GHSA-75C5-XW7C-P5PM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-02 18:34 – Updated: 2024-12-02 18:34
VLAI?
Summary
PyJWT Issuer field partial matches allowed
Details
Summary
The wrong string if check is run for iss checking, resulting in "acb" being accepted for "_abc_".
Details
This is a bug introduced in version 2.10.0: checking the "iss" claim
changed from isinstance(issuer, list) to isinstance(issuer,
Sequence).
- if isinstance(issuer, list):
+ if isinstance(issuer, Sequence):
if payload["iss"] not in issuer:
raise InvalidIssuerError("Invalid issuer")
else:
Since str is a Sequnce, but not a list, in is also used for string
comparison. This results in if "abc" not in "__abcd__": being
checked instead of if "abc" != "__abc__":.
PoC
Check out the unit tests added here: https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt-ghsa-75c5-xw7c-p5pm
issuer = "urn:expected"
payload = {"iss": "urn:"}
token = jwt.encode(payload, "secret")
# decode() succeeds, even though `"urn:" != "urn:expected". No exception is raised.
with pytest.raises(InvalidIssuerError):
jwt.decode(token, "secret", issuer=issuer, algorithms=["HS256"])
Impact
I would say the real world impact is not that high, seeing as the signature still has to match. We should still fix it.
Severity ?
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "PyJWT"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.10.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.10.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"2.10.0"
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-53861"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-12-02T18:34:11Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-29T19:15:09Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThe wrong string if check is run for `iss` checking, resulting in `\"acb\"` being accepted for `\"_abc_\"`.\n\n### Details\nThis is a bug introduced in version [2.10.0](https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/commit/1570e708672aa9036bc772476beae8bfa48f4131#diff-6893ad4a1c5a36b8af3028db8c8bc3b62418149843fc382faf901eaab008e380R366): checking the \"iss\" claim\nchanged from `isinstance(issuer, list)` to `isinstance(issuer,\nSequence)`.\n\n```diff\n- if isinstance(issuer, list):\n+ if isinstance(issuer, Sequence):\n if payload[\"iss\"] not in issuer:\n raise InvalidIssuerError(\"Invalid issuer\")\n else:\n```\n\nSince str is a Sequnce, but not a list, `in` is also used for string\ncomparison. This results in `if \"abc\" not in \"__abcd__\":` being\nchecked instead of `if \"abc\" != \"__abc__\":`.\n### PoC\nCheck out the unit tests added here: https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt-ghsa-75c5-xw7c-p5pm\n```python\n issuer = \"urn:expected\"\n\n payload = {\"iss\": \"urn:\"}\n\n token = jwt.encode(payload, \"secret\")\n\n # decode() succeeds, even though `\"urn:\" != \"urn:expected\". No exception is raised.\n with pytest.raises(InvalidIssuerError):\n jwt.decode(token, \"secret\", issuer=issuer, algorithms=[\"HS256\"])\n```\n\n\n### Impact\n\nI would say the real world impact is not that high, seeing as the signature still has to match. We should still fix it.\n",
"id": "GHSA-75c5-xw7c-p5pm",
"modified": "2024-12-02T18:34:11Z",
"published": "2024-12-02T18:34:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/security/advisories/GHSA-75c5-xw7c-p5pm"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-53861"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/commit/1570e708672aa9036bc772476beae8bfa48f4131#diff-6893ad4a1c5a36b8af3028db8c8bc3b62418149843fc382faf901eaab008e380R366"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/commit/33022c25525c1020869c71ce2a4109e44ae4ced1"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "PyJWT Issuer field partial matches allowed"
}
Loading…
Loading…
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.
Loading…
Loading…