Summary
Authlib incomplete algorithm-confusion fix permits HMAC forgery with prefixed public keys
OctKey.import_key() carries the only guard that stops an asymmetric public key from being used as an
HMAC secret in authlib.jose. That guard is raw_key.startswith(POSSIBLE_UNSAFE_KEYS), anchored at
byte 0, while the loader that consumes the identical bytes on the asymmetric path
(cryptography.hazmat.primitives.serialization.load_pem_public_key / load_pem_x509_certificate)
skips anything before the -----BEGIN line. A PEM public key or X.509 certificate carrying one
leading byte, a newline, a space, four spaces of indentation, a UTF-8 BOM, or a comment line, is
therefore not recognised, falls through, and becomes the HMAC secret. An attacker holding only the
issuer's public key then mints an HS256 token with arbitrary claims that jwt.decode() accepts as
authentic.
This is an incomplete fix of CVE-2024-37568 / GHSA-5357-c2jx-v7qh. That advisory's fix is exactly
this guard (git log -S 'POSSIBLE_UNSAFE_KEYS' -- authlib/jose/rfc7518/oct_key.py returns a single
commit, 3bea812 "fix: prevent OctKey to import ssh/rsa/pem keys", referencing issue #654), and the
original attack works again unchanged whenever the stored PEM does not start at offset 0.
Reproduced end-to-end on 1.8.0, the newest release (published 2026-08-30), and on origin/main
(c529a61), with cryptography 50.0.2.
Preconditions
Both are deployment properties; neither is attacker-controlled at request time, and the attacker needs
no secret and no user interaction.
The relying party uses the documented module-level
jwtobject.from authlib.jose import jwt
is built atauthlib/jose/__init__.py:55-72with the full list["HS256","HS384","HS512","RS256",...,"EdDSA"], andJsonWebToken.decode
(authlib/jose/rfc7519/jwt.py:80) exposes noalgorithmsparameter, so a caller of the
documented object has no way to narrow it. This is the first code sample indocs/jose/jwt.rst:21-31.This hazard is already documented:
docs/jose/jwt.rst:73-79says
"This decoding method is insecure. By defaultjwt.decodeparses the alg header. This allows
symmetric macs and asymmetric signatures.", anddocs/jose/jwt.rst:94-98says "You should never
combine symmetric (HS) and asymmetric (RS, ES, PS) signature schemes." The point of this report is
not that the mixed list exists, it is that theoct_key.py:81backstop shipped for precisely
that documented hazard does not hold.The verification key is passed as PEM/certificate text whose bytes do not begin at offset 0 with
-----BEGIN. Each of the following forms was confirmed to forge, and each also still verifies a
genuine RS256/ES256 token with the identical bytes, so nothing in the deployment looks broken:- one leading newline, what a triple-quoted Python literal produces
- one leading space
- four-space indentation, an indented YAML/JSON/TOML config block
- a UTF-8 BOM, a Windows-editor artifact
- a leading comment line
- all of the above applied to an X.509
CERTIFICATEPEM instead of aPUBLIC KEYPEM
A raw DER SPKI blob also bypasses the guard, but DER cannot be used for genuine asymmetric
verification through this path, so I exclude it as a non-deployable configuration and mention it
only as further evidence of the recogniser/loader gap.
Details
authlib/jose/rfc7518/oct_key.py:10-17
POSSIBLE_UNSAFE_KEYS = (
b"-----BEGIN ",
b"---- BEGIN ",
b"ssh-rsa ",
b"ssh-dss ",
b"ssh-ed25519 ",
b"ecdsa-sha2-",
)
authlib/jose/rfc7518/oct_key.py:78-84
raw_key = to_bytes(raw)
# security check
if raw_key.startswith(POSSIBLE_UNSAFE_KEYS):
raise ValueError("This key may not be safe to import")
key = cls(raw_key=raw_key, options=options)
bytes.startswith is anchored. The loader on the asymmetric path is not:authlib/jose/rfc7517/_cryptography_key.py:22-29 calls load_pem_public_key /load_pem_x509_certificate, both of which scan forward for the armour header. So the set of byte
strings the recogniser rejects is strictly smaller than the set the loader accepts, and the difference
is exploitable.
