vulnerability / NVI-00013139 / Revision 3
PyJWT: ReDoS vulnerability when calling the `is_pem_format` function.
GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for pyjwt. 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.
4.4 medium
GitHub source severity; exploitability and local consequence require separate evidence.
As of · GitHub Advisory Database
4.4 MEDIUM (3.1)
security-advisories@github.com severity; no combined Null risk score.
4.9 MEDIUM (3.1)
nvd@nist.gov severity; no combined Null risk score.
0.246%
FIRST EPSS model v2026.06.15; exploitation probability over 30 days, percentile 0.15886. 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.
pyjwt
source listed<= 2.13.0
### Summary There is a Re-DoS vulnerability in the `is_pem_format` function which results in a intesive CPU usage if an attacker is been able to provide a custom certificate. ### Details The problem is that the lazy quantifier `.+?` will always first try to match as little as possible until it finds a `---- END`. Normally this means the complexity of this should be O(N). However, by providing an input which consists only of `----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----` lines and no `---- END` line, the regex algorithm will first try to match the first line and then, with the lazy quantifier, all the lines until the end O(N), which then fails since it is unable to find a `---- END` line. It will then jump to the next line, resulting in N re-scans of the whole string, which means the complexity basically results in O(N²). ### PoC ```python import time import re BEGIN_LINE = b"-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----\n" _PEMS = { b"CERTIFICATE", b"TRUSTED CERTIFICATE", b"PRIVATE KEY", b"PUBLIC KEY", b"ENCRYPTED PRIVATE KEY", b"OPENSSH PRIVATE KEY", b"DSA PRIVATE KEY", b"RSA PRIVATE KEY", b"RSA PUBLIC KEY", b"EC PRIVATE KEY", b"DH PARAMETERS", b"NEW CERTIFICAT
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-jwrc-g2q2-pq5p ↗
GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.
- CVE-2026-102270 ↗
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-2026-102270 ↗
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 ·
Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.
- Revision 2 ·
Source facts changed; compare the preserved prior revision.
- Revision 1 ·
First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.