Know every vulnerabilitybefore 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.
PYSEC-2026-4146
Summary
PyJWT.decode()/decode_complete() mutates a caller-supplied options dict in place whenever verify_signature is falsy, adding verify_exp/verify_nbf/verify_iat/verify_aud/verify_iss/verify_sub/verify_jti keys directly onto that object. If application code reuses the same options dict across calls (a config object, a module-level constant, a wrapper's self.options), a later call that explicitly sets verify_signature=True for a full, normal verification silently inherits the leftover verify_exp=False etc. from an earlier verify_signature=False call on the same object -- and accepts an expired, wrong-audience, wrong-issuer, or wrong-subject token as valid with no exception. Signature verification itself is unaffected; this is specifically a claims-check bypass.
This is a regression of an already-fixed, closed issue: originally reported in #679 (2021), fixed in #743 (2022, via a shallow copy of options), and silently reintroduced by #1045 (merged 2025-03-05, a typing/logic refactor that dropped the 2022 shallow-copy line). It has been present since #1045 merged, so it likely shipped in several releases already in the wild.
Details
File: jwt/api_jwt.py, PyJWT._merge_options() (called from decode_complete(), which backs both jwt.decode() and jwt.decode_complete()):
def _merge_options(self, options=None):
if options is None:
return self.options
if not options.get("verify_signature", True):
options["verify_exp"] = options.get("verify_exp", False)
options["verify_nbf"] = options.get("verify_nbf", False)
# ...5 more, same pattern -- all written directly onto the caller's dict
return {**self.options, **options}
No dict(options) copy occurs before these writes, unlike the pre-2025-03-05 code (see #743's fix, options = dict(options or {})). Confirmed via gh api repos/jpadilla/pyjwt/commits/29fbfc36 that #1045's diff removes that line. Confirmed still present on current main via a live fetch of jwt/api_jwt.py.
PoC
Two scripts, each run twice (separate processes), identical output both times (except Python object id()), saved locally and available on request:
import jwt, time
INSECURE_OPTIONS = {"verify_signature": False}
secret = "s3cr3t"
expired_token = jwt.encode(
{"exp": int(time.time()) - 3600, "data": "x"}, secret, algorithm="HS256"
)
jwt.decode(expired_token, options=INSECURE_OPTIONS)
print(INSECURE_OPTIONS)
# The dict has been silently mutated with 7 new keys, including verify_exp: False.
INSECURE_OPTIONS["verify_signature"] = True
result = jwt.decode(expired_token, secret, algorithms=["HS256"], options=INSECURE_OPTIONS)
print(result)
# No exception raised. Expected: jwt.ExpiredSignatureError, since verify_signature=True
# was explicitly requested on this call.
Reproduced deterministically across 2 independent process runs.
Impact
Preconditions: the calling application must reuse a mutable options dict object across two or more decode()/decode_complete() calls with different intent (e.g. one "insecure peek" call followed by a "fully verified" call on the same dict, config object, or instance attribute). This is a real, plausible pattern but not universal; it does not affect code that constructs a fresh options dict per call.
When triggered: a signed-but-expired (or wrong-aud/iss/sub/jti) token is silently accepted as fully verified, with no warning or exception. This is an authentication/claims-verification bypass, not a signature-verification bypass.
Scope: regression present since PR #1045 (merged 2025-03-05), affecting every PyJWT release since then up to and including the current 2.13.0.
Suggested fix: restore a shallow copy inside _merge_options() itself (rather than relying on a caller-side copy), so every caller of _merge_options is covered:
def _merge_options(self, options=None):
if options is None:
return self.options
options = dict(options) # never mutate the caller's dict
if not options.get("verify_signature", True):
options.setdefault("verify_exp", False)
options.setdefault("verify_nbf", False)
options.setdefault("verify_iat", False)
options.setdefault("verify_aud", False)
options.setdefault("verify_iss", False)
options.setdefault("verify_sub", False)
options.setdefault("verify_jti", False)
return {**self.options, **options}
Found via a property-based audit (copy/clone independence across widely-used Python libraries); both repro scripts were written and independently re-run before this report.
Maintainer update — 2026-09-08
We reproduced the reported behavior on PyJWT 2.13.0 at source SHA 7144e4534c34810f4525dc4578a32addd8212cff. A caller-supplied mutable options mapping was modified when verify_signature was false; reusing that mapping after re-enabling signature verification could leave registered-claim checks disabled. This is a conditional claim-verification bypass, not a signature-forgery issue.
A narrow fix has been prepared: PyJWT now copies the options mapping before applying defaults. Regression coverage includes decode(), decode_complete(), constructor input preservation, mutable-mapping compatibility, and reuse of an options mapping across verification modes. The focused tests pass, the full suite passes with 369 tests and 4 intentional cryptography-environment skips, and lint/format/type checks pass.
The advisory remains in triage while the fix goes through release planning. The independently verified range in this investigation is 2.13.0; reports of earlier affected versions should include the exact version and reproduction details.
Upload your own SBOM in CycloneDX 1.6 or higher (JSON) directly here to check your vulnerabilities.
Drag and drop some file here, or click to select
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 does not need any special privileges or access rights. 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 low impact on the confidentiality of the information. There is a high impact on the integrity of the data.
Exploitation attempts have been detected. Elevated vigilance and prompt remediation are advised.
The exploit probability is very low. The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the next 30 days.
We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.
Browse More
Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.
Checkout DevGuard