Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-102267

SSRF in Pyjwt Project Pyjwt ≤ 2.14.0

Published
28 September 2026
Modified
07 October 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 7.4
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0016 4th percentile
Risk Priority 53 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2026-102267 is a high-severity Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (CWE-200) vulnerability in Pyjwt Project Pyjwt. Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).

Operationally, ranked at the 4th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

PyJWT is a Python implementation of JSON Web Token standards. Prior to 2.14.0, PyJWT PyJWKClient is affected because redirect destinations are not revalidated against the JWKS trust boundary. This occurs when a configured trusted JWKS endpoint returns an attacker-influenced redirect.…

more

As a result, PyJWKClient follows the redirect and consumes the redirected response as key material. Consequently, forwarded credentials may be disclosed or verification keys may be substituted. This issue is fixed in version 2.14.0.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-106459Shared CWE-200, CWE-918
CVE-2025-64427Shared CWE-200, CWE-918
CVE-2023-20062Shared CWE-200, CWE-918
CVE-2026-41323Shared CWE-200, CWE-918
CVE-2026-10055Shared CWE-200, CWE-918
CVE-2026-34244Shared CWE-200, CWE-918
CVE-2026-11424Shared CWE-200, CWE-918
CVE-2026-86419Shared CWE-200, CWE-918
CVE-2025-34051Shared CWE-200, CWE-918
CVE-2023-47619Shared CWE-200, CWE-918

Affected Assets

pyjwt project
pyjwt
≤ 2.14.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

—

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.3.6
  • V1.5.3
  • V5.3.2
  • V10.4.7

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Access enforcement directly stops unauthorized actors from obtaining sensitive information.

Information flow enforcement structurally prevents sensitive data from reaching unauthorized recipients.

Least privilege reduces the set of actors who can reach sensitive information.

Cryptographic mechanisms can be used to verify authenticity, thereby preventing acceptance of invalid data.

Associating security attributes with exchanged information supports verification of authenticity.

Explicit requirement to protect session authenticity structurally prevents the weakness for communications.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

DE.CM-09 partial match
blocks

Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.

ID.RA-01 partial match
blocks

Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.

PR.IR-01 partial match
blocks

Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.

PR.PS-06 partial match
blocks

Secure development practices directly include input validation and destination allow-listing that prevent SSRF.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

blocks

A.5.10 only requires awareness, a topic-specific acceptable-use policy stating expected behaviours/monitoring, and procedures referencing classification and other controls; per the owner's explicit rule on labelling and similar dependency-style clauses, this does not itself prevent exposure (CWE-200) unless access/DLP/etc. act on it.

blocks

Requiring the return of all physical and electronic assets plus secure deletion of organizational data from personal devices reduces the chance that sensitive information remains accessible to departing personnel.

blocks

A.5.12 only defines and communicates a classification scheme so that protection needs can be understood; per the owner's explicit rule, labeling/classification does not itself prevent exposure and requires other controls (e.g. access enforcement) to act on it.

blocks

By requiring classification labels and metadata on all information assets, the control makes it harder for sensitive data to be inadvertently exposed because downstream systems and users can recognize and enforce handling rules based on those labels.

blocks

Requiring encryption, access controls, and recipient authentication for transfers directly reduces the chance that sensitive data reaches an unauthorized observer.

References