CVE Intelligence
High Cryptography exploit reference

CVE-2024-37568 — Authlib has algorithm confusion with asymmetric public keys

lepture Authlib before 1.3.1 has algorithm confusion with asymmetric public keys. Unless an algorithm is specified in a jwt.decode call, HMAC verification is allowed with any asymmetric public key. (This is similar to CVE-2022-29217 and CVE-2024-33663.)

Published Jun 9, 2024 · Updated Oct 22, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP, GitHub Security Advisories · CNA: mitre

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.4% (30-day exploitation probability)+5
  • Technical severity (high)+6
  • CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5
  • Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.39%
ahead of 33% of scored CVEs · Oct 25, 2026
Affects
Authlib
Authlib
CVSS base
7.5
High · 4 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
Proof of concept
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

  • Pip Authlib: fixed in version 1.3.1 — github.com (GitHub Security Advisories)

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Authlib Authlib, Pip Authlib).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (cryptography), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Authlib Authlib < 1.3.1 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Pip Authlib < 1.3.1 Vulnerable GitHub Security Advisories

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
7.5 CVSS 3.1 High 3.9 3.6 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.5 CVSS 3.1 High 3.9 3.6 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.5 CVSS 3.1 High — — CISA-ADP via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
7.4 CVSS 3.1 High — — GitHub, Inc. via GitHub Security Advisories
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)
Sources assign different scores within the same severity band. For prioritization we use 7.5 (NVD (NIST)) as a conservative provisional reference — not a definitive official score.

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-347 · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 22, 2026 → Oct 25, 2026 · 4 reading(s) · max 0.39%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Check TLS negotiations and unexpected certificates in the component’s traffic.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 22, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisories
  • Affected products added · pip/authlib
    Oct 22, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisories
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 22, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 22, 2026
  • Affected products added · authlib/authlib
    Oct 22, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 7.5
    Oct 22, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Modified
    Oct 22, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 22, 2026 · Alertas do Telegram
  • 2024
  • CVE published
    Jun 9, 2024 · mitre

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 2× References added · Oct 22, 2026 – Oct 22, 2026
  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 22, 2026 – Oct 22, 2026

References

10 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Authlib
every CVE for this vendor
Cryptography
same class
CWE-347
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-114620 Authlib: Unvalidated request_uri fetch in JWT-secured authorization request (JAR) leading to SSRF 3d
  • CVE-2026-114617 Authlib: ID token can disable its own nonce validation via the nonce_supported claim 3d
  • CVE-2026-114615 Authlib incomplete algorithm-confusion fix permits HMAC forgery with prefixed public keys 3d
  • CVE-2026-114616 Authlib accepts an empty HMAC key, allowing JWS/JWT signature forgery (HS256/HS384/HS512) 3d
  • CVE-2026-114618 Authlib: Default JWT bearer grant accepts assertions for the wrong audience 3d
  • CVE-2026-114619 Authlib: OpenID implicit grant checks raw scope instead of allowed scope before issuing ID tokens 3d

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2024-37568 is "Authlib has algorithm confusion with asymmetric public keys", rated High. It affects Authlib (Authlib); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.39% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.