Open-Source Security Intelligence

Know every vulnerability
before it knows you.

DevGuard continuously monitors your dependencies and alerts you when CVEs like this one affect your stack — with real-time threat intelligence built for developers.

Search

GHSA-687g-22h4-j4w4

MediumCVSS 5.9 / 10
Published Oct 8, 2026·Last modified Oct 8, 2026
Affected Components(1)
npm logofast-jwt
< 6.3.0
Description

Summary

createVerifier({ clockTolerance: Infinity }) silently bypasses both exp (expiry) AND nbf (not-before) validation. Any expired or not-yet-active token is accepted as valid. The same primitive also corrupts the verifier's internal cache so cached entries inherit infinite validity — they remain valid past a later developer-removed Infinity config until LRU eviction.

Vulnerable code

src/verifier.js:531-533 — option validation only rejects negative values, not Infinity:

if (clockTolerance && (typeof clockTolerance !== 'number' || clockTolerance < 0)) {
  throw new TokenError(TokenError.codes.invalidOption, 'The clockTolerance option must be a positive number.')
}

Infinity passes (it's a number, not less than 0, truthy).

src/verifier.js:583-602 — clockTolerance flows into the date-claim validators:

if (!ignoreNotBefore) {
  validators.push({ ..., modifier: -clockTolerance })   // → -Infinity
}
if (!ignoreExpiration) {
  validators.push({ ..., modifier: +clockTolerance })   // → Infinity
}

src/verifier.js:198-205 — applies modifier additively, producing always-pass comparisons:

function validateClaimDateValue(value, modifier, now, greater, errorCode, errorVerb) {
  const adjusted = value * 1000 + (modifier || 0)   // → ±Infinity
  const valid = greater ? now >= adjusted : now <= adjusted   // → always true
  ...
}

Empirical PoC

const { createSigner, createVerifier } = require('fast-jwt')
const secret = 'test-secret-with-enough-length-to-pass'

const sign = createSigner({ key: secret, algorithm: 'HS256' })
const expiredToken = sign({
  sub: 'alice',
  iat: Math.floor(Date.now()/1000) - 3600,
  exp: Math.floor(Date.now()/1000) - 1800,  // expired 30 min ago
})

const v1 = createVerifier({ key: secret })
try { v1(expiredToken) } catch (e) { console.log('baseline rejects:', e.message) }
// → "The token has expired at ..."

const v2 = createVerifier({ key: secret, clockTolerance: Infinity })
console.log('bypass:', v2(expiredToken))
// → { sub: 'alice', iat: ..., exp: ... }  ← expired token accepted as valid

// Not-yet-active token (nbf in 1 day) — same bypass
const futureToken = sign({
  sub: 'bob',
  iat: Math.floor(Date.now()/1000),
  nbf: Math.floor(Date.now()/1000) + 86400,
})
console.log('bypass nbf:', v2(futureToken))
// → { sub: 'bob', ... }  ← not-yet-active token accepted as valid

Verified against fast-jwt@HEAD on 2026-06-03 (commit pulled today).

Cache side-effect

The verifier's LRU cache uses clockTolerance to compute the cache entry's expiry window:

src/verifier.js:121-134:

cacheValue[1] = ... payload.nbf * 1000 - clockTolerance : 0                   // → -Infinity
cacheValue[2] = payload.exp * 1000 + clockTolerance                            // → Infinity
const maxTTL = clockTimestamp + clockTolerance + cacheTTL                      // → Infinity

With clockTolerance: Infinity, cache entries are stored with [min=-Infinity, max=Infinity]. The cache-hit check (min === 0 || now < min || now <= max) always passes for cached tokens.

Consequence: a developer who briefly sets clockTolerance: Infinity (e.g., during debug) and then removes it will find that any verifications performed during the debug window remain cached as valid until LRU eviction (default 1000 entries).

Asymmetric hardening — the smoking-gun shape

src/signer.js:98, 104 CORRECTLY uses Number.isFinite() to reject Infinity for expiresIn and notBefore:

expiresIn != null && Number.isFinite(expiresIn)
  ? Math.floor((iat + expiresIn) / 1000)
  : ...

The verifier's clockTolerance validation doesn't apply the same guard. The same < 0 check pattern is also applied to clockTimestamp (line 527-529) and cacheTTL (line 535-537) — both also accept Infinity.

This is the kind of asymmetry that often indicates a missed hardening pass: the sign-side was hardened against Infinity but the verify-side wasn't.

Threat model

The bug requires the developer to (mis)configure clockTolerance: Infinity. Realistic ways this happens:

  1. Developer using Infinity as a sentinel for "disable expiry": common JS idiom; many libraries accept Infinity as "no limit." fast-jwt's signer treats Infinity as invalid (Number.isFinite false) but the verifier silently accepts it.
  2. JSON / env-var misconfig: config file or env var sets clockTolerance to "Infinity" (string); Number("Infinity") === Infinity. Surprising via JSON.parse + Number cast or even JSON.parse('{"clockTolerance": null}') if the codec accepts null → Infinity.
  3. Test config bleed: integration tests use Infinity to make tokens never expire during long-running tests; the config bleeds into production.

For a JWT library, silently disabling token expiry on a "looks like a non-negative number" input is a security boundary failure.

Suggested fix

Single-line addition: use Number.isFinite() consistent with signer.js:

if (clockTolerance && (typeof clockTolerance !== 'number' || !Number.isFinite(clockTolerance) || clockTolerance < 0)) {
  throw new TokenError(TokenError.codes.invalidOption, 'The clockTolerance option must be a finite, non-negative number.')
}

Same fix for clockTimestamp (line 527-529) and cacheTTL (line 535-537) for consistency.

Optional defense-in-depth: cap clockTolerance to a reasonable upper bound (e.g., 5 minutes = 300000 ms) with a process.emitWarning above that. Most legitimate use cases need <60s tolerance.

Affected versions

All versions since clockTolerance was first introduced in PR #193 (v1.5.1). Current main HEAD on 2026-06-03 is affected.

Reporter

Andrew Ridings (independent security researcher). Happy to coordinate disclosure timing and follow up with any clarifications. Email: ridingsa@gmail.com

Upload your SBOM

Upload your own SBOM in CycloneDX 1.6 or higher (JSON) directly here to check your vulnerabilities.

Risk Scores
Base Score
5.9

The vulnerability can be exploited over the network without needing physical access. It is difficult for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability and may require special conditions. An attacker needs high-level or administrative privileges. No user interaction is needed for the attacker to exploit this vulnerability. The impact is confined to the system where the vulnerability exists. There is a high impact on the confidentiality of the information. There is a high impact on the integrity of the data.

Threat Intelligence
5.4

Exploitation attempts have been detected. Elevated vigilance and prompt remediation are advised.

EPSS
0.33%

The exploit probability is very low. The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the next 30 days.

Exploit
Not available

We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.

Browse More

Scan your project

Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.

Checkout DevGuard