VulnerabilityPublished 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-37568: lepture Authlib · Improper Access Control

Source CVE Database V5

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 1.3.1 : patch affected systems soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 32% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.3.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 3 Nov 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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

AI-suggested

Upgrade lepture Authlib to version 1.3.1 or later immediately, as this version contains the fix for the algorithm confusion vulnerability.
Review all jwt.decode calls in application code to ensure that the 'algorithms' parameter is explicitly specified, restricting accepted algorithms to those intended (e.g., ['RS256'] for RSA signatures). Avoid relying on default algorithm selection.
Implement strict input validation and token verification policies to detect and reject tokens with unexpected or unsupported algorithms.
Conduct code audits and penetration testing focused on JWT handling to identify any other potential misconfigurations or vulnerabilities.
Monitor authentication logs for anomalies such as unexpected token issuances or verification failures that could indicate exploitation attempts.
Educate developers on secure JWT usage patterns and the risks of algorithm confusion attacks.
If upgrading immediately is not feasible, consider implementing compensating controls such as web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect suspicious JWT tokens or unusual authentication patterns.
Maintain an inventory of applications and services using Authlib to ensure comprehensive coverage of the mitigation efforts.

Description

lepture Authlib before 1.3.1 has algorithm confusion with asymmetric public keys. Unless an algorithm is specified in a jwt.decode call, HMAC verification is allowed with any asymmetric public key. (This is similar to CVE-2022-29217 and CVE-2024-33663.)

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2024-37568 can be significant, especially for those relying on lepture Authlib in their authentication and authorization systems. The vulnerability allows attackers to forge or manipulate JWT tokens, which are commonly used for session management, API authentication, and single sign-on (SSO) implementations. Successful exploitation can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive systems, privilege escalation, and potential lateral movement within networks. This undermines the integrity of authentication mechanisms, potentially exposing confidential business data and critical infrastructure. Since the vulnerability does not require authentication or user interaction, it can be exploited remotely and at scale if the affected systems are exposed to the internet. European sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and cloud service providers, which often use Python-based web frameworks and libraries, are at higher risk. The absence of known exploits in the wild provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the high severity score indicates that organizations should prioritize patching and code review to prevent compromise.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Nov 2025, 18:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats