By Null Ventures MCP platform
Menu

vulnerability / NVI-00009221 / Revision 3

joserfc has Possible Uncontrolled Resource Consumption Vulnerability Triggered by Logging Arbitrarily Large JWT Token Payloads

GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for joserfc, joserfc. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.

source listedactiveGHSA-frfh-8v73-gjg4CVE-2025-65015

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.

EPSS

0.440%

FIRST EPSS model v2026.06.15; exploitation probability over 30 days, percentile 0.38265. 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
  • >= 1.3.3, < 1.3.5

### Summary The `ExceededSizeError` exception messages are embedded with non-decoded JWT token parts and may cause Python logging to record an arbitrarily large, forged JWT payload. ### Details In situations where a misconfigured — or entirely absent — production-grade web server sits in front of a Python web application, an attacker may be able to send arbitrarily large bearer tokens in the HTTP request headers. When this occurs, Python logging or diagnostic tools (e.g., Sentry) may end up processing extremely large log messages containing the full JWT header during the `joserfc.jwt.decode()` operation. The same behavior also appears when validating claims and signature payload sizes, as the library raises `joserfc.errors.ExceededSizeError()` with the full payload embedded in the exception message. Since the payload is already fully loaded into memory at this stage, the library cannot prevent or reject it per se. It is therefore the responsibility of the underlying web server (`uvicorn`/`h11`, `gunicorn`, `Starlette`, `Werkzeug`, `nginx`...etc) to enforce limits on header sizes. For example, a `FastAPI`/`Starlette` application running _without_ `uvicorn` and/or `gunicorn` cannot

GitHub Advisory Database

joserfc

source listed
  • >= 1.4.0, < 1.4.2

### Summary The `ExceededSizeError` exception messages are embedded with non-decoded JWT token parts and may cause Python logging to record an arbitrarily large, forged JWT payload. ### Details In situations where a misconfigured — or entirely absent — production-grade web server sits in front of a Python web application, an attacker may be able to send arbitrarily large bearer tokens in the HTTP request headers. When this occurs, Python logging or diagnostic tools (e.g., Sentry) may end up processing extremely large log messages containing the full JWT header during the `joserfc.jwt.decode()` operation. The same behavior also appears when validating claims and signature payload sizes, as the library raises `joserfc.errors.ExceededSizeError()` with the full payload embedded in the exception message. Since the payload is already fully loaded into memory at this stage, the library cannot prevent or reject it per se. It is therefore the responsibility of the underlying web server (`uvicorn`/`h11`, `gunicorn`, `Starlette`, `Werkzeug`, `nginx`...etc) to enforce limits on header sizes. For example, a `FastAPI`/`Starlette` application running _without_ `uvicorn` and/or `gunicorn` cannot

GitHub Advisory Database

03 / Response

What to do next

  1. 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.
Read the collection and interpretation limits ↗

05 / Provenance

Sources you can inspect

Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.

  1. GHSA-frfh-8v73-gjg4 ↗

    GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory

    Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.

  2. CVE-2025-65015 ↗

    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.

  1. Revision 3 ·

    Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.

  2. Revision 2 ·

    Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.

Read the public revision data ↗

The next step is private

Bring the question into your environment.

The connected workflow is a development preview for inventory, contextual matching, owner decisions and evidence-based verification. No system-specific result is generated by this page.

See the synthetic workflow preview ↗