VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-96760: Authlib · empty signatures validation in JWS JSON deserialization

Affects omnaraSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 09:14 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewomnara`pkg:brew/omnara`Other threats	Affected >=1.5.2	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Upgrade Authlib to version 1.9.0 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. The fix involves rejecting JWS JSON Serialization objects with empty 'signatures' arrays or properly initializing the validation flag to require at least one signature. Until upgraded, avoid calling deserialize_json() on untrusted input or implement additional validation to reject empty 'signatures' arrays before deserialization.

Description

Authlib versions prior to 1.9.0 contain a critical signature verification bypass vulnerability in the JsonWebSignature.deserialize_json() method. This flaw allows an attacker to submit a JSON Web Signature (JWS) object with an empty signatures array, which the method incorrectly accepts as valid without verifying any signature or requiring a cryptographic key. This results in an attacker-authored payload being accepted as authenticated, enabling a complete authentication bypass when identity or authorization claims are involved.

Reports on CVE-2026-96760

VU#762428: Authlib library contains a signature‑verification bypass vulnerabilityCERT/CC2026-09-28

Impact

An attacker can bypass signature verification entirely by submitting a JWS JSON Serialization object with an empty 'signatures' array. This leads to acceptance of attacker-controlled payloads as validly signed, resulting in a complete authentication bypass. Any relying party that processes such input without additional checks is vulnerable to unauthorized access or privilege escalation. The vulnerability affects identity and authorization claims, making it critical for systems relying on Authlib for JWS verification.

Summary

The vulnerability in Authlib (before 1.9.0) arises because the deserialize_json() method initializes a validation flag to true and only sets it to false if any signature in the 'signatures' array fails validation. If the 'signatures' array is empty, the loop does not execute, and the flag remains true, causing the method to return the payload as successfully verified without any signature check or key usage. This allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to forge payloads that are accepted as valid. The issue was demonstrated on version 1.8.0 and is fixed by rejecting empty 'signatures' arrays or initializing the validation flag based on the presence of signatures. The vulnerability has a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.1 (critical) due to its network attack vector, no required privileges or user interaction, and high impact on confidentiality and integrity.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

Reports on CVE-2026-96760

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Oct 2026, 09:14 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats