VulnerabilityPublished 2 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-62374: SD JWT JS · Tampered disclosures silently dropped instead of rejected

Affects @sd-jwt/decodeSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-62374· High 7.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 0.20.0 soon.

Data as of 2 Nov 2026, 18:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.1High

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 4.0	7.1
CNA	CVSS 4.0	7.1

Patch: Available – fixed in 0.20.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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: Low
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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
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 29 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 2 Nov 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 @sd-jwt/core to 0.20.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npm@sd-jwt/decode	Affected <=0.19.0	Fixed in–
npm@sd-jwt/core	Affected <0.20.0	Fixed in 0.20.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade to @sd-jwt/decode version 0.20.0 or later, where the issue is fixed by enforcing RFC 9901 requirements to reject presentations containing any disclosure not referenced by the issuer-signed _sd array. Do not rely on older versions that silently drop unmatched disclosures. No other mitigations are necessary as the fix addresses the root cause.

Description

A vulnerability in @sd-jwt/decode version 0.19.0 and earlier allows tampered disclosures in SD-JWT presentations to be silently dropped instead of causing rejection. This leads to a reduced claim set being accepted without error, enabling a malicious holder or an on-path attacker to omit claims without detection. The issue violates RFC 9901 requirements for disclosure validation and can cause relying parties to make incorrect authorization decisions if they default to allow when claims are missing.

Impact

The vulnerability enables silent omission of claims from SD-JWT presentations without causing verification failure. This can lead to authorization bypass if relying parties assume default-allow when a constraining claim is absent. The core problem is that tampering does not cause rejection but results in a reduced claim set accepted as valid. This affects deployments using @sd-jwt/decode, including those implementing SD-JWT Verifiable Credentials and EU EUDIW ARF profiles. There is no evidence of active exploitation in the wild.

Summary

The @sd-jwt/decode library version 0.19.0 does not properly reject SD-JWT presentations when one or more disclosures are tampered such that their digest does not match the issuer-signed _sd array. Instead of rejecting the entire presentation as mandated by RFC 9901, the library silently drops unmatched disclosures and returns a reduced claim set, reporting success. This behavior occurs both for genuinely non-decodable disclosures (e.g., invalid UTF-8 bytes) and tampered but syntactically valid JSON disclosures. The vulnerability allows a malicious holder or an on-path attacker (when key binding is not enforced) to downgrade the claims presented, potentially bypassing authorization checks that rely on the presence of specific claims. The issue was confirmed end-to-end with real issuer keys and key binding scenarios. The vulnerability is fixed in version 0.20.0.

CWE-176Improper Handling of Unicode Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product does not properly handle when an input contains Unicode encoding.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Using Unicode Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic (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 2 Nov 2026, 18:30 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-176

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats