
Loading

Loading
We use strictly necessary cookies to run this site, and analytics cookies to understand how it's used. See our Privacy Policy for details.
A GitHub-reviewed security advisory, not necessarily under active exploitation the way our CISA KEV advisories are, but a real, disclosed vulnerability in an open-source dependency.
Affected packages
Vulnerable: >= 2.11.0, <= 2.13.0
Details
PyJWT.decode()/decode_complete() mutates a caller-supplied options dict in place whenever verify_signature is falsy, adding verify_exp/verify_nbf/verify_iat/verify_aud/verify_iss/verify_sub/verify_jti keys directly onto that object. If application code reuses the same options dict across calls (a config object, a module-level constant, a wrapper's self.options), a later call that explicitly sets verify_signature=True for a full, normal verification silently inherits the leftover verify_exp=False etc. from an earlier verify_signature=False call on the same object -- and accepts an expired, wrong-audience, wrong-issuer, or wrong-subject token as valid with no exception. Signature verification itself is unaffected; this is specifically a claims-check bypass.
This is a regression of an already-fixed, closed issue: originally reported in #679 (2021), fixed in #743 (2022, via a shallow copy of options), and silently reintroduced by #1045 (merged 2025-03-05, a typing/logic refactor that dropped the 2022 shallow-copy line). It has been present since #1045 merged, so it likely shipped in several releases already in the wild.
File: jwt/api_jwt.py, PyJWT._merge_options() (called from decode_complete(), which backs both jwt.decode() and jwt.decode_complete()):
def _merge_options(self, options=None):
if options is None:
return self.options
if not options.get("verify_signature", True):
options["verify_exp"] = options.get("verify_exp", False)
options["verify_nbf"] = options.get("verify_nbf", False)
# ...5 more, same pattern -- all written directly onto the caller's dict
return {**self.options, **options}
No dict(options) copy occurs before these writes, unlike the pre-2025-03-05 code (see #743's fix, options = dict(options or {})). Confirmed via gh api repos/jpadilla/pyjwt/commits/29fbfc36 that #1045's diff removes that line. Confirmed still present on current main via a live fetch of jwt/api_jwt.py.
Two scripts, each run twice (separate processes), identical output both times (except Python object id()), saved locally and available on request:
import jwt, time
INSECURE_OPTIONS = {"verify_signature": False}
secret = "s3cr3t"
expired_token = jwt.encode(
{"exp": int(time.time()) - 3600, "data": "x"}, secret, algorithm="HS256"
)
jwt.decode(expired_token, options=INSECURE_OPTIONS)
print(INSECURE_OPTIONS)
# The dict has been silently mutated with 7 new keys, including verify_exp: False.
INSECURE_OPTIONS["verify_signature"] = True
result = jwt.decode(expired_token, secret, algorithms=["HS256"], options=INSECURE_OPTIONS)
print(result)
# No exception raised. Expected: jwt.ExpiredSignatureError, since verify_signature=True
# was explicitly requested on this call.
Reproduced deterministically across 2 independent process runs.
Preconditions: the calling application must reuse a mutable options dict object across two or more decode()/decode_complete() calls with different intent (e.g. one "insecure peek" call followed by a "fully verified" call on the same dict, config object, or instance attribute). This is a real, plausible pattern but not universal; it does not affect code that constructs a fresh options dict per call.
When triggered: a signed-but-expired (or wrong-aud/iss/sub/jti) token is silently accepted as fully verified, with no warning or exception. This is an authentication/claims-verification bypass, not a signature-verification bypass.
Scope: regression present since PR #1045 (merged 2025-03-05), affecting every PyJWT release since then up to and including the current 2.13.0.
Suggested fix: restore a shallow copy inside _merge_options() itself (rather than relying on a caller-side copy), so every caller of _merge_options is covered:
def _merge_options(self, options=None):
if options is None:
return self.options
options = dict(options) # never mutate the caller's dict
if not options.get("verify_signature", True):
options.setdefault("verify_exp", False)
options.setdefault("verify_nbf", False)
options.setdefault("verify_iat", False)
options.setdefault("verify_aud", False)
options.setdefault("verify_iss", False)
options.setdefault("verify_sub", False)
options.setdefault("verify_jti", False)
return {**self.options, **options}
Found via a property-based audit (copy/clone independence across widely-used Python libraries); both repro scripts were written and independently re-run before this report.
We reproduced the reported behavior on PyJWT 2.13.0 at source SHA 7144e4534c34810f4525dc4578a32addd8212cff. A caller-supplied mutable options mapping was modified when verify_signature was false; reusing that mapping after re-enabling signature verification could leave registered-claim checks disabled. This is a conditional claim-verification bypass, not a signature-forgery issue.
A narrow fix has been prepared: PyJWT now copies the options mapping before applying defaults. Regression coverage includes decode(), decode_complete(), constructor input preservation, mutable-mapping compatibility, and reuse of an options mapping across verification modes. The focused tests pass, the full suite passes with 369 tests and 4 intentional cryptography-environment skips, and lint/format/type checks pass.
The advisory remains in triage while the fix goes through release planning. The independently verified range in this investigation is 2.13.0; reports of earlier affected versions should include the exact version and reproduction details.
EPSS, exploit probability
Low0.26%
estimated chance of real-world exploitation in the next 30 days, higher than 17.5% of every CVE FIRST.org scores
Refreshed 11/15/2026, via FIRST.org's EPSS model, not CVSS, this measures likelihood of exploitation, not how severe it would be.
More pip advisories
Talk to us about this
Find out whether this dependency (or others like it) is actually reachable in your codebase.
Get help patching, or building dependency-scanning into your pipeline going forward.
A secure code review or supply chain review finds this before an advisory does.