CVE-2026-107721

CVE-2026-107721 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in fast-jwt (npm), affecting versions <= 6.2.4. It is fixed in 6.3.0.

Does this CVE actually affect you?

Kodem shows which CVEs are reachable and running in your applications, so you fix what's exploitable, not just what's listed.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Runtime intelligence, not another scanner.

Summary

fast-jwt clockTolerance: Infinity silently bypasses both exp and nbf validation (and persists in the verifier cache)

createVerifier({ clockTolerance: Infinity }) silently bypasses both exp (expiry) AND nbf (not-before) validation. Any expired or not-yet-active token is accepted as valid. The same primitive also corrupts the verifier's internal cache so cached entries inherit infinite validity, they remain valid past a later developer-removed Infinity config until LRU eviction.

Vulnerable code

src/verifier.js:531-533, option validation only rejects negative values, not Infinity:

if (clockTolerance && (typeof clockTolerance !== 'number' || clockTolerance < 0)) {
  throw new TokenError(TokenError.codes.invalidOption, 'The clockTolerance option must be a positive number.')
}

Infinity passes (it's a number, not less than 0, truthy).

src/verifier.js:583-602, clockTolerance flows into the date-claim validators:

if (!ignoreNotBefore) {
  validators.push({ ..., modifier: -clockTolerance })   // → -Infinity
}
if (!ignoreExpiration) {
  validators.push({ ..., modifier: +clockTolerance })   // → Infinity
}

src/verifier.js:198-205, applies modifier additively, producing always-pass comparisons:

function validateClaimDateValue(value, modifier, now, greater, errorCode, errorVerb) {
  const adjusted = value * 1000 + (modifier || 0)   // → ±Infinity
  const valid = greater ? now >= adjusted : now <= adjusted   // → always true
  ...
}

Empirical PoC

const { createSigner, createVerifier } = require('fast-jwt')
const secret = 'test-secret-with-enough-length-to-pass'

const sign = createSigner({ key: secret, algorithm: 'HS256' })
const expiredToken = sign({
  sub: 'alice',
  iat: Math.floor(Date.now()/1000) - 3600,
  exp: Math.floor(Date.now()/1000) - 1800,  // expired 30 min ago
})

const v1 = createVerifier({ key: secret })
try { v1(expiredToken) } catch (e) { console.log('baseline rejects:', e.message) }
// → "The token has expired at ..."

const v2 = createVerifier({ key: secret, clockTolerance: Infinity })
console.log('bypass:', v2(expiredToken))
// → { sub: 'alice', iat: ..., exp: ... }  ← expired token accepted as valid

// Not-yet-active token (nbf in 1 day), same bypass
const futureToken = sign({
  sub: 'bob',
  iat: Math.floor(Date.now()/1000),
  nbf: Math.floor(Date.now()/1000) + 86400,
})
console.log('bypass nbf:', v2(futureToken))
// → { sub: 'bob', ... }  ← not-yet-active token accepted as valid

Verified against fast-jwt@HEAD on 2026-06-03 (commit pulled today).

Cache side-effect

The verifier's LRU cache uses clockTolerance to compute the cache entry's expiry window:

src/verifier.js:121-134:

cacheValue[1] = ... payload.nbf * 1000 - clockTolerance : 0                   // → -Infinity
cacheValue[2] = payload.exp * 1000 + clockTolerance                            // → Infinity
const maxTTL = clockTimestamp + clockTolerance + cacheTTL                      // → Infinity

With clockTolerance: Infinity, cache entries are stored with [min=-Infinity, max=Infinity]. The cache-hit check (min === 0 || now < min || now <= max) always passes for cached tokens.

Consequence: a developer who briefly sets clockTolerance: Infinity (e.g., during debug) and then removes it will find that any verifications performed during the debug window remain cached as valid until LRU eviction (default 1000 entries).

Asymmetric hardening, the smoking-gun shape

src/signer.js:98, 104 CORRECTLY uses Number.isFinite() to reject Infinity for expiresIn and notBefore:

expiresIn != null && Number.isFinite(expiresIn)
  ? Math.floor((iat + expiresIn) / 1000)
  : ...

The verifier's clockTolerance validation doesn't apply the same guard. The same < 0 check pattern is also applied to clockTimestamp (line 527-529) and cacheTTL (line 535-537), both also accept Infinity.

This is the kind of asymmetry that often indicates a missed hardening pass: the sign-side was hardened against Infinity but the verify-side wasn't.

Threat model

The bug requires the developer to (mis)configure clockTolerance: Infinity. Realistic ways this happens:

  1. Developer using Infinity as a sentinel for "disable expiry": common JS idiom; many libraries accept Infinity as "no limit." fast-jwt's signer treats Infinity as invalid (Number.isFinite false) but the verifier silently accepts it.
  2. JSON / env-var misconfig: config file or env var sets clockTolerance to "Infinity" (string); Number("Infinity") === Infinity. Surprising via JSON.parse + Number cast or even JSON.parse('{"clockTolerance": null}') if the codec accepts null → Infinity.
  3. Test config bleed: integration tests use Infinity to make tokens never expire during long-running tests; the config bleeds into production.

For a JWT library, silently disabling token expiry on a "looks like a non-negative number" input is a security boundary failure.

Affected versions

All versions since clockTolerance was first introduced in PR #193 (v1.5.1). Current main HEAD on 2026-06-03 is affected.

Reporter

Andrew Ridings (independent security researcher). Happy to coordinate disclosure timing and follow up with any clarifications. Email: [email protected]

Impact

CVE-2026-107721 has a CVSS score of 5.9 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, high privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (6.3.0); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Affected versions

fast-jwt (<= 6.2.4)

Security releases

fast-jwt → 6.3.0 (npm)

Kodem intelligence

Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.

Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.

Already deployed Kodem?

See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →

Remediation advice

Single-line addition: use Number.isFinite() consistent with signer.js:

if (clockTolerance && (typeof clockTolerance !== 'number' || !Number.isFinite(clockTolerance) || clockTolerance < 0)) {
  throw new TokenError(TokenError.codes.invalidOption, 'The clockTolerance option must be a finite, non-negative number.')
}

Same fix for clockTimestamp (line 527-529) and cacheTTL (line 535-537) for consistency.

Optional defense-in-depth: cap clockTolerance to a reasonable upper bound (e.g., 5 minutes = 300000 ms) with a process.emitWarning above that. Most legitimate use cases need <60s tolerance.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is CVE-2026-107721? CVE-2026-107721 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in fast-jwt (npm), affecting versions <= 6.2.4. It is fixed in 6.3.0.
  2. How severe is CVE-2026-107721? CVE-2026-107721 has a CVSS score of 5.9 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
  3. Which versions of fast-jwt are affected by CVE-2026-107721? fast-jwt (npm) versions <= 6.2.4 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-107721? Yes. CVE-2026-107721 is fixed in 6.3.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
  5. Is CVE-2026-107721 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-107721 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
  6. What actually determines whether CVE-2026-107721 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
  7. How do I fix CVE-2026-107721? Upgrade fast-jwt to 6.3.0 or later.

Other vulnerabilities in fast-jwt

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.