What is GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV?

GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV is a medium-severity use of a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm vulnerability in org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j (maven), affecting versions < 0.9.3. It is fixed in 0.9.3. The application uses a cryptographic algorithm known to have weaknesses, such as MD5, SHA-1, or DES.

Which versions of org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j are affected by GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV?

org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j (maven) versions < 0.9.3 is affected.

Is there a fix for GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV?

Yes. GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV is fixed in 0.9.3. Upgrade to this version or later.

Is GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV exploitable, and should I be worried?

Whether GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV 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.

What actually determines whether GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV 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.

GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV in org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j | Intelligent Application Security

Q: Which versions of org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j are affected by GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV?

org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j (maven) versions < 0.9.3 is affected.

Q: Is there a fix for GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV?

Yes. GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV is fixed in 0.9.3. Upgrade to this version or later.

Q: Is GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV exploitable, and should I be worried?

Whether GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV 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.

Q: What actually determines whether GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV 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.

Q: How do I fix GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV?

Upgrade org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j to 0.9.3 or later.

Summary

RSA1_5 in jose4j is susceptible to chosen ciphertext attacks. The
attack allows to decrypt RSA1_5 or RSA_OAEP encrypted ciphertexts. It may
be feasible to sign with affected keys.

Severity

Moderate - exploiting this ciphertext attack could result in the ability to decrypt RSA1_5 or RSA_OAEP encrypted ciphertexts.

Proof of Concept

A test case that can reproduce the padding oracle uses the following private key:

{
        "kty": "RSA",
        "alg": "RSA1_5",
        "use": "enc",
        "n": "w2A4cbwOAK4ATnwXkGWereqv9dkEcgAGHc9g-cjo1HFeilYirvfD2Un2vQxW_6g2OKRPmmo46vMZFMYv_V57174j411y-NQlZGb7iFqMQADzo60VZ7vpvAX_NuxNGxYR-N2cBgvgqDiGAoO9ouNdhuHhxipTjGVfrPUpxmJtNPZpxsgxQWSpYCYMl304DD_5wWrnumNNIKOaVsAYmjFPV_wqxFCHbitPd1BG9SwXPk7wAHtXT6rYaUImS_OKaHkTO1OO0PNhd3-wJRNMCh_EGUwAghfWgFyAd20pQLZamamxgHvfL4-0hwuzndhHt0ye-gRVTtXDFEwABB--zwvlCw",
        "e": "AQAB",
        "kid": "rsa1_5",
        "d": "EjMvbuDeyQ9sdeM3arscqgTXuWYq9Netui8sUHh3v_qDnQ1jE7t-4gny0y-IFy67RlGAHNlSTgixSG8h309i5_kNbMuyvx08EntJaS1OLVQpXhDskoo9vscsPBiNIj3PFMjIFQQcPG9vhGJzUu4tMzhtiME-oTB8VidMae-XTryPvozTu4rgfb4U7uauvLqESLz3A5xtzPnwNwqXAIlrdxU-MT_iln08on_QIF8afWUqCbsWWjEck_QDKLVpzh8VV9kkEVWwYfCFhHBwS-fgGJJTE3gK4HwOokydMtH95Dzj47MA2pLe600l7ioyGSPltcv967NtOpxMPM5ro751KQ",
        "p": "-F1u3NAMWPu1TIuvIywIjh5fuiA3AVKLgS6Fw_hAi3M9c3T7E1zNJZuHgQExJEu06ZPfzye9m7taDzh-Vw4VGDED_MZedsE2jEsWa9EKeq3bZVf5j81FLCHH8BicFqrPjvoVUC35wrl9SGJzaOa7KXxD2jW22umYjJS_kcopvf0",
        "q": "yWHG7jHqvfqT8gfhIlxpMbeJ02FrWIkgJC-zOJ26wXC6oxPeqhqEO7ulGqZPngNDdSGgWcQ7noGEU8O4MA9V3yhl91TFZy8unox0sGe0jDMwtxm3saXtTsjTE7FBxzcR0PubfyGiS0fJqQcj8oJSWzZPkUshzZ8rF3jTLc8UWac",
        "dp": "Va9WWhPkzqY4TCo8x_OfF_jeqcYHdAtYWb8FIzD4g6PEZZrMLEft9rWLsDQLEiyUQ6lio4NgZOPkFDA3Vi1jla8DYyfE20-ZVBlrqNK7vMtST8pkLPpyjOEyq2CyKRfQ99DLnZfe_RElad2dV2mS1KMsfZHeffPtT0LaPJ_0erk",
        "dq": "M8rA1cviun9yg0HBhgvMRiwU91dLu1Zw_L2D02DFgjCS35QhpQ_yyEYHPWZefZ4LQFmoms2cI7TdqolgmoOnKyCBsO2NY29AByjKbgAN8CzOL5kepEKvWJ7PonXpG-ou29eJ81VcHw5Ub_NVLG6V7b13E0AGbpKsC3pYnaRvcGs",
        "qi": "8zIqISvddJYC93hP0sKkdHuVd-Mes_gsbi8xqSFYGqc-wSU12KjzHnZmBuJl_VTGy9CO9W4K2gejr588a3Ozf9U5hx9qCVkV0_ttxHcTRem5sFPe9z-HkQE5IMW3SdmL1sEcvkzD7z8QhcHRpp5aMptfuwnxBPY8U449_iNgXd4"
      },

jose4j has distinguishable behvaior for the following test cases:

The first ciphertext below contains an invalid PKCS #1 padding. Because of hte invalid padding a random AES key is generated during decryption. This leads to an authentication error.

