Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐹
🐹 Go
Not in CISA KEV
LOW severity

GHSA-29wx-vh33-7x7r v4

LOWFix: golang-jwt/jwt@7b1c1c0

GHSA-29wx-vh33-7x7r is a low-severity (CVSS 3.1) CWE-755 vulnerability in github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v4. A fix is available for github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v4 — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Bad documentation of error handling in ParseWithClaims can lead to potentially dangerous situations

Also known asCVE-2024-51744GO-2024-3250
Published
Nov 4, 2024
Updated
Sep 10, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Sep 20, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

  • CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-29wx-vh33-7x7r.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.5%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs42th percentile — riskier than 42% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

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

GHSA-29wx-vh33-7x7r 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 377,238 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

1 pkg affected
🐹github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v4

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Summary

Unclear documentation of the error behavior in ParseWithClaims can lead to situation where users are potentially not checking errors in the way they should be. Especially, if a token is both expired and invalid, the errors returned by ParseWithClaims return both error codes. If users only check for the jwt.ErrTokenExpired using error.Is, they will ignore the embedded jwt.ErrTokenSignatureInvalid and thus potentially accept invalid tokens.

Fix

We have back-ported the error handling logic from the v5 branch to the v4 branch. In this logic, the ParseWithClaims function will immediately return in "dangerous" situations (e.g., an invalid signature), limiting the combined errors only to situations where the signature is valid, but further validation failed (e.g., if the signature is valid, but is expired AND has the wrong audience). This fix is part of the 4.5.1 release.

Workaround

We are aware that this changes the behaviour of an established function and is not 100 % backwards compatible, so updating to 4.5.1 might break your code. In case you cannot update to 4.5.0, please make sure that you are properly checking for all errors ("dangerous" ones first), so that you are not running in the case detailed above.

token, err := /* jwt.Parse or similar */
if token.Valid {
	fmt.Println("You look nice today")
} else if errors.Is(err, jwt.ErrTokenMalformed) {
	fmt.Println("That's not even a token")
} else if errors.Is(err, jwt.ErrTokenUnverifiable) {
	fmt.Println("We could not verify this token")
} else if errors.Is(err, jwt.ErrTokenSignatureInvalid) {
	fmt.Println("This token has an invalid signature")
} else if errors.Is(err, jwt.ErrTokenExpired) || errors.Is(err, jwt.ErrTokenNotValidYet) {
	// Token is either expired or not active yet
	fmt.Println("Timing is everything")
} else {
	fmt.Println("Couldn't handle this token:", err)
}

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐹Gogithub.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v4all versions4.5.1go get github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v4@v4.5.1

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v4, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

  2. Fix

    Update github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v4 to 4.5.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-29wx-vh33-7x7r is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. 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.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-29wx-vh33-7x7r can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Tailored to GHSA-29wx-vh33-7x7r. 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.

Red HatLow
ProductFixed inAdvisory
Red Hat Ceph Storage 7.1ceph-2:18.2.1-381.el8cpRHSA-2026:2769
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.15openshift4/ose-powervs-machine-controllers-rhel9:v4.15.0-202507111906.p0.g088808b.assembly.stream.el9RHSA-2025:11351
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16openshift4/aws-kms-encryption-provider-rhel9:v4.16.0-202507211806.p0.gc66065d.assembly.stream.el9RHSA-2025:11681
Red Hat Ceph Storage 8rhceph/grafana-rhel9:1770630607RHSA-2026:2737
Red Hat Ceph Storage 9rhceph/grafana-rhel10:1771399331RHSA-2026:3406

Frequently Asked Questions

### Summary Unclear documentation of the error behavior in `ParseWithClaims` can lead to situation where users are potentially not checking errors in the way they should be. Especially, if a token is both expired and invalid, the errors returned by `ParseWithClaims` return both error codes. If users only check for the `jwt.ErrTokenExpired ` using `error.Is`, they will ignore the embedded `jwt.ErrTokenSignatureInvalid` and thus potentially accept invalid tokens. ### Fix We have back-ported the error handling logic from the `v5` branch to the `v4` branch. In this logic, the `ParseWithClaims`
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-29wx-vh33-7x7r in your dependencies?

O3 Security finds GHSA-29wx-vh33-7x7r across Go dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.

GHSA-29wx-vh33-7x7r: v4 (Low 3.1) | O3 Security