Reach, for a caller of the documented object:
authlib/jose/rfc7518/jws_algs.py:59,HMACAlgorithm.prepare_key(raw_data)returnsOctKey.import_key(raw_data); this is the whole of the HMAC key handling.authlib/jose/rfc7519/jwt.py:80,JsonWebToken.decode(self, s, key, claims_cls=None, claims_options=None, claims_params=None); the algorithm comes from the token header and is checked
only against the instance's list.authlib/jose/__init__.py:55-72, that list contains both HS* and RS*/ES*/PS*/EdDSA.
So oct_key.py:81 is the only thing between a mixed allow-list and using the public key as an HMAC
secret, and it is bypassed by a single leading byte.
PoC
poc-authlib-e2e-http.py stands up a Flask API whose only authentication is the documentedjwt.decode(token, PUBLIC_KEY), where PUBLIC_KEY is the issuer's RSA public key embedded as a
triple-quoted Python literal (hence one leading newline). The attacker is given only that public
key.
authlib=1.8.0 cryptography=50.0.2 flask=3.1.3
guard = authlib/jose/rfc7518/oct_key.py:81 raw_key.startswith(POSSIBLE_UNSAFE_KEYS)
call = authlib/jose/rfc7519/jwt.py:80 JsonWebToken.decode(s, key) [no `algorithms` param]
algs = authlib/jose/__init__.py:55+ module-level jwt = JsonWebToken([HS256..RS256..ES256..])
[baseline 1] genuine RS256 token, role=user -> (403, '{"error":"not admin","sub":"alice"}')
[baseline 2] genuine RS256 token, role=admin -> (200, '{"data":"DB_ROOT_PASSWORD=hunter2; STRIPE_SK=sk_live_deadbeef","ok":true,"sub":"root"}')
[CONTROL 1 ] payload tampered, RS256 sig kept -> (401, '{"error":"BadSignatureError: bad_signature: "}')
[CONTROL 2 ] HS256 forged with CANONICAL pubkey -> BLOCKED at key import: ValueError: This key may not be safe to import
[CONTROL 3 ] JsonWebToken(['RS256']) vs forged token -> REJECTED: UnsupportedAlgorithmError
ATTACKER INPUT: only IDP_PUB_CANONICAL (public by definition), no private key.
forged token header: {'alg': 'HS256', 'typ': 'JWT'}
[ATTACK ] HS256 forged with the PUBLIC key -> (200, '{"data":"DB_ROOT_PASSWORD=hunter2; STRIPE_SK=sk_live_deadbeef","ok":true,"sub":"attacker"}')
The three controls establish that the guard does work on a canonical PEM (so the leading byte is
load-bearing), that ordinary signature verification is intact, and that pinning the algorithm is an
effective mitigation.
Per-form matrix, both key types, with a control proving genuine asymmetric verification still succeeds
on the exact same bytes:
### RSA-2048/RS256
canonical PEM (CONTROL A) loader=load_pem_public_key startswith_guard=True RS/ES-verify=OK BLOCKED:ValueError
indented PEM (4 spaces) loader=load_pem_public_key startswith_guard=False RS/ES-verify=OK FORGED sub=superadmin role=admin
UTF-8 BOM prefix loader=load_pem_public_key startswith_guard=False RS/ES-verify=OK FORGED sub=superadmin role=admin
leading comment line loader=load_pem_public_key startswith_guard=False RS/ES-verify=OK FORGED sub=superadmin role=admin
leading blank line loader=load_pem_public_key startswith_guard=False RS/ES-verify=OK FORGED sub=superadmin role=admin
leading single space loader=load_pem_public_key startswith_guard=False RS/ES-verify=OK FORGED sub=superadmin role=admin
DER (SPKI) bytes loader=load_der_public_key startswith_guard=False RS/ES-verify=FAIL FORGED sub=superadmin role=admin
[CONTROL C] JsonWebToken(['RS256']).decode(forged HS256) -> REJECTED:UnsupportedAlgorithmError
### EC-P256/ES256
identical results for all seven rows
Same five leading-byte forms applied to an X.509 CERTIFICATE PEM: also FORGED, RS256-verify=OK.
