CVE-2022-23539
Published: 23 December 2022
Summary
CVE-2022-23539 is a medium-severity Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm (CWE-327) vulnerability in Auth0 Jsonwebtoken. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 24.1th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-7563
Vulnerability details
Versions `<=8.5.1` of `jsonwebtoken` library could be misconfigured so that legacy, insecure key types are used for signature verification. For example, DSA keys could be used with the RS256 algorithm. You are affected if you are using an algorithm and…
more
a key type other than a combination listed in the GitHub Security Advisory as unaffected. This issue has been fixed, please update to version 9.0.0. This version validates for asymmetric key type and algorithm combinations. Please refer to the above mentioned algorithm / key type combinations for the valid secure configuration. After updating to version 9.0.0, if you still intend to continue with signing or verifying tokens using invalid key type/algorithm value combinations, you’ll need to set the `allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes` option to `true` in the `sign()` and/or `verify()` functions.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
No named actor attribution yet. ATT&CK technique mapping in progress for this CVE.
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Contacts with security groups provide timely information on broken or risky cryptographic algorithms, reducing the likelihood of their selection and use.
Ongoing education and sharing of recommended practices helps organizations identify and migrate away from broken or risky cryptographic algorithms.
Cross-organization threat feeds commonly include advances in cryptanalysis and active exploits against weak or broken algorithms, allowing organizations to deprecate them proactively.
Capital planning and funding allow selection and ongoing support of strong cryptographic algorithms rather than weak or broken ones.
Risk updates surface newly-broken or risky cryptographic algorithms as threat intelligence and computing advances evolve, enabling timely replacement.
Scanners flag use of broken or weak cryptographic algorithms via known-vulnerability databases.
Enforces approved cryptographic algorithms for each use case, blocking use of broken or risky algorithms.
Flaw remediation replaces broken or risky cryptographic algorithms once safer implementations are released by vendors.