GHSA-c2ff-88x2-x9pg is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.9) Improper Input Validation vulnerability in fast-jwt. 1 public exploit reference exists, so weaponization risk is real. A fix is available for fast-jwt — see the affected versions and patch details below.
JWT Algorithm Confusion
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-c2ff-88x2-x9pg 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
How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, and reverse-dependency count shows how many other packages break if it stays unpatched.
fast-jwtnpmDescription
Summary
The fast-jwt library does not properly prevent JWT algorithm confusion for all public key types.
Details
The 'publicKeyPemMatcher' in 'fast-jwt/src/crypto.js' does not properly match all common PEM formats for public keys. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker needs to craft a malicious JWT token containing the HS256 algorithm, signed with the public RSA key of the victim application. This attack will only work if the victim application utilizes a public key containing the BEGIN RSA PUBLIC KEY header.
PoC
Take a server running the following code:
const express = require('express');
const { createSigner, createVerifier } = require('fast-jwt')
const fs = require('fs');
const path = require('path');
const app = express();
const port = 3000;
// Load the keys from the file
const publicKeyPath = path.join(__dirname, 'public_key.pem');
const publicKey = fs.readFileSync(publicKeyPath, 'utf8');
const privateKeyPath = path.join(__dirname, 'key');
const privateKey = fs.readFileSync(privateKeyPath, 'utf8');
app.use(express.json());
// Endpoint to generate a JWT token with admin: False
app.get('/generateToken', async (req, res) => {
const payload = { admin: false, name: req.query.name };
const signSync = createSigner({ algorithm: 'RS256', key: privateKey });
const token = signSync(payload);
res.json({ token });
});
// Middleware to verify the JWT token
function verifyToken(req, res, next) {
const token = req.query.token;
const verifySync = createVerifier({ key: publicKey });
const payload = verifySync(token);
req.decoded = payload;
next();
}
// Endpoint to check if you are the admin or not
app.get('/checkAdmin', verifyToken, (req, res) => {
res.json(req.decoded);
});
app.listen(port, () => {
console.log(`Server is running on port ${port}`);
});
Assume the server generated their keys like follows:
ssh-keygen -t rsa -b 2048 -m PEM
ssh-keygen -f key.pub -e -m PEM > public_key.pem
Public key recovery
First, an attacker needs to recover the public key from the server in any way possible. It is possible to extract this from just two JWT tokens as shown below.
Grab two different JWT tokens and utilize the following tool: https://github.com/silentsignal/rsa_sign2n/blob/release/standalone/jwt_forgery.py
python3 jwt_forgery.py token1 token2
The tool will generate 4 different public keys, all in different formats. Try the following for all 4 formats.
Algorithm confusion
Change the JWT to the HS256 algorithm and modify any of the contents to your liking at https://jwt.io/.
Copy the resulting JWT token and use with the following tool: https://github.com/ticarpi/jwt_tool
python /opt/jwt_tool/jwt_tool.py --exploit k -pk public_key token
You will now get a resulting JWT token that is validly signed.
Impact
Applications using the RS256 algorithm, a public key with a BEGIN RSA PUBLIC KEY header, and calling the verify function without explicitly providing an algorithm, are vulnerable to this algorithm confusion attack which allows attackers to sign arbitrary payloads which will be accepted by the verifier.
Solution
Change https://github.com/nearform/fast-jwt/blob/master/src/crypto.js#L29
const publicKeyPemMatcher = '-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----'
to be regex:
const publicKeyPemMatcher = /^-----BEGIN( RSA)? PUBLIC KEY-----/
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | fast-jwt | all versions | 3.3.2npm install fast-jwt@3.3.2 |
Research use only. For defensive security, authorized penetration testing, and academic research only. Never execute exploit code against systems without explicit written authorization.
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for fast-jwt, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update fast-jwt to 3.3.2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-c2ff-88x2-x9pg 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-c2ff-88x2-x9pg can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-c2ff-88x2-x9pg. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-c2ff-88x2-x9pg in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-c2ff-88x2-x9pg across npm dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.