Vulnerability Database

347,940

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2026-45363 — jwt

Improper Authentication

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:)

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: Unknown
  • Score:
  • AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.