vulnerability / NVI-00009212 / Revision 3
joserfc: Unbounded JWE General JSON `recipients` Array Leads to CPU Exhaustion (DoS) via Repeated RSA Private-Key Decryption
GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for joserfc. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.
This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.
01 / Meaning
Why it matters
Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.
7.5 high
GitHub source severity; exploitability and local consequence require separate evidence.
As of · GitHub Advisory Database
7.5 HIGH (3.1)
security-advisories@github.com severity; no combined Null risk score.
0.229%
FIRST EPSS model v2026.06.15; exploitation probability over 30 days, percentile 0.13729. Missing scores are unknown.
As of · FIRST EPSS
02 / Applicability
The affected context
Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.
joserfc
source listed< 1.7.5
### Summary `joserfc.jwe.decrypt_json()`, the library's public parser for JWE General JSON Serialization, accepts an attacker-controlled `recipients` array of unbounded length and performs one full private-key decryption operation (`decrypt_cek`) for **every** recipient present in the input, with no cap on recipient count. An unauthenticated network attacker who can send a JWE General JSON document to any endpoint that decrypts it with an RSA key (e.g. RSA-OAEP) can force the victim to perform an arbitrary, attacker-chosen number of RSA private-key decryption operations from a single, relatively small HTTP request. This gives the attacker a highly asymmetric CPU-exhaustion (Denial of Service) primitive: local reproduction shows request size growing linearly with recipient count (~396 bytes/recipient) while server-side CPU time grows in lock-step (near 1:1 ratio between recipient-count growth and decrypt-time growth), and the library's only documented mitigation knob, `verify_all_recipients=False`, does **not** reduce the CPU cost, since the decrypt loop attempts every recipient's `decrypt_cek()` unconditionally before that flag is ever consulted. This is CWE-400 (Uncontrolled Reso
03 / Response
What to do next
- investigate
Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. FIRST EPSS
A fixed release is not deployment evidence.
Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.
04 / Limits
What this report cannot establish
- Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
- NVD lastModified does not establish freshness of every associated CPE record.
05 / Provenance
Sources you can inspect
Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.
- GHSA-jpxq-7h8p-2q76 ↗
GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.
- CVE-2026-119283 ↗
NIST National Vulnerability Database · official catalog
Observed . This product uses data from the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
- CVE-2026-119283 ↗
FIRST EPSS · official catalog
Observed . FIRST EPSS; probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, not local compromise. Dataset date/model retained; FIRST services terms apply.
Public revision history
Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.
- Revision 3 ·
Source facts changed; compare the preserved prior revision.
- Revision 2 ·
Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.
- Revision 1 ·
First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.