CVE-2025-45769VulnerabilityPublished 31 Jul 2025Updated 18 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-45769: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 3% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 31 Jul 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 2026-10-26.

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 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

Organizations should immediately review their use of php-jwt version 6.11.0 and assess their cryptographic key management practices. Specifically, ensure that encryption keys used for JWT signing and verification meet strong length and complexity requirements consistent with current cryptographic standards (e.g., minimum 256-bit keys for HMAC or appropriate key sizes for asymmetric algorithms). Developers should implement application-level controls to enforce key strength, as the library does not enforce this. Additionally, consider upgrading to a newer version of php-jwt if and when a patched release addressing this issue becomes available. In the interim, perform security audits and penetration testing focused on JWT handling to detect weak keys or token forgery vulnerabilities. Employ defense-in-depth strategies such as token expiration, audience validation, and issuer verification to limit the impact of compromised tokens. Monitoring and logging JWT validation failures can help detect exploitation attempts. Finally, educate development teams about secure cryptographic practices and the importance of key management in JWT security.

Description

php-jwt v6.11.0 was discovered to contain weak encryption. NOTE: this issue has been disputed on the basis that key lengths are expected to be set by an application, not by this library. This dispute is subject to review under CNA rules 4.1.4, 4.1.14, and other rules; the dispute tagging is not meant to recommend an outcome for this CVE Record.

Impact

The potential impact of this vulnerability is the compromise of JWT-based authentication and authorization mechanisms in applications using php-jwt 6.11.0 with weak encryption keys. Attackers could exploit weak key lengths to forge tokens or decrypt sensitive information, leading to unauthorized access to protected resources, data leakage, or privilege escalation. This could affect web applications, APIs, and services relying on JWTs for session management or identity assertions. The impact is primarily on confidentiality and integrity, as attackers may manipulate tokens or intercept sensitive data. Although no availability impact is expected, the breach of authentication integrity can lead to significant security incidents, including data breaches and unauthorized transactions. Organizations worldwide using php-jwt in their technology stacks are at risk, especially if they do not enforce strong cryptographic key policies. The absence of known exploits suggests limited immediate threat, but the medium severity rating indicates a meaningful risk if exploited.

Summary

The vulnerability CVE-2025-45769 affects the php-jwt library version 6.11.0, a widely used PHP library for creating and verifying JSON Web Tokens (JWTs). The core issue is the presence of weak encryption due to insufficient key length enforcement within the library. However, this vulnerability is disputed because the library developers argue that key length settings are the responsibility of the application using the library, not the library itself. This dispute is currently under review according to CNA rules. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-326, which involves the use of weak cryptographic keys or algorithms. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 6.5 (medium severity), with an attack vector of network (remote exploitation), low attack complexity, no privileges required, no user interaction, and impacts on confidentiality and integrity but not availability. No patches or fixes have been officially released, and no known exploits are reported in the wild. The vulnerability could allow attackers to compromise the confidentiality and integrity of JWTs if weak keys are used, potentially enabling token forgery or unauthorized access. Since JWTs are commonly used for authentication and authorization in web applications, this vulnerability could undermine security controls if not addressed properly.

CWE-326Inadequate Encryption Strength (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product stores or transmits sensitive data using an encryption scheme that is theoretically sound, but is not strong enough for the level of protection required.
Architecture and Design
Use an encryption scheme that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.7 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Brute Force (opens in a new tab)
Protocol Analysis (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 19 Feb 2026, 12:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-326

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats