Key confusion through non-blocklisted public key formats

Exploitation

No confirmed exploitation recorded. Patch Next marks exploitation only from CISA KEV.

CVSS

7.4 · CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

EPSS

• CVE-2022-29217: 1.35% estimated exploitation activity in the next 30 days; percentile 71.65 (FIRST EPSS, 2026-11-03). This is a model estimate, not proof of exploitation or customer exposure.

As published by the source; long descriptions are shortened.

Impact What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted? Disclosed by Aapo Oksman (Senior Security Specialist, Nixu Corporation). PyJWT supports multiple different JWT signing algorithms. With JWT, an attacker submitting the JWT token can choose the used signing algorithm. The PyJWT library requires that the application chooses what algorithms are supported. The application can specify "jwt.algorithms.getdefaultalgorithms()" to get support for all algorithms. They can also specify a single one of them (which is the usual use case if calling jwt.decode directly. However, if calling jwt.decode in a helper function, all algorithms might be enabled.) For example, if the user chooses "none" algorithm and the JWT checker supports that, there will be no signature checking. This is a common security issue with some JWT implementations. PyJWT combats this by requiring that the if the "none" algorithm is used, the key has to be empty. As the key is given by the application running the…

Published by the source

24 May 2022, 22:17 UTC

Last modified by the source

15 Oct 2024, 16:27 UTC

Source last checked

26 Oct 2026, 13:22 UTC

1. Revision 2 · amended · 26 Oct 2026

   Amended from ghsa record GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24

2. Revision 1 · created · 24 Oct 2026

   Published from osv record GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24

Preview the exact text before you copy it. Commands are read-only suggestions; review them before running anything.

# Patch Next advisory brief: CVE-2022-29217

Advisory: Key confusion through non-blocklisted public key formats
IDs: CVE-2022-29217, GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24
Record: https://patchnext.com/advisories/cve-2022-29217 (revision 2, source checked 26 Oct 2026, 13:22 UTC)
Inventory: none attached. This brief comes from a public page and does not say whether any deployment is affected.
Severity: High (CVSS 7.4)
Exploitation: no confirmed exploitation recorded. Patch Next confirms exploitation only from CISA KEV.
Vendor response: Vendor fix available; fixed versions by package: pyjwt 2.4.0. A vendor fix does not mean a deployment is fixed.

## Affected components
- PyPI pyjwt: affected >= 1.5.0, < 2.4.0; fixed in 2.4.0

## Suggested inspection (read-only)
- `python -m pip show pyjwt`: prints the installed version. Run with the environment that serves production active.

## Supported action
Upgrade each affected component to a fixed version on its release line. For a transitive dependency, upgrade the parent package or add an override or constraint, then regenerate the lockfile. Redeploy every environment that ran an affected version.

## Required regression checks
- Run the test suite and a production build.
- Exercise the features that depend on pyjwt.
- Repeat the inspection and confirm that only fixed versions remain installed.

## Rollback considerations
- Keep the previous lockfile and deployment artifact. Rolling back reinstates the vulnerable version, so apply any documented mitigation while you fix forward.

## Unresolved questions
- Which deployments run an affected version?
- Exploitation status can change. Check again before lowering the priority.
- Mark the work resolved only after the fixed version is verified in production.

## Sources
- Verified: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24 (OSV record GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24 lists affected ranges: PyPI pyjwt >=1.5.0 <2.4.0 (fixed))
- Verified: https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24 (GitHub-reviewed advisory GHSA-ffqj-6fqr-9h24 lists affected ranges: PyPI pyjwt >=1.5.0 <2.4.0)

Commands are suggestions: review each one before running it.