GHSA-9ggr-2464-2j32
Vulnerability from github
Summary
Authlib’s JWS verification accepts tokens that declare unknown critical header parameters (crit), violating RFC 7515 “must‑understand” semantics. An attacker can craft a signed token with a critical header (for example, bork or cnf) that strict verifiers reject but Authlib accepts. In mixed‑language fleets, this enables split‑brain verification and can lead to policy bypass, replay, or privilege escalation.
Affected Component and Versions
- Library: Authlib (JWS verification)
- API:
authlib.jose.JsonWebSignature.deserialize_compact(...) - Version tested: 1.6.3
- Configuration: Default; no allowlist or special handling for
crit
Details
RFC 7515 (JWS) §4.1.11 defines crit as a “must‑understand” list: recipients MUST understand and enforce every header parameter listed in crit, otherwise they MUST reject the token. Security‑sensitive semantics such as token binding (e.g., cnf from RFC 7800) are often conveyed via crit.
Observed behavior with Authlib 1.6.3:
- When a compact JWS contains a protected header with crit: ["cnf"] and a cnf object, or crit: ["bork"] with an unknown parameter, Authlib verifies the signature and returns the payload without rejecting the token or enforcing semantics of the critical parameter.
- By contrast, Java Nimbus JOSE+JWT (9.37.x) and Node jose v5 both reject such tokens by default when crit lists unknown names.
Impact in heterogeneous fleets:
- A strict ingress/gateway (Nimbus/Node) rejects a token, but a lenient Python microservice (Authlib) accepts the same token. This split‑brain acceptance bypasses intended security policies and can enable replay or privilege escalation if crit carries binding or policy information.
Proof of Concept (PoC)
This repository provides a multi‑runtime PoC demonstrating the issue across Python (Authlib), Node (jose v5), and Java (Nimbus).
Prerequisites
- Python 3.8+
- Node.js 18+
- Java 11+ with Maven
Setup
Enter the directory authlib-crit-bypass-poc & run following commands.
bash
make setup
make tokens
Tokens minted
tokens/unknown_crit.jwtwith protected header:{ "alg": "HS256", "crit": ["bork"], "bork": "x" }tokens/cnf_header.jwtwith protected header:{ "alg": "HS256", "crit": ["cnf"], "cnf": {"jkt": "thumb-42"} }
Reproduction
Run the cross‑runtime demo:
bash
make demo
Expected output for each token (strict verifiers reject; Authlib accepts):
For tokens/unknown_crit.jwt:
Strict(Nimbus): REJECTED (unknown critical header: bork)
Strict(Node jose): REJECTED (unrecognized crit)
Lenient(Authlib): ACCEPTED -> payload={'sub': '123', 'role': 'user'}
For tokens/cnf_header.jwt:
Strict(Nimbus): REJECTED (unknown critical header: cnf)
Strict(Node jose): REJECTED (unrecognized crit)
Lenient(Authlib): ACCEPTED -> payload={'sub': '123', 'role': 'user'}
Environment notes:
- Authlib version used: 1.6.3 (from PyPI)
- Node jose version: ^5
- Nimbus JOSE+JWT version: 9.37.x
- HS256 secret is 32 bytes to satisfy strict verifiers: 0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef
Impact
- Class: Violation of JWS
crit“must‑understand” semantics; specification non‑compliance leading to authentication/authorization policy bypass. - Who is impacted: Any service that relies on
critto carry mandatory security semantics (e.g., token binding viacnf) or operates in a heterogeneous fleet with strict verifiers elsewhere. - Consequences: Split‑brain acceptance (gateway rejects while a backend accepts), replay, or privilege escalation if critical semantics are ignored.
