CVE-2025-65015 | joserfc has Possible Uncontrolled Resource Consumption Vulnerability Triggered by Logging Arbitrarily Large JWT Token Payloads

Exp

joserfc is a Python library that provides an implementation of several JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) standards. In versions from 1.3.3 to before 1.3.5 and from 1.4.0 to before 1.4.2, the ExceededSizeError exception messages are embedded with non-decoded JWT token parts and may cause Python logging to record an arbitrarily large, forged JWT payload. In situations where a misconfigured — or entirely absent — production-grade web server sits in front of a Python web application, an attacker may be able to send arbitrarily large bearer tokens in the HTTP request headers. When this occurs, Python logging or diagnostic tools (e.g., Sentry) may end up processing extremely large log messages containing the full JWT header during the joserfc.jwt.decode() operation. The same behavior also appears when validating claims and signature payload sizes, as the library raises joserfc.errors.ExceededSizeError() with the full payload embedded in the exception message. Since the payload is already fully loaded into memory at this stage, the library cannot prevent or reject it. This issue has been patched in versions 1.3.5 and 1.4.2.

Published: 2025-11-18 Last update: 2026-01-15 Assigner: [email protected] Source: [email protected]
NVD Status：Analyzed，CVE State: published
View at NVD, CVE.org, EUVD

CVE-2025-65015 is rated Exploit Available (57.5/100): CVSS Critical severity, with low exploitation likelihood (EPSS 0.05%). 1 public exploit reference(s) are indexed (Exploit-DB). Public exploits are available—assess exposure, apply mitigations, and prioritize patching.

Risk is dynamic; we continuously reassess and refresh what is shown on this page as upstream context changes.

Public exploit references (Exploit-DB) for CVE-2025-65015

EDB-ID Source Kind Published Link
— nvd_ref exploit_tag Exploit-DB ↗

Exploit prediction scoring system (EPSS) score for CVE-2025-65015

EPSS lead: Daily EPSS estimates relative likelihood of exploitation; percentile ranks this CVE among scored vulnerabilities (higher = more severe relative rank).

# Date Old EPSS score New EPSS score Delta (New - Old)
1 2026-01-25 0.03% 0.05% +0.03%
2 2025-11-19 — 0.03% —

Full EPSS history (2 records total)

Common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS) metrics for CVE-2025-65015

CVSS metrics for this CVE.

Base score Version Severity Vector Exploitability Impact Score source
9.2 4.0 CRITICAL
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:N)
Could be attacked over the internet or any normal routed network.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Exploitation conditions are straightforward and stable.
Attack requirements (AT:N)
No additional preconditions are required beyond normal reachability.
Privileges required (PR:N)
No privileges are required.
User interaction (UI:N)
No user interaction is required.
Vulnerable system confidentiality impact (VC:N)
No confidentiality impact on the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system integrity impact (VI:N)
No integrity impact on the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability impact (VA:H)
High availability impact on the vulnerable system.
Subsequent system confidentiality impact (SC:N)
No confidentiality impact on subsequent systems.
Subsequent system integrity impact (SI:N)
No integrity impact on subsequent systems.
Subsequent system availability impact (SA:H)
High availability impact on subsequent systems.
Exploit maturity (threat) (E:X)
Not defined: no reliable threat intelligence; scoring assumes the worst case (equivalent to Attacked).
Confidentiality requirement (CR:X)
Not defined: insufficient information; scoring treats this like High (worst case).
Integrity requirement (IR:X)
Not defined: insufficient information; scoring treats this like High (worst case).
Availability requirement (AR:X)
Not defined: insufficient information; scoring treats this like High (worst case).
Modified attack vector (MAV:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base Attack Vector (AV).
Modified attack complexity (MAC:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base Attack Complexity (AC).
Modified attack requirements (MAT:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base Attack Requirements (AT).
Modified privileges required (MPR:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base Privileges Required (PR).
Modified user interaction (MUI:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base User Interaction (UI).
Modified vulnerable system confidentiality impact (MVC:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base VC metric.
Modified vulnerable system integrity impact (MVI:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base VI metric.
Modified vulnerable system availability impact (MVA:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base VA metric.
Modified subsequent system confidentiality impact (MSC:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base SC metric.
Modified subsequent system integrity impact (MSI:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base SI metric.
Modified subsequent system availability impact (MSA:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base SA metric.
Safety (supplemental) (S:X)
Not evaluated.
Automatable (supplemental) (AU:X)
Not evaluated.
Recovery (supplemental) (R:X)
Not evaluated.
Value density (supplemental) (V:X)
Not evaluated.
Vulnerability response effort (supplemental) (RE:X)
Not evaluated.
Provider urgency (supplemental) (U:X)
Not evaluated.
 — — [email protected]
7.5 3.1 HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:N)
Could be attacked over the internet or any normal routed network—not just someone sitting at the machine.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup.
Privileges required (PR:N)
No account or special rights needed—anonymous or random user is enough.
User interaction (UI:N)
Nobody has to click “OK” or open a trap file; it can work without a victim helping.
Scope (S:U)
Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:N)
Doesn’t really leak secrets in a meaningful way.
Integrity (I:N)
Data isn’t meaningfully altered or forged.
Availability (A:H)
Could take the service down hard or make it unusable for people who depend on it.
 3.9 3.6 [email protected]

Weakness enumeration for CVE-2025-65015

GitHub Security Advisory for CVE-2025-65015

GHSA-frfh-8v73-gjg4 · Severity: critical · Ecosystem: pip — joserfc has Possible Uncontrolled Resource Consumption Vulnerability Triggered by Logging Arbitrarily Large JWT Token Payloads

OS Trackers for CVE-2025-65015

vendor priority summary link
debian unimportant CVE-2025-65015 unimportant priority: Debian including 1 source packages (joserfc), 3 status rows across 3 suites (forky, sid, trixie): resolved 3. https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2025-65015
redhat medium — https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-65015
ubuntu medium CVE-2025-65015 medium priority: Ubuntu including 1 source packages (joserfc), 5 status rows across 5 suites (jammy, noble, plucky, questing, upstream): DNE 2, needs-triage 2, ignored 1. https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2025-65015

Affected software / configurations for CVE-2025-65015

Vendor Product Version Raw CPE
hsiaoming joserfc >= 1.3.3, < 1.3.5 cpe:2.3:a:hsiaoming:joserfc:*:*:*:*:*:python:*:*
hsiaoming joserfc >= 1.4.0, < 1.4.2 cpe:2.3:a:hsiaoming:joserfc:*:*:*:*:*:python:*:*

References for CVE-2025-65015

cvelogic Threat Intelligence