GHSA-752w-5fwx-jx9f — pyjwt
HIGHGHSA-752w-5fwx-jx9f is a high-severity (CVSS 7.5) CWE-345 vulnerability in pyjwt. A fix is available for pyjwt — see the affected versions and patch details below.
PyJWT accepts unknown `crit` header extensions
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 GHSA-752w-5fwx-jx9f.
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
GHSA-752w-5fwx-jx9f 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
pyjwtReal-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
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 is the same class of vulnerability as CVE-2025-59420 (Authlib), which received CVSS 7.5 (HIGH).
RFC Requirement
RFC 7515 §4.1.11:
The "crit" (Critical) Header Parameter indicates that extensions to this specification and/or [JWA] are being used that MUST be understood and processed. [...] If any of the listed extension Header Parameters are not understood and supported by the recipient, then the JWS is invalid.
Proof of Concept
import jwt # PyJWT 2.8.0
import hmac, hashlib, base64, json
# Construct token with unknown critical extension
header = {"alg": "HS256", "crit": ["x-custom-policy"], "x-custom-policy": "require-mfa"}
payload = {"sub": "attacker", "role": "admin"}
def b64url(data):
return base64.urlsafe_b64encode(data).rstrip(b"=").decode()
h = b64url(json.dumps(header, separators=(",", ":")).encode())
p = b64url(json.dumps(payload, separators=(",", ":")).encode())
sig = b64url(hmac.new(b"secret", f"{h}.{p}".encode(), hashlib.sha256).digest())
token = f"{h}.{p}.{sig}"
# Should REJECT — x-custom-policy is not understood by PyJWT
try:
result = jwt.decode(token, "secret", algorithms=["HS256"])
print(f"ACCEPTED: {result}")
# Output: ACCEPTED: {'sub': 'attacker', 'role': 'admin'}
except Exception as e:
print(f"REJECTED: {e}")
Expected: jwt.exceptions.InvalidTokenError: Unsupported critical extension: x-custom-policy
Actual: Token accepted, payload returned.
Comparison with RFC-compliant library
# jwcrypto — correctly rejects
from jwcrypto import jwt as jw_jwt, jwk
key = jwk.JWK(kty="oct", k=b64url(b"secret"))
jw_jwt.JWT(jwt=token, key=key, algs=["HS256"])
# raises: InvalidJWSObject('Unknown critical header: "x-custom-policy"')
Impact
- Split-brain verification in mixed-library deployments (e.g., API gateway using jwcrypto rejects, backend using PyJWT accepts)
- Security policy bypass when
critcarries enforcement semantics (MFA, token binding, scope restrictions) - Token binding bypass — RFC 7800
cnf(Proof-of-Possession) can be silently ignored - See CVE-2025-59420 for full impact analysis
Suggested Fix
In jwt/api_jwt.py, add validation in _validate_headers() or
decode():
_SUPPORTED_CRIT = {"b64"} # Add extensions PyJWT actually supports
def _validate_crit(self, headers: dict) -> None:
crit = headers.get("crit")
if crit is None:
return
if not isinstance(crit, list) or len(crit) == 0:
raise InvalidTokenError("crit must be a non-empty array")
for ext in crit:
if ext not in self._SUPPORTED_CRIT:
raise InvalidTokenError(f"Unsupported critical extension: {ext}")
if ext not in headers:
raise InvalidTokenError(f"Critical extension {ext} not in header")
CWE
- CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
- CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
References
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | pyjwt | all versions | 2.12.0pip install --upgrade 'pyjwt==2.12.0' |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for pyjwt, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update pyjwt to 2.12.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-752w-5fwx-jx9f 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 GHSA-752w-5fwx-jx9f can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-752w-5fwx-jx9f. 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 2.5 for RHEL 8 | automation-controller-0:4.6.28-3.el8ap | RHSA-2026:13512 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 for RHEL 9 | automation-controller-0:4.7.11-2.el9ap | RHSA-2026:13508 |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 | fence-agents-0:4.16.0-13.el10_1.4 | RHSA-2026:13916 |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 | fence-agents-0:4.16.0-21.el10_2.1 | RHSA-2026:19138 |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10.0 Extended Update Support | fence-agents-0:4.16.0-5.el10_0.9 | RHSA-2026:17083 |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | fence-agents-0:4.2.1-129.el8_10.25 | RHSA-2026:12176 |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | fence-agents-0:4.10.0-98.el9_7.12 | RHSA-2026:13672 |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | fence-agents-0:4.10.0-110.el9_8.2 | RHSA-2026:19355 |
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-752w-5fwx-jx9f in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-752w-5fwx-jx9f across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.