GHSA-67RJ-PJG6-PQ59

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-13 14:52 – Updated: 2026-01-21 16:21
VLAI?
Summary
Jervis Has a SHA-256 Hex String Padding Bug
Details

Vulnerability

https://github.com/samrocketman/jervis/blob/157d2b63ffa5c4bb1d8ee2254950fd2231de2b05/src/main/groovy/net/gleske/jervis/tools/SecurityIO.groovy#L622-L626

padLeft(32, '0') should be padLeft(64, '0'). SHA-256 produces 32 bytes = 64 hex characters.

Impact

  • Inconsistent hash lengths when leading bytes are zero
  • Comparison failures for hashes with leading zeros
  • Potential security issues in hash-based comparisons
  • Could cause subtle bugs in systems relying on consistent hash lengths

Severity is considered low for internal uses of this library but if there's any consumer using these methods directly then this is considered high.

Patches

Upgrade to Jervis 2.2.

Workarounds

Use an alternate SHA-256 hash function or upgrade.

Severity ?
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
8.7 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "net.gleske:jervis"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-68702"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-327"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-01-13T14:52:31Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-01-13T20:16:07Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Vulnerability\n\nhttps://github.com/samrocketman/jervis/blob/157d2b63ffa5c4bb1d8ee2254950fd2231de2b05/src/main/groovy/net/gleske/jervis/tools/SecurityIO.groovy#L622-L626\n\n`padLeft(32, \u00270\u0027)` should be `padLeft(64, \u00270\u0027)`. SHA-256 produces 32 bytes = 64 hex characters.\n\n### Impact\n\n* Inconsistent hash lengths when leading bytes are zero\n* Comparison failures for hashes with leading zeros\n* Potential security issues in hash-based comparisons\n* Could cause subtle bugs in systems relying on consistent hash lengths\n\nSeverity is considered low for internal uses of this library but if there\u0027s any consumer using these methods directly then this is considered high.\n\n### Patches\n\nUpgrade to Jervis 2.2.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nUse an alternate SHA-256 hash function or upgrade.",
  "id": "GHSA-67rj-pjg6-pq59",
  "modified": "2026-01-21T16:21:29Z",
  "published": "2026-01-13T14:52:31Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/samrocketman/jervis/security/advisories/GHSA-67rj-pjg6-pq59"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-68702"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/samrocketman/jervis/commit/c3981ff71de7b0f767dfe7b37a2372cb2a51974a"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/samrocketman/jervis"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/samrocketman/jervis/blob/157d2b63ffa5c4bb1d8ee2254950fd2231de2b05/src/main/groovy/net/gleske/jervis/tools/SecurityIO.groovy#L622-L626"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://github.com/samrocketman/jervis/commit/c3981ff71de7b0f767dfe7b37a2372cb2a51974a"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Jervis Has a SHA-256 Hex String Padding Bug"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.



Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.