References
- RFC 7515: JSON Web Signature (JWS), §4.1.11
crit - RFC 7800: Proof‑of‑Possession Key Semantics for JWTs (
cnf)
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "authlib"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.6.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59420"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-09-22T14:42:12Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-22T18:15:46Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\nAuthlib\u2019s JWS verification accepts tokens that declare unknown critical header parameters (`crit`), violating RFC 7515 \u201cmust\u2011understand\u201d semantics. An attacker can craft a signed token with a critical header (for example, `bork` or `cnf`) that strict verifiers reject but Authlib accepts. In mixed\u2011language fleets, this enables split\u2011brain verification and can lead to policy bypass, replay, or privilege escalation.\n\n## Affected Component and Versions\n- Library: Authlib (JWS verification)\n- API: `authlib.jose.JsonWebSignature.deserialize_compact(...)`\n- Version tested: 1.6.3\n- Configuration: Default; no allowlist or special handling for `crit`\n\n## Details\nRFC 7515 (JWS) \u00a74.1.11 defines `crit` as a \u201cmust\u2011understand\u201d list: recipients MUST understand and enforce every header parameter listed in `crit`, otherwise they MUST reject the token. Security\u2011sensitive semantics such as token binding (e.g., `cnf` from RFC 7800) are often conveyed via `crit`.\n\nObserved behavior with Authlib 1.6.3:\n- When a compact JWS contains a protected header with `crit: [\"cnf\"]` and a `cnf` object, or `crit: [\"bork\"]` with an unknown parameter, Authlib verifies the signature and returns the payload without rejecting the token or enforcing semantics of the critical parameter.\n- By contrast, Java Nimbus JOSE+JWT (9.37.x) and Node `jose` v5 both reject such tokens by default when `crit` lists unknown names.\n\nImpact in heterogeneous fleets:\n- A strict ingress/gateway (Nimbus/Node) rejects a token, but a lenient Python microservice (Authlib) accepts the same token. This split\u2011brain acceptance bypasses intended security policies and can enable replay or privilege escalation if `crit` carries binding or policy information.\n\n## Proof of Concept (PoC)\nThis repository provides a multi\u2011runtime PoC demonstrating the issue across Python (Authlib), Node (`jose` v5), and Java (Nimbus).\n\n### Prerequisites\n- Python 3.8+\n- Node.js 18+\n- Java 11+ with Maven\n\n### Setup\n\nEnter the directory **authlib-crit-bypass-poc** \u0026 run following commands.\n```bash\nmake setup\nmake tokens\n```\n\n### Tokens minted\n- `tokens/unknown_crit.jwt` with protected header:\n `{ \"alg\": \"HS256\", \"crit\": [\"bork\"], \"bork\": \"x\" }`\n- `tokens/cnf_header.jwt` with protected header:\n `{ \"alg\": \"HS256\", \"crit\": [\"cnf\"], \"cnf\": {\"jkt\": \"thumb-42\"} }`\n\n### Reproduction\nRun the cross\u2011runtime demo:\n```bash\nmake demo\n```\n\nExpected output for each token (strict verifiers reject; Authlib accepts):\n\nFor `tokens/unknown_crit.jwt`:\n```\nStrict(Nimbus): REJECTED (unknown critical header: bork)\nStrict(Node jose): REJECTED (unrecognized crit)\nLenient(Authlib): ACCEPTED -\u003e payload={\u0027sub\u0027: \u0027123\u0027, \u0027role\u0027: \u0027user\u0027}\n```\n\nFor `tokens/cnf_header.jwt`:\n```\nStrict(Nimbus): REJECTED (unknown critical header: cnf)\nStrict(Node jose): REJECTED (unrecognized crit)\nLenient(Authlib): ACCEPTED -\u003e payload={\u0027sub\u0027: \u0027123\u0027, \u0027role\u0027: \u0027user\u0027}\n```\n\nEnvironment notes:\n- Authlib version used: `1.6.3` (from PyPI)\n- Node `jose` version: `^5`\n- Nimbus JOSE+JWT version: `9.37.x`\n- HS256 secret is 32 bytes to satisfy strict verifiers: `0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef`\n\n## Impact\n- Class: Violation of JWS `crit` \u201cmust\u2011understand\u201d semantics; specification non\u2011compliance leading to authentication/authorization policy bypass.\n- Who is impacted: Any service that relies on `crit` to carry mandatory security semantics (e.g., token binding via `cnf`) or operates in a heterogeneous fleet with strict verifiers elsewhere.\n- Consequences: Split\u2011brain acceptance (gateway rejects while a backend accepts), replay, or privilege escalation if critical semantics are ignored.\n\n## References\n- RFC 7515: JSON Web Signature (JWS), \u00a74.1.11 `crit`\n- RFC 7800: Proof\u2011of\u2011Possession Key Semantics for JWTs (`cnf`)",
"id": "GHSA-9ggr-2464-2j32",
"modified": "2025-11-03T18:31:42Z",
"published": "2025-09-22T14:42:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/authlib/authlib/security/advisories/GHSA-9ggr-2464-2j32"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59420"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/authlib/authlib/commit/6b1813e4392eb7c168c276099ff7783b176479df"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/authlib/authlib"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/10/msg00032.html"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Authlib: JWS/JWT accepts unknown crit headers (RFC violation \u2192 possible authz bypass)"
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.