GHSA-rp9m-7r4c-75qg is a critical-severity (CVSS 9.1) CWE-345 vulnerability in fast-jwt. A fix is available for fast-jwt — see the affected versions and patch details below.
fast-jwt: Cache Confusion via cacheKeyBuilder Collisions Can Return Claims From a Different Token (Identity/Authorization Mixup)
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
- A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
- CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-rp9m-7r4c-75qg.
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-rp9m-7r4c-75qg 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 377,166 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
NOTE: While the library exposes a mechanism which could introduce the vulnerability, this issue is created by developer-supplied code and not by the library itself. We will add a warning and some education for users around the possible issues however since the defaults work we will not be updating the library beyond that for this advisory.
Impact
Setting up a custom cacheKeyBuilder method which does not properly create unique keys for different tokens can lead to cache collisions. This could cause tokens to be mis-identified during the verification process leading to:
- Valid tokens returning claims from different valid tokens
- Users being mis-identified as other users based on the wrong token
This could result in:
- User impersonation - UserB receives UserA's identity and permissions
- Privilege escalation - Low-privilege users inherit admin-level access
- Cross-tenant data access - Users gain access to other tenants' resources
- Authorization bypass - Security decisions made on wrong user identity
Affected Configurations
This vulnerability ONLY affects applications that BOTH:
- Enable caching using the cache option
- Use custom cacheKeyBuilder functions that can produce collisions
VULNERABLE examples:
// Collision-prone: same audience = same cache key
cacheKeyBuilder: (token) => {
const { aud } = parseToken(token)
return `aud=${aud}`
}
// Collision-prone: grouping by user type
cacheKeyBuilder: (token) => {
const { aud } = parseToken(token)
return aud.includes('admin') ? 'admin-users' : 'regular-users'
}
// Collision-prone: tenant + service grouping
cacheKeyBuilder: (token) => {
const { iss, aud } = parseToken(token)
return `${iss}-${aud}`
}
SAFE examples:
// Default hash-based (recommended)
createVerifier({ cache: true }) // Uses secure default
// Include unique user identifier
cacheKeyBuilder: (token) => {
const { sub, aud, iat } = parseToken(token)
return `${sub}-${aud}-${iat}`
}
// No caching (always safe)
createVerifier({ cache: false })
Not Affected
- Applications using default caching
- Applications with caching disabled
Assessment Guide
To determine if you're affected:
- Check if caching is enabled: Look for cache: true or cache: <number> in verifier configuration
- Check for custom cache key builders: Look for cacheKeyBuilder function in configuration
- Analyze collision potential: Review if your cacheKeyBuilder can produce identical keys for different users/tokens
- If no custom cacheKeyBuilder: You are NOT affected (default is safe)
Mitigations
Mitigations include:
- Ensure uniqueness of keys produced in cacheKeyBuilder
- Remove custom cacheKeyBuilder method
- Disable caching
fast-jwt allows enabling a verification cache through the cache option. The cache key is derived from the token via cacheKeyBuilder.
When a custom cacheKeyBuilder produces collisions between different tokens, the verifier may return the cached payload of a previous token instead of validating and returning the payload of the current token.
This results in cross-token payload reuse and identity confusion.
Two distinct valid JWTs can be verified successfully but mapped to the same cached entry, causing the verifier to return claims belonging to a different token.
This affects authentication and authorization decisions when applications trust the returned payload.
Affected component
src/verifier.js
Relevant logic:
cache enabled via createCache
cache population via cacheSet
lookup based on cacheKeyBuilder(token)
cached payload returned without re-verification
Impact
Identity / authorization confusion via cache collision.
If two tokens generate the same cache key:
token A is verified → payload stored in cache
token B is verified → cache hit occurs
verifier returns payload from token A instead of B
Observed effect:
subject mismatch
claim mismatch
authorization decision performed on wrong identity
Potential real-world consequences:
user impersonation (logical)
privilege confusion
incorrect RBAC evaluation
gateway / middleware auth inconsistencies
This is especially dangerous when:
cache is enabled (recommended for performance)
custom cacheKeyBuilder is used
identity claims (sub / aud / iss) drive authorization
Root cause
The verifier assumes the cache key uniquely identifies the token and its claims.
However:
cacheKeyBuilder is user-controlled
collisions are not detected
cache entries store decoded payload
cached payload is returned without binding validation
This creates a trust boundary break between:
token → cache key → cached payload
Proof of concept
Environment:
fast-jwt: 6.1.0
Node.js: v24.13.1
PoC:
const { createSigner, createVerifier } = require('fast-jwt')
const sign = createSigner({ key: 'secret' })
// Two distinct tokens const t1 = sign({ sub: 'userA', aud: 'admin' }) const t2 = sign({ sub: 'userB', aud: 'admin' })
// Deliberately unsafe cache key builder (collision) const verify = createVerifier({ key: 'secret', cache: true, cacheKeyBuilder: () => 'static-key' })
console.log('verify t1') const p1 = verify(t1) console.log('t1 PASS sub=', p1.sub)
console.log('verify t2') const p2 = verify(t2) console.log('t2 PASS sub=', p2.sub)
console.log('verify t2 again') const p3 = verify(t2) console.log('t2-again PASS sub=', p3.sub)
console.log('verify t1 again') const p4 = verify(t1) console.log('t1-again PASS sub=', p4.sub)
Observed output:
verify t1 t1 PASS sub= userA
verify t2 t2 PASS sub= userA
verify t2 again t2-again PASS sub= userA
verify t1 again t1-again PASS sub= userA
The verifier returns payload from userA when verifying userB.