Steps to reproduce
pip install authlib==1.8.0 cryptography flask requests- Generate an RSA-2048 keypair; serialise the public key to PEM and prepend a single newline
(or indent it, or prepend a BOM or a comment line). - Confirm
authlib.jose.rfc7518.oct_key.POSSIBLE_UNSAFE_KEYSdoes not match those bytes withstartswith, whilecryptography.hazmat.primitives.serialization.load_pem_public_keyloads them. from authlib.jose import jwtthentok = jwt.encode({"alg":"HS256"}, {"sub":"attacker","role":"admin"}, mutated_pem)jwt.decode(tok, mutated_pem), verification succeeds and the claims are returned.
Suggested remediation
Either of these closes the class rather than one more byte form:
- Decide key family by type, not by bytes. Attempt
load_pem_public_key/load_pem_x509_certificate/load_ssh_public_key/load_der_public_keyon the candidate and
reject it as anoctkey if any of them succeeds. This is the approach that makes joserfc immune and
it cannot drift out of step with the loader, because it is the loader. - If a cheap recogniser must be kept, make it a substring scan rather than an anchored prefix check
(any(m in raw_key for m in POSSIBLE_UNSAFE_KEYS)) and add the-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----and
DERSubjectPublicKeyInfocases. This is strictly weaker than (1): the recogniser can drift again
the next timecryptographybecomes more tolerant.
Separately, and independent of this report: giving JsonWebToken.decode an algorithms= parameter
would let callers of the documented module-level object apply the mitigation the docs recommend without
constructing a second JsonWebToken.
Credit
Found by zer0d4y5. Happy to test a patch branch before release.
Impact
Cryptographic signature-verification bypass leading to authentication bypass (CWE-347, algorithm
confusion). An unauthenticated attacker who knows only the issuer's public verification key, public by
definition, normally served at /.well-known/jwks.json or in IdP metadata, forges tokens with
arbitrary claims, including administrative roles and arbitrary subjects. In the PoC this yields an HTTP
200 and the application's admin secrets for sub=attacker.
Authlib had 103,356,930 PyPI downloads in the last month (pypistats /api/packages/authlib/recent,
read 2026-10-01), which is why I am reporting a bypass of a guard rather than only the documented
footgun it backstops.
Two notes for triage, in the interest of completeness:
authlib.joseemitsAuthlibDeprecationWarning("please use joserfc instead. It will be compatible
before version 2.0.0"). It is deprecated but still shipped, still documented indocs/jose/jwt.rst,
and still carries the download volume above.- joserfc is not affected by this mechanism. 1.7.5 was checked: keys carry an explicit
ktyin the
data model, sojwt.decodewith anRSAKey/ECKeyandalg=HS256raisesInvalidKeyTypeErrorfor
every one of the seven loader-accepted forms. Typing the key rather than inspecting its bytes is what
makes the class unrepresentable there.
CVE-2026-114615 has a CVSS score of 7.4 (High). The vector is network-reachable, no 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 (1.9.0); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.
Affected versions
Security releases
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
Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-114615? CVE-2026-114615 is a high-severity security vulnerability in authlib (pip), affecting versions >= 1.3.1, <= 1.8.0. It is fixed in 1.9.0.
- How severe is CVE-2026-114615? CVE-2026-114615 has a CVSS score of 7.4 (High). 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.
- Which versions of authlib are affected by CVE-2026-114615? authlib (pip) versions >= 1.3.1, <= 1.8.0 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-114615? Yes. CVE-2026-114615 is fixed in 1.9.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-114615 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-114615 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
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-114615 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.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-114615? Upgrade
authlibto 1.9.0 or later.