAML/JSON block, a single-line environment variable or JSON string, or a CR/LF round-trip through config tooling. The attacker additionally needs the public verification key, which is public by definition, and cryptography must be installed. The fix for CVE-2022-29217 rejects an asymmetric key handed to an HMAC algorithm, but only when is_pem_format() recognizes the key as PEM. That recognizer accepts strictly fewer byte-forms than the loader that later parses the key, so a PEM the guard misses still loads as a valid public key and is then used as an HMAC secret. This is an incomplete-guard bypass of the CVE-2022-29217 family.

There is a Re-DoS vulnerability in the is_pem_format function which results in a intesive CPU usage if an attacker is been able to provide a custom certificate.

PyJWT is a JSON Web Token implementation in Python. Prior to 2.13.0, PyJWKClient.get_signing_key() forces a fresh HTTP request to the JWKS endpoint for every JWT with an unknown kid value, with no rate limiting. Since kid comes from the unverified token header, an attacker can trigger unlimited outbound requests. The vulnerability surfaces only when a JWKS fetch fails; an attacker can attempt to provoke that with sustained unknown-kid traffic, but the outcome depends on upstream JWKS-endpoint behavior (rate limiting, transient errors) which is beyond the attacker's control. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.13.0.

PyJWT 2.13.0 accepts compact JWS signature segments containing characters that are not in the Base64URL alphabet. Appending !!!! to a valid signature does not change the decoded signature bytes or authenticated claims, but it changes the serialized token and its SHA-256 hash. An application that indexes logout or revocation state by the raw token therefore rejects the logged-out token and accepts its no-key alternate serialization.

PyJWT 2.13.0 PyJWKClient followed HTTP redirects while fetching a JWKS, without validating the redirect destination. A configured trusted endpoint could therefore redirect the client to a different host.

PyJWT is a Python implementation of RFC 7519. 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, or specify a single algorithm. The issue is not that big as algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms() has to be used. Users should upgrade to v2.4.0 to receive a patch for this issue. As a workaround, always be explicit with the algorithms that are accepted and expected when decoding.