"eyJhbGciOiJSU0ExXzUiLCJlbmMiOiJBMTI4R0NNIn0.ksmeZ6dBbP0UfDEaLXlqPl2XDaAA29kGlKtDb89x-4xN5-A6bx2umI_ToHK2GadzxUOgKROCACYb6rmKsqsQCOZaBsnq_4mDII1W0pja7Lz4zTnr7R3O4kALg4zXqG-gSlcDA7k1NgkpMDS15PjMmADqyqxbxQsXdfjstN324iqdvYGh6NsckkfTSWxDVAqiSR9fW8PsIbo3uSMokNaC-f64CDWIB9AsCxhF-3mnFbxXNxw7JE0upOgG4enQ8kZkwi_v54HBqAau1YNW7gPhFV8ElTQ71J6aHB3dja23lbWdaJmrK6PJE7gEeZmUbFkSYmuyzRUS-NGfXA23fYv5JQ.46AsIpPgnJCLH0Xm.u2rG.LyEHEGCWM8CXDEEHiaqhiQ"

The second ciphertext below ontains valid PKCS #1 padding, but the size of the encoded key is incorrect. Because of this, trying to dcrypt the symmetric part of the ciphertext immediately fails with org.jose4j.lang.JoseException: Invalid key for AES/GCM/NoPadding.

"eyJhbGciOiJSU0ExXzUiLCJlbmMiOiJBMTI4R0NNIn0.oyVTmkyoChxFtyCtiKhv8OpBJcV6C6s_gMFSSRJBNStpdHPzq2YmroTfXGj1J1plFG4BBQwIZtdt6rIS6YkCvTLGqP1hds9CAO1a_bgRyoAVuOVvH2vmz5U2r74_SRbAzD35M7yZ_tSnnEdMFlHMFbf5uNwmgArrtPgh0V5OLn5i4XIc154FLTiQlvAEhUxiPuYBkm_1GBiYEH4JjP2RKXAUx_TxAVwPsOfIPAVrO0Ev_nvdtVLCE-uOn8WQbxh4wwOztaXOV1HIaPrl7HN-YtDOA840QUHm97ZZLAPRgLzGlkMI0ZS8QkYdb9_FT3KMbNu60nBKEniv2uhBdIhM9g.46AsIpPgnJCLH0Xm.u2rG.LyEHEGCWM8CXDEEHiaqhiQ"

A correct implementation would not have distinguishable behavior. A test case for the missing algorithm checks uses the key:

{
        "alg": "RSA-OAEP",
        "use": "enc",
        "n": "kqGboBfAWttWPCA-0cGRgsY6SaYoIARt0B_PkaEcIq9HPYNdu9n6UuWHuuTHrjF_ZoQW97r5HaAorNvrMEGTGdxCHZdEtkHvNVVmrtxTBLiQCbCozXhFoIrVcr3qUBrdGnNn_M3jJi7Wg7p_-x62nS5gNG875oyheRkutHsQXikFZwsN3q_TsPNOVlCiHy8mxzaFTUQGm-X8UYexFyAivlDSjgDJLAZSWfxd7k9Gxuwa3AUfQqQcVcegmgKGCaErQ3qQbh1x7WB6iopE3_-GZ8HMAVtR9AmrVscqYsnjhaCehfAI0iKKs8zXr8tISc0ORbaalrkk03H1ZrsEnDKEWQ",
        "e": "AQAB",
        "d": "YsfIRYN6rDqSz5KRf1E9q7HK1o6-_UK-j7S-asb0Y1FdVs1GuiRQhMPoOjmhY3Io93EI3_7vj8uzWzAUMsAaTxOY3sJnIbktYuqTcD0xGD8VmdGPBkx963db8B6M2UYfqZARf7dbzP9EuB1N1miMcTsqyGgfHGOk7CXQ1vkIv8Uww38KMtEdJ3iB8r-f3qcu-UJjE7Egw9CxKOMjArOXxZEr4VnoIXrImrcTxBfjdY8GbzXGATiPQLur5GT99ZDW78falsir-b5Ean6HNyOeuaJuceT-yjgCXn57Rd3oIHD94CrjNtjBusoLdjbr489L8K9ksCh1gynzLGkeeWgVGQ",
        "p": "0xalbl1PJbSBGD4XOjIYJLwMYyHMiM06SBauMGzBfCask5DN5jH68Kw1yPS4wkLpx4ltGLuy0X5mMaZzrSOkBGb27-NizBgB2-L279XotznWeh2jbF05Kqzkoz3VaX_7dRhCHEhOopMQh619hA1bwaJyW1k8aNlLPTl3BotkP4M",
        "q": "sdQsQVz3tI7hmisAgiIjppOssEnZaZO0ONeRRDxBHGLe3BCo1FJoMMQryOAlglayjQnnWjQ-BpwUpa0r9YQhVLweoNEIig6Beph7iYRZgOHEiiTTgUIGgXAL6xhsby1PueUfT0xsN1Y7qt5f5EwOfu7tnFqNyJXIp9W1NQgU6fM",
        "dp": "kEpEnuJNfdqa-_VFb1RayJF6bjDmXQTcN_a47wUIZVMSWHR9KkMz41v0D_-oY7HVl73Kw0NagnVCaeH75HgeX5v6ZBQsrpIigynr3hl8T_LLNwIXebVnpFI2n5de0BTZ0DraxfZvOhYJEJV43NE8zWm7fdHLx2fxVFJ5mBGkXv0",
        "dq": "U_xJCnXF51iz5AP7MXq-K6YDIR8_t0UzEMV-riNm_OkVKAoWMnDZFG8R3sU98djQaxwKT-fsg2KjvbuTz1igBUzzijAvQESpkiUB82i2fNAj6rqJybpNKESq3FWkoL1dsgYsS19knJ31gDWWRFRHZFujjPyXiexz4BBmjK1Mc1E",
        "qi": "Uvb84tWiJF3fB-U9wZSPi7juGgrzeXS_LYtf5fcdV0fZg_h_5nSVpXyYyQ-PK218qEC5MlDkaHKRD9wBOe_eU_zJTNoXzB2oAcgl2MapBWUMytbiF84ghP_2K9UD63ZVsyrorSZhmsJIBBuqQjrmk0tIdpMdlMxLYhrbYwFxUqc",
        "kid": "kid-rsa-enc-oaep",
        "kty": "RSA"
      }

and the cipher text

"eyJhbGciOiJSU0ExXzUiLCJlbmMiOiJBMTI4R0NNIn0.CuUuY9PH2wWjuLXd5O9LLFanwyt5-y-NzEpy9rC3A63tFsvdp8GWP1kRt1d3zd0bGqakwls623VQxzxqQ25j5gdHh8dKMl67xTLHt1Qlg36nI9Ukn7syq25VrzfrRRwy0k7isqMncHpzuBQlmfzPrszW7d13z7_ex0Uha869RaP-W2NNBfHYw26xIXcCSVIPg8jTLA7h6QmOetEej-NXXcWrRKQgBRapYy4iWrij9Vr3JzAGSHVtIID74tFOm01FdJj4s1M4IXegDbvAdQb6Vao1Ln5GolnTki4IGvH5FDssDHz6MS2JG5QBcITzfuXU81vDC00xzNEuMat0AngmOw.UjPQbnakkZYUdoDa.vcbS.WQ_bOPiGKjPSq-qyGOIfjA"

The header of this ciphertext is:
{"alg":"RSA1_5","enc":"A128GCM"}
Hence the algorithm in the header does not match the algorithm in the key. Such ciphertexts should be rejected. The wrapped key is a valid RSA1_5 encrypted key. jose4j currently decrypts the ciphertext above without an exception. The problem with this behavior is that jose4j also allows chosen ciphertext attacks when the key uses RSA_OAEP. The attacker simply has to modify the header to and replace the algorithm with RSA1_5. Attempts to decrypt modified ciphertexts will then leak whether the decrypted message has valid PKCS #1 padding.

Further Analysis

Fix Commit - https://bitbucket.org/b_c/jose4j/commits/63b86581e7bfcc2d9d04ee15caea4b5bfb911f59

Timeline

Date reported: 01/27/2023
Date fixed: 02/09/2023
Date disclosed: 04/27/2023

Impact

The application uses a cryptographic algorithm known to have weaknesses, such as MD5, SHA-1, or DES. Typical impact: compromised confidentiality or integrity of protected data.

Affected versions

org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j (< 0.9.3)

Security releases

org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j → 0.9.3 (maven)

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.

See it in your environment

Remediation advice

Upgrade org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j to 0.9.3 or later to resolve this vulnerability.

Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV? GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV is a medium-severity use of a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm vulnerability in org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j (maven), affecting versions < 0.9.3. It is fixed in 0.9.3. The application uses a cryptographic algorithm known to have weaknesses, such as MD5, SHA-1, or DES.
Which versions of org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j are affected by GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV? org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j (maven) versions < 0.9.3 is affected.
Is there a fix for GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV? Yes. GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV is fixed in 0.9.3. Upgrade to this version or later.
Is GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV 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 GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV 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 GHSA-JGVC-JFGH-RJVV? Upgrade org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j to 0.9.3 or later.

Other vulnerabilities in org.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j

CVE-IDSeverityPackage summary

CVE-2024-29371Highorg.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j: jose4j is vulnerable to DoS via compressed JWE content CVE-2023-51775Mediumorg.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j: jose4j denial of service via specifically crafted JWE CVE-2023-31582Highorg.bitbucket.b_c:jose4j: jose4j uses weak cryptographic algorithm