CVE-2026-54911
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
ujson.dumps() (or ujson.dump() or ujson.encode()) have a reject_bytes=False option. When set, they may accept malformed or truncated UTF-8 byte sequences, silently rewriting them into different Unicode characters instead of rejecting them. This leads to input validation bypass and data integrity issues.
Details
The expected behavior is that for x being any bytes string, x == ujson.loads(ujson.dumps(x, reject_bytes=False)).encode(errors="surrogatepass") should always either be true or ujson.dumps() will throw an exception. In reality, some strings which should've been errors are silently rewritten as other strings:
- Invalid continuation bytes are replaced with valid ones:
b'\xcf\x13'->b'\xcf\x93' - Unterminated sequence completes the sequence:
b'\xc3'->b'\xc3\x80' - ... or leads to reading past the end of string:
b'\xf0\x90\x94'->b"\xf0\x90\x94\x80inxcontrib'"
Impact
An application relying on reject_bytes=False for UTF-8 handling may experience:
- Data integrity issues
- Experience validation bypass if said validation occurs before serialisation
Remediation
The missing/broken UTF-8 validation checks were added/fixed in https://github.com/ultrajson/ultrajson/commit/169eaf36b1116fece5034ee79a7a0ef3f6deedcf. We recommend upgrading to UltraJSON 5.13.0.
Workarounds
Decoding bytes to strings in Python before passing them to ujson.dumps() avoids this issue.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Improper Input Validation
GitHub
3.9
CVSS SCORE
6.5medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ujson | pypi | - | - | <=5.12.1 | 5.13.0 |
CVSS:3 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Debian
-
Ubuntu
-
CVSS SCORE
N/AmediumChainguard
CGA-f367-hjwv-q5gj
-