Evidence-led vulnerability intelligence · 2026-10-29 22:48 IST

CVE-2026-62374

SD JWT JS is a JavaScript implementation of the Selective Disclosure JWT (SD-JWT) specification. In version 0.19.0 and earlier, `@sd-jwt/decode`, also used by `@sd-jwt/core`, silently drops a tampered Disclosure whose digest no longer matches the Issuer-signed `_sd` array and returns a reduced claim set, reporting success while the Issuer signature remains valid. Both a tampered Disclosure that remains valid JSON and a Disclosure containing invalid UTF-8 bytes reach this silent-drop behavior. In the latter case, the `TextDecoder / Buffer` decoding path substitutes U+FFFD replacement characters, recovering syntactically valid disclosure data instead of rejecting the malformed input. This violates RFC 9901 section 7.1 step 5, which requires rejection of unreferenced Disclosures, and section 7.1 step 3 / section 4.2.1, which require rejection of invalid Disclosures. A malicious holder can exploit this omission primitive, including through `SDJwtInstance.verify()` when key binding is required. An on-path attacker can also tamper with a Disclosure when the relying party does not enforce key binding; enforced key binding rejects on-path tampering because it invalidates the KB-JWT `sd_hash` binding. If the relying party defaults to allowing access when a constraining age, role, or restriction claim is absent, the silent claim reduction can change an authorization decision without an error. This issue is fixed in `@sd-jwt/core` version 0.20.0; no patched version of the standalone `@sd-jwt/decode` package is identified.

HIGH · 7.1

Executive briefing

The source record describes: SD JWT JS is a JavaScript implementation of the Selective Disclosure JWT (SD-JWT) specification. In version 0.19.0 and earlier, `@sd-jwt/decode`, also used by `@sd-jwt/core`, silently drops a tampered Disclosure whose digest no longer matches the Issuer-signed `_sd` array and returns a reduced claim set, reporting success while the Issuer signature remains valid. Both a tampered Disclosure that remains valid JSON and a Disclosure containing invalid UTF-8 bytes reach this silent-drop behavior. In the latter case, the `TextDecoder / Buffer` decoding path substitutes U+FFFD replacement characters, recovering syntactically valid disclosure data instead of rejecting the malformed input. This violates RFC 9901 section 7.1 step 5, which requires rejection of unreferenced Disclosures, and section 7.1 step 3 / section 4.2.1, which require rejection of invalid Disclosures. A malicious holder can exploit this omission primitive, including through `SDJwtInstance.verify()` when key binding is required. An on-path attacker can also tamper with a Disclosure when the relying party does not enforce key binding; enforced key binding rejects on-path tampering because it invalidates the KB-JWT `sd_hash` binding. If the relying party defaults to allowing access when a constraining age, role, or restriction claim is absent, the silent claim reduction can change an authorization decision without an error. This issue is fixed in `@sd-jwt/core` version 0.20.0; no patched version of the standalone `@sd-jwt/decode` package is identified. The practical risk depends on whether an affected product/version is present, reachable and configured in an exploitable way. Review the affected-product evidence and linked vendor advisories before assigning exposure status.

Assessment: Potential exposure only — validate the installed product, exact version, configuration and vendor applicability before treating an asset as confirmed vulnerable.

Evidence confidence: Limited Evidence-derived, not an exploitability verdict

Severity & attack characteristics

7.1 / 10 · 4.0

CVSS vector:
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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

Attack vectorN
Attack complexityL
Attack requirementsN
Privileges requiredL
User interactionN
ScopeX

Technical explanation & impact

The technical mechanism is not expanded beyond the source description unless a referenced advisory supplies additional evidence. Read the linked vendor/CERT advisories for root-cause detail.

Potential impact must be interpreted from the published CVSS impact metrics and the affected component. A CVSS impact score is not proof that a particular asset is exploitable.

Weakness classification

CWE-176CWE-754

Affected products and versions

NVD has not supplied machine-readable vulnerable CPE product/version entries for this CVE. This is an information gap, not proof that no products are affected. Check the vendor advisory references below.

Remediation & validation

  1. Identify exposure by comparing the affected product and version ranges with your asset inventory, SBOM and externally exposed services.
  2. Review the linked vendor security advisory or patch notes. Upgrade to a vendor-confirmed fixed release; do not infer a fixed version from the CVE description.
  3. Until patched, consider restricting network access or disabling the affected feature where operationally safe. These are temporary controls, not a substitute for a vendor fix.
  4. Validate the remediation with a version check and vulnerability rescan, then retain change evidence.

No fixed version is displayed unless it is explicitly established by a vendor advisory. Follow the vendor's release notes for exact product and branch applicability.

Vendor advisories, patches & exploit references

Information gaps & confidence notes

These gaps indicate missing source data. