CVE Intelligence
Medium

CVE-2026-56664 — ZITADEL: Missing Token Lifecyle Validation (`exp` and `iat`) in JWT IdP Provider

ZITADEL is an open source identity management platform. Prior to 3.4.12 and 4.15.2, ZITADEL's external JWT Identity Provider validation in internal/idp/providers/jwt/session.go skips the maximum token age freshness check when an incoming token omits the iat claim, allowing arbitrarily old tokens from a trusted issuer to pass authentication. This issue is fixed in versions 3.4.12 and 4.15.2.

Published Jul 10, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

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
  • Technical severity (medium)+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
—
No EPSS score.
Affects
Zitadel
Zitadel
CVSS base
4.2
Medium · 2 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
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
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.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

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 (Zitadel Zitadel).
  2. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  3. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Zitadel Zitadel version >= 4.0.0-rc.1, < 4.15.2version < 3.4.12 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
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
4.2 CVSS 3.1 Medium 1.6 2.5 security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
4.2 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-613

Other CVEs with this weakness →

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).
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · zitadel/zitadel
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 4.2
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Jul 10, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

5 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Zitadel
every CVE for this vendor
CWE-613
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-109374 ZITADEL 3.0.0 before 4.19.2 Privilege Escalation via OIDC Token Exchange Impersonation 3d
  • CVE-2026-109373 ZITADEL 3.0.0 before 4.19.2 Account Takeover via Unsigned Login V2 Session Cookie 3d
  • CVE-2026-109371 ZITADEL 3.0.0 before 4.18.0 Unauthenticated Username Change via Login V1 3d
  • CVE-2026-109372 ZITADEL 3.0.0 before 4.19.2 Account Takeover via SAML Identity-Provider Confusion 3d
  • CVE-2026-105207 ZITADEL before 4.17.3 Account Takeover via External IdP Linking 11d
  • CVE-2026-54693 ZITADEL Users Can Self-Verify Email/Phone via API Jul 29, 2026

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 FIRST EPSS score.
  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • 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-2026-56664 is "ZITADEL: Missing Token Lifecyle Validation (`exp` and `iat`) in JWT IdP Provider", rated Medium. It affects Zitadel (Zitadel); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 4.2 describes technical severity. 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.