VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2026Updated 29 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-49852: joserfc · HS256/HS384/HS512 verify accepts empty/nil HMAC key (cross-language sibling of CVE-2026-45363)

Affects safetySource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-45363

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High : upgrade to 3.8.1 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 07:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.7High

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 3.8.1

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Aug 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 safety to 3.8.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewsafety`pkg:brew/safety`Other threats	Affected >=3.7.0_11 <3.8.1	Fixed in 3.8.1

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

Description

### Summary `joserfc.jwt.decode` accepts attacker-forged HMAC-signed tokens when the caller-supplied verification key is the empty string or `None`. `HMACAlgorithm.sign` and `HMACAlgorithm.verify` in [`src/joserfc/_rfc7518/jws_algs.py:62-70`](https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/blob/1ddca8f3c73ff47e3bc3ac06cb0c08a9535677ec/src/joserfc/_rfc7518/jws_algs.py#L62-L70) feed whatever `OctKey.get_op_key(...)` produced into `hmac.new(...)`, and `OctKey.import_key` only emits a `SecurityWarning` when the raw key is shorter than 14 bytes without rejecting zero-length input. Any application whose JWT secret is sourced from an unset environment variable, an unset Redis / DB row, a key finder fallback that returns `""`, or a `Hash.new("")`-style default verifies attacker tokens forged with `HMAC(key=b"", signing_input)` because the attacker trivially reproduces the same digest with no secret knowledge. This is a cross-language sibling of jwt/ruby-jwt GHSA-c32j-vqhx-rx3x / CVE-2026-45363 (HS256/HS384/HS512 verify accepted an empty/nil HMAC key, filed 2026-05-13). ruby-jwt v3.2.0 added an `ensure_valid_key!` precondition that rejects empty keys at both sign and verify entry; joserfc has no equivalent. (The same primitive lives in the deprecated `authlib.jose` module by the same maintainer; filing this advisory against joserfc alongside a separate `authlib` advisory because the codebases are independent shipping artifacts on PyPI.) ### Affected versions `joserfc` (PyPI) `<= 1.6.7` (latest published release reproduces). No patched release. ### Privilege required Unauthenticated. Any HTTP / RPC endpoint that calls `joserfc.jwt.decode` with a verification key sourced from configuration is reachable. The condition that makes the bug observable is operator-side: the configured secret resolves to `""` or `None`. Common patterns that produce this state in production: - `OctKey.import_key(os.environ.get("JWT_SECRET", ""))` - A key finder callable that returns `""` / `None` for an unknown `kid` - Default values like `os.getenv("SECRET") or ""`, `cfg.get("secret", "")` - Database / Redis row lookup that returns `""` for a missing row ### Vulnerable code [`src/joserfc/_rfc7518/jws_algs.py:43-70`](https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/blob/1ddca8f3c73ff47e3bc3ac06cb0c08a9535677ec/src/joserfc/_rfc7518/jws_algs.py#L43-L70): ```python class HMACAlgorithm(JWSAlgModel): SHA256 = hashlib.sha256 SHA384 = hashlib.sha384 SHA512 = hashlib.sha512 def __init__(self, sha_type, recommended=False): self.name = f"HS{sha_type}" self.description = f"HMAC using SHA-{sha_type}" self.recommended = recommended self.hash_alg = getattr(self, f"SHA{sha_type}") self.algorithm_security = sha_type def sign(self, msg: bytes, key: OctKey) -> bytes: op_key = key.get_op_key("sign") return hmac.new(op_key, msg, self.hash_alg).digest() def verify(self, msg: bytes, sig: bytes, key: OctKey) -> bool: op_key = key.get_op_key("verify") v_sig = hmac.new(op_key, msg, self.hash_alg).digest() return hmac.compare_digest(sig, v_sig) ``` [`src/joserfc/_rfc7518/oct_key.py:52-63`](https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/blob/1ddca8f3c73ff47e3bc3ac06cb0c08a9535677ec/src/joserfc/_rfc7518/oct_key.py#L52-L63): ```python @classmethod def import_key(cls, value, parameters=None, password=None) -> "OctKey": key: OctKey = super(OctKey, cls).import_key(value, parameters, password) if len(key.raw_value) < 14: # https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-131a/rev-2/final warnings.warn("Key size should be >= 112 bits", SecurityWarning) return key ``` The `< 14` check only warns; `len(key.raw_value) == 0` falls through and is returned to the caller. `HMACAlgorithm.verify` then calls `hmac.compare_digest(sig, hmac.new(b"", signing_input, sha256).digest())`, and Python's `hmac.new(b"", ...)` accepts the empty key. Cross-language sibling of ruby-jwt's fix in [`lib/jwt/jwa/hmac.rb`](https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/blob/1ddca8f3c73ff47e3bc3ac06cb0c08a9535677ec/lib/jwt/jwa/hmac.rb): ```ruby def ensure_valid_key!(key) raise_verify_error!('HMAC key expected to be a String') unless key.is_a?(String) raise_verify_error!('HMAC key cannot be empty') if key.empty? end ``` invoked from both `sign(signing_key:)` and `verify(verification_key:)`. PyJWT landed an equivalent guard in 2.13.0 (`HMACAlgorithm.prepare_key` raises `InvalidKeyError("HMAC key must not be empty.")` for `len(key_bytes) == 0`). firebase/php-jwt rejects empty material in `Key.__construct`. jjwt enforces a 256-bit minimum in `DefaultMacAlgorithm.validateKey`. joserfc has the strongest existing length-warning logic but stops at `< 14 bytes` warn rather than `== 0` reject. ### How an empty `JWT_SECRET` reaches `hmac.new` 1. The application calls `joserfc.jwt.decode(value, key, algorithms=["HS256"])` where `key = OctKey.import_key("")` (or `OctKey.import_key(b"")`, or any custom path t

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…