VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-114615: Mcpm · Authlib incomplete algorithm-confusion fix permits HMAC forgery with prefixed public keys

Affects mcpmSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-37568

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-114615· High 7.4

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High : upgrade to 2.15.0_5 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 07:14 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	7.4

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 9% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.15.0_5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 22 Oct 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 mcpm to 2.15.0_5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewmcpm`pkg:brew/mcpm`Other threats	Affected >=2.1.0 <2.15.0_5	Fixed in 2.15.0_5

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

AI-suggested

A patch is available and fixed the vulnerability in mcpm version 2.15.0_5. Users should upgrade to version 2.15.0_5 or later to remediate this issue. Until patched, avoid passing PEM or certificate keys with leading whitespace or comments to jwt.decode, or avoid using the documented module-level jwt object that does not restrict algorithms. Additionally, do not mix symmetric (HS*) and asymmetric (RS*, ES*, PS*, EdDSA) algorithms in the same JWT verification context, as recommended by the vendor documentation.

Description

CVE-2026-114615 is a vulnerability in the mcpm product's use of authlib.jose where an incomplete fix for an algorithm confusion issue allows an attacker to forge HMAC signatures. The flaw arises because the check preventing asymmetric public keys from being used as HMAC secrets only matches keys starting exactly at byte 0, while the loader accepts keys with leading whitespace or comments. This discrepancy allows an attacker with only the issuer's public key to create a forged HS256 token that is accepted as authentic. The vulnerability affects versions >=2.1.0 and <2.15.0_5 and was fixed in version 2.15.0_5.

Impact

An attacker who has access to the issuer's public key can forge HS256 JSON Web Tokens with arbitrary claims that are accepted as authentic by the vulnerable system. This allows bypassing authentication or authorization controls relying on JWT verification, leading to potential privilege escalation or unauthorized access. The vulnerability does not require any secret or user interaction and exploits a discrepancy in key parsing logic. The CVSS 3.1 score is 7.4 (High), reflecting network attack vector, high impact on confidentiality and integrity, and no required privileges or user interaction.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Oct 2026, 07:14 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats