VulnerabilityPublished 10 Oct 2025Updated 25 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-61152: python-jose thru · Improper Privilege Management

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 16:39 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% 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 10 Oct 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

Immediately audit all applications using python-jose for JWT validation to determine if they accept tokens with 'alg=none' or disable signature verification.
Ensure that the application explicitly rejects JWT tokens with 'alg=none' by configuring the library or implementing custom validation logic.
Avoid setting 'verify_signature' to false; signature verification must always be enabled in production environments.
Update to a patched version of python-jose once available or apply community patches that enforce rejection of 'alg=none' tokens.
Implement additional layers of authentication and authorization checks beyond JWT claims to reduce reliance on token integrity alone.
Monitor logs for suspicious authentication attempts involving tokens with 'alg=none' or unusual claims.
Educate developers about secure JWT handling practices, emphasizing the risks of accepting unsigned tokens.
Consider using alternative JWT libraries that enforce stricter validation policies if python-jose cannot be updated promptly.
Conduct penetration testing focused on JWT authentication to identify potential exploitation paths.
Maintain an incident response plan to quickly address any detected misuse of forged tokens.

Description

python-jose thru 3.3.0 allows JWT tokens with 'alg=none' to be decoded and accepted without any cryptographic signature verification. A malicious actor can craft a forged token with arbitrary claims (e.g., is_admin=true) and bypass authentication checks, leading to privilege escalation or unauthorized access in applications that rely on python-jose for token validation. This issue is exploitable unless developers explicitly reject 'alg=none' tokens, which is not enforced by the library. NOTE: all parties agree that the issue is not relevant because it only occurs in a "verify_signature": False situation.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk if python-jose is used in authentication or authorization workflows without proper configuration. Attackers could exploit this flaw to bypass authentication controls, escalate privileges, and gain unauthorized access to sensitive systems or data. This could lead to data breaches, compliance violations (e.g., GDPR), and damage to organizational reputation. The impact is particularly critical for sectors handling sensitive personal data or critical infrastructure, such as finance, healthcare, and government services. Since the vulnerability allows forging tokens with arbitrary claims, attackers might impersonate privileged users or administrators, potentially leading to lateral movement within networks and further compromise. The absence of known exploits suggests limited current risk, but the ease of exploitation and the widespread use of JWTs in modern web applications mean that the threat could escalate rapidly if weaponized. Organizations relying on python-jose should assess their exposure and remediate promptly to prevent potential exploitation.

CWE-269Improper Privilege Management (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that 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
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
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)
Secure Design Principles (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
Restful Privilege Elevation (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Abuse (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Escalation (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 25 Nov 2025, 17:31 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-269

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats