GHSA-r6x4-923q-g947 is a high-severity (CVSS 7.4) CWE-347 vulnerability in pyjwt. A fix is available for pyjwt — see the affected versions and patch details below.
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.
- A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-r6x4-923q-g947.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-r6x4-923q-g947 by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). Outside the shaded patch-first corner.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 394,803 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Counts from FIRST.org, log-scaled.
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
Affected Package
- Package: PyJWT (
pyjwton PyPI) - Repository: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt&source=gmail&ust=1781794518474000&sa=E
- Affected version: 2.13.0
- Vulnerability class: Algorithm confusion / patch bypass
Root Cause
PyJWT 2.13.0 introduced a guard in HMACAlgorithm.prepare_key() (file jwt/algorithms.py, approximately line 344) to prevent RSA public key material from being used as an HMAC secret — the root cause of CVE-2026-48526.
The guard uses bytes.lstrip() before calling startswith(b"{"):
stripped = key_bytes.lstrip() # strips ASCII whitespace only
if stripped.startswith(b"{"): # JWK detection
...
raise InvalidKeyError("The specified key is an asymmetric key...")
bytes.lstrip() with no argument removes only bytes in the ASCII whitespace set (\x20 \t \n \r \x0b \x0c). A UTF-8 BOM prefix (\xef\xbb\xbf) is not stripped, so stripped.startswith(b"{") returns False for any BOM-prefixed JWK JSON. The JWK detection block is never entered, and the RSA public key bytes are silently accepted as the HMAC-SHA256 secret.
PoC Sketch (pseudocode — not a weaponized payload)
# 1. Attacker obtains RSA public key JWK (e.g., from /jwks.json endpoint)
# and prepends a UTF-8 BOM byte sequence before the JSON opening brace.
# 2. Attacker signs a JWT using HS256, with the BOM-prefixed JWK as the secret.
# 3. Attacker submits the forged token to a verifier that:
# - accepts algorithms=["HS256", "RS256"]
# - holds the same RSA public key as raw bytes (BOM-prefixed key file)
# 4. PyJWT 2.13.0 accepts the token because the BOM causes the JWK
# detection check to be skipped — the RSA JWK bytes become a valid HMAC key.
# Result: arbitrary claims (role, sub, etc.) accepted by the verifier.
Impact
An unauthenticated network attacker who knows the target application's RSA public key — which is public by design and obtainable from a JWKS endpoint or certificate — can forge JWT tokens containing arbitrary claims and have them accepted by a PyJWT 2.13.0 verifier configured with a mixed algorithm set (algorithms=["HS256", "RS256"] or equivalent). The resulting impact
is complete authentication and authorization bypass (C:H/I:H). Attack Complexity is High (AC:H) because the attacker must obtain the RSA public key and the verifier must use a mixed-algorithm configuration; no authentication is required (PR:N). This is a patch bypass: users who upgraded to 2.13.0 specifically to remediate CVE-2026-48526 remain vulnerable.
Suggested Fix
Option A (minimal): Replace lstrip() with an explicit strip of known
BOM prefixes before the JSON detection check:
# Strip common BOM prefixes in addition to ASCII whitespace
BOM_PREFIXES = (b"\xef\xbb\xbf", b"\xff\xfe", b"\xfe\xff")
stripped = key_bytes
for bom in BOM_PREFIXES:
if stripped.startswith(bom):
stripped = stripped[len(bom):]
break
stripped = stripped.lstrip()
Option B (more robust): Use json.loads() as the detection mechanism
instead of a byte-prefix check, so encoding variants and whitespace are
handled by the JSON parser:
try:
test_obj = json.loads(key_bytes.strip())
if isinstance(test_obj, dict) and "kty" in test_obj:
raise InvalidKeyError("The specified key is an asymmetric key...")
except (ValueError, UnicodeDecodeError):
pass
Option B is preferred because it is resilient to any future encoding variant.
Maintainer update — 2026-09-09
We reproduced the reported algorithm-confusion path on PyJWT 2.13.0. When an application passes a raw public RSA JWK as the key and allows both an asymmetric and HMAC algorithm, a forged HS256 token signed with the known public JWK bytes is accepted when the JWK is represented in encodings accepted by Python's JSON decoder. The normal raw-JWK, asymmetric-only, and algorithm-bound PyJWK controls reject the token. This is an application configuration precondition, but the bypass is in PyJWT's own raw-JWK validation guard and is in scope under the PyJWT security policy.
The fix is committed as 180783930de91876bc0d601f826a1f2956057291. HMACAlgorithm.prepare_key() now checks parsed JSON objects for kty across accepted UTF-8/16/32 representations, preserves non-JWK HMAC key bytes, and conservatively rejects deeply nested JSON objects even when parsing reaches the recursion guard. Regression coverage includes BOM and BOM-less encodings, deep non-JWK keys, deep JWK objects, and unpaired-surrogate cases.
The full suite passes with 391 tests and 4 intentional cryptography-environment skips. A fresh Astra/max independent review accepted commit 180783930de91876bc0d601f826a1f2956057291. It independently confirmed encoding/BOM handling, recursion and surrogate behavior, preservation of non-object key compatibility, and the reported test results.
The fix has not been released. The advisory remains High with its existing CVSS 3.1 score of 7.4, and the patched version remains unset pending release planning.
Classification update — 2026-09-10
We completed the advisory classification review. The proposed CVSS 3.1 vector is CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N and the proposed CWE classification is CWE-347. These classifications reflect the documented impact and do not alter the affected range, fix status, or lifecycle state.
Maintainer update — 2026-09-11
The verified fix for this advisory is included in PyJWT 2.14.0, released on 2026-09-11 and available on PyPI. PyJWT 2.14.0 is the first release containing the fix. This advisory is now published with 2.14.0 recorded as the patched version.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | pyjwt | ≥ 2.13.0&&< 2.14.0 | 2.14.0pip install --upgrade 'pyjwt==2.14.0' |
Affected Products
pyjwtpyjwt_projectDetection & 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 2.14.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-r6x4-923q-g947 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.
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.
This vulnerability is rated as an Important severity because successful exploitation permits an unauthenticated remote attacker to bypass authentication and forge valid tokens, though exploitation requires specific mixed-algorithm verification settings. In Red Hat environments, exposure is restricted to services that…
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.Source: Red Hat security advisory for GHSA-r6x4-923q-g947 (CC BY 4.0)
| Product | Fixed in | Advisory |
|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 for RHEL 9 | python3.12-pyjwt-0:2.14.0-1.el9ap | RHSA-2026:87004 |
| Red Hat AI Inference Server 3.5 | rhaii/vllm-rocm-rhel9:1791425869 | RHSA-2026:82059 |
| Red Hat AI Inference Server 3.5 | rhaii/vllm-gaudi-rhel9:1791427182 | RHSA-2026:82061 |
| Red Hat AI Inference Server 3.5 | rhaii/vllm-cuda-rhel9:1791473631 | RHSA-2026:82368 |
| Red Hat AI Inference Server 3.5 | rhaii/vllm-spyre-rhel9:1791818357 | RHSA-2026:82371 |
| Red Hat AI Inference Server 3.5 | rhaii/vllm-cpu-rhel9:1791473614 | RHSA-2026:82415 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 | ansible-automation-platform-26/ee-supported-rhel9:1791974220 | RHSA-2026:87120 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.7 | ansible-automation-platform-27/gateway-rhel9:1792429216 | RHSA-2026:87124 |
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-r6x4-923q-g947 in your dependencies?
Find it across PyPI, including transitive dependencies.