Expected behavior
Cache must not allow returning claims from a different token.
Verification must remain bound to the actual token being validated.
Even if cache collisions occur, the verifier should:
revalidate signature
re-decode payload
or invalidate cache entry
Why this is not “just misuse”
This is not merely a user mistake.
Reasons:
fast-jwt explicitly exposes cacheKeyBuilder as an extension point.
The documentation suggests performance tuning via custom key builders.
No safeguards exist against collisions.
No verification binding is performed between:
cached payload
original token
The verifier trusts cache output as authoritative identity.
This creates a security-sensitive invariant:
"cache key uniqueness"
which is neither enforced nor validated.
Security-critical libraries must assume extension hooks can be misused and implement defensive checks, especially when identity decisions are derived from cached values.
Security classification
logical authorization flaw
cache confusion vulnerability
identity boundary break
Closest CWE:
CWE-440 — Expected Behavior Violation
Suggested fix (minimal and safe)
Bind cache entries to token integrity.
Option A — safest:
Store token hash along with payload and verify match before returning cache.
Conceptual patch:
const tokenHash = hashToken(token)
cache.set(key, { tokenHash, payload })
...
const entry = cache.get(key)
if (entry && entry.tokenHash === hashToken(token)) { return entry.payload }
Option B — simpler:
Disable cache usage when custom cacheKeyBuilder is provided.
Option C — defensive:
Always re-validate signature when cache hit occurs.
Notes
Default cacheKeyBuilder is safe (hash-based).
Issue appears when custom builders are used — a documented and supported feature.
Impact increases in:
API gateways
auth middleware
RBAC layers relying on payload.sub / payload.aud
This vulnerability is independent from:
RegExp statefulness issue
ReDoS claim validation issue
It is a separate flaw in cache design and trust model.
PoC did on my computer: 'use strict'
const fs = require('node:fs') const path = require('node:path') const { createSigner, createVerifier } = require('./src')
function nowSec() { return Math.floor(Date.now() / 1000) }
const sign = createSigner({ key: 'secret' }) const t1 = sign({ sub: 'userA', aud: 'admin', iat: nowSec() }) const t2 = sign({ sub: 'userB', aud: 'admin', iat: nowSec() })
function badKeyBuilder() { return 'aud=admin' }
const verify = createVerifier({ key: 'secret', cache: true, cacheTTL: 60000, cacheKeyBuilder: badKeyBuilder })
function run(tok) { try { const out = verify(tok) return { ok: true, sub: out.sub, aud: out.aud } } catch (e) { return { ok: false, code: e.code || String(e), message: e.message } } }
const results = [] results.push({ step: 'verify(t1)', token: 't1', result: run(t1) }) results.push({ step: 'verify(t2)', token: 't2', result: run(t2) }) results.push({ step: 'verify(t2) again', token: 't2', result: run(t2) }) results.push({ step: 'verify(t1) again', token: 't1', result: run(t1) })
const evidence = { title: 'fast-jwt cache confusion when cacheKeyBuilder collisions occur', environment: { node: process.version, fastJwt: require('./package.json').version }, config: { cache: true, cacheTTL: 60000, cacheKeyBuilder: "returns constant key 'aud=admin' (realistic collision pattern)" }, tokens: { t1: { claims: { sub: 'userA', aud: 'admin' }, jwt: t1 }, t2: { claims: { sub: 'userB', aud: 'admin' }, jwt: t2 } }, observed: results }
const outPath = path.join(process.cwd(), 'evidence-cache-keybuilder-confusion.json') fs.writeFileSync(outPath, JSON.stringify(evidence, null, 2)) console.log('Wrote evidence to:', outPath)
for (const r of results) {
console.log(r.step, '=>', r.result.ok ? PASS sub=${r.result.sub} : FAIL ${r.result.code})
}
Output: PS C:\Users\Franciny Rojas\Desktop\crypto-research\fast-jwt> node poc_cache_keybuilder_confusion_evidence.js Wrote evidence to: C:\Users\Franciny Rojas\Desktop\crypto-research\fast-jwt\evidence-cache-keybuilder-confusion.json verify(t1) => PASS sub=userA verify(t2) => PASS sub=userA verify(t2) again => PASS sub=userA verify(t1) again => PASS sub=userA PS C:\Users\Franciny Rojas\Desktop\crypto-research\fast-jwt>
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | fast-jwt | ≥ 0.0.1&&< 6.2.0 | 6.2.0npm install fast-jwt@6.2.0 |
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 6.2.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-rp9m-7r4c-75qg 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-rp9m-7r4c-75qg can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-rp9m-7r4c-75qg. 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-rp9m-7r4c-75qg in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-rp9m-7r4c-75qg across npm dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.