CVE-2026-32597VulnerabilityPublished 25 Mar 2026Updated 12 Oct 2026

SUSE pyjwt · Security update for python-PyJWT

Affects SUSE pyjwtSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-59420

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-32597· High 7.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in SUSE package updates : patch SUSE pyjwt soon.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 20:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.12.1, 2.85.0, 1.53.0 +3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 12 Mar 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 31 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 to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIpyjwt`pkg:pypi/pyjwt`Other threats	Affected <2.12.1	Fixed in 2.12.1
Homebrewazure-cli`pkg:brew/azure-cli`Other threats	Affected >=2.0.17 <2.85.0	Fixed in 2.85.0
Homebrewggshield`pkg:brew/ggshield`Other threats	Affected >=1.19.1 <1.53.0	Fixed in 1.53.0
Homebrewcycode`pkg:brew/cycode`Other threats	Affected >=1.10.3 <3.11.3_1	Fixed in 3.11.3_1
Homebrewmcpm`pkg:brew/mcpm`Other threats	Affected <2.15.0_2	Fixed in 2.15.0_2
Homebrewlocalstack`pkg:brew/localstack`Other threats	Affected >=4.4.0 <4.14.0_1	Fixed in 4.14.0_1

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 for PyJWT that adds proper validation of the 'crit' header parameter to reject tokens containing unknown critical extensions, bringing behavior into compliance with RFC 7515 §4.1.11. Users should upgrade to fixed versions of PyJWT as indicated by the affected version ranges. Until patched, users should consider additional validation controls or avoid accepting tokens with critical extensions not explicitly supported by PyJWT.

Description

PyJWT versions prior to certain fixed releases do not validate the 'crit' (Critical) header parameter in JSON Web Signature (JWS) tokens as required by RFC 7515 §4.1.11. This allows tokens containing unknown critical extensions to be accepted instead of rejected, violating the RFC and potentially enabling security policy bypasses. The vulnerability is similar to CVE-2025-59420 affecting Authlib and has a CVSS score of 7.5 (High).

Impact

The vulnerability can cause inconsistent token validation in environments using mixed JWT libraries, potentially allowing tokens with unrecognized critical extensions to be accepted by PyJWT. This can lead to bypass of security controls encoded in critical extensions, such as MFA enforcement or proof-of-possession token binding, undermining authorization and data authenticity guarantees. The impact is rated high due to the potential for security policy bypass without detection.

Summary

PyJWT fails to enforce the RFC 7515 requirement that any critical header extensions listed in the 'crit' array of a JWS token must be understood and processed by the recipient. If PyJWT encounters unknown critical extensions, it incorrectly accepts the token rather than rejecting it as invalid. This can lead to split-brain verification scenarios where some components reject the token while others accept it, and may allow bypass of security policies encoded in critical extensions such as multi-factor authentication requirements or token binding. The issue affects multiple PyJWT versions prior to fixed releases. A patch is available that adds validation of the 'crit' header to reject tokens with unsupported critical extensions.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Oct 2026, 21:51 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats