CVE-2026-45363
ADVISORY - githubSummary
JWT.decode(token, '', true, algorithm: 'HS256') accepts an attacker-forged token.
OpenSSL::HMAC.digest('SHA256', '', payload) returns a valid digest under an empty key, and no raise InvalidKeyError if key.empty? precondition exists in the HMAC algorithm.
JWT.decode(token, "", true, algorithm: 'HS256')
-> JWA::Hmac.verify(verification_key: "", ...)
-> OpenSSL::HMAC.digest('SHA256', "", signing_input) == signature
The same path is reached when a keyfinder block or key_finder: argument returns "", nil, or an array containing nil for an unknown key. JWT::Decode#find_key only rejects literal nil and empty arrays, and JWT::JWA::Hmac silently coerces nil to "" (signing_key ||= '') before signing.
JWT.decode(token, nil, true, algorithms: ['HS256']) { |_h| "" }
-> find_key returns "" # "" && !Array("").empty? == true
-> JWA::Hmac.verify(verification_key: "", ...)
-> verifies
Common application patterns that produce the unsafe value: redis.get("kid:#{kid}").to_s, ORM string columns with default: '', ENV['SECRET'] || '', Hash.new('') lookups, [primary, fallback] where fallback may be nil. Applications passing a non-empty static key:, or whose keyfinder returns nil / raises on miss, are not affected.
The existing enforce_hmac_key_length option would block this but defaults to false. On OpenSSL ≥ 3.5 the empty-key HMAC.digest call no longer raises, so the OpenSSL-3.0 rescue in JWA::Hmac#sign does not fire.
Affects HS256/HS384/HS512 via both JWT.decode (positional key and block keyfinder) and
JWT::EncodedToken#verify_signature!(key_finder:)
GitHub
CVSS SCORE
7.4high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| jwt | gem | - | - | <3.2.0 | 3.2.0 |
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).
A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control, requiring investing a measurable amount of effort in research, preparation, or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack.
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 a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any or all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.