VulnerabilityPublished 8 Apr 2026Updated 22 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-39413: HKUDS LightRAG · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Affects HKUDS LightRAGSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.2 Medium : upgrade to 1.4.14 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.2Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.4.14

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 8 Apr 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

Upgrade LightRAG and lightrag to 1.4.14.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
HKUDSLightRAG	Affected <1.4.14	Fixed in 1.4.14
PyPIlightrag`pkg:pypi/lightrag`Other threats	Affected <1.4.14	Fixed in 1.4.14

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade LightRAG to version 1.4.14 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed by explicitly rejecting tokens with the 'none' algorithm. Until upgraded, avoid accepting JWT tokens that do not have a valid signature algorithm.

Description

LightRAG provides simple and fast retrieval-augmented generation. Prior to 1.4.14, the LightRAG API is vulnerable to a JWT algorithm confusion attack where an attacker can forge tokens by specifying 'alg': 'none' in the JWT header. Since the jwt.decode() call does not explicitly deny the 'none' algorithm, a crafted token without a signature will be accepted as valid, leading to unauthorized access. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.4.14.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows an attacker to bypass authentication by presenting forged JWT tokens without valid signatures, leading to unauthorized access. The vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability directly but compromises confidentiality by allowing unauthorized access. There are no known exploits in the wild as of the published date.

Summary

LightRAG versions before 1.4.14 are vulnerable to a JWT algorithm confusion attack due to improper verification of cryptographic signatures (CWE-347). Specifically, the jwt.decode() function does not explicitly reject tokens specifying 'alg': 'none' in the JWT header, allowing unsigned tokens to be accepted as valid. This flaw enables attackers to forge JWT tokens and bypass authentication controls. The issue is resolved in LightRAG version 1.4.14.

CWE-347Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 22 Apr 2026, 22:41 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-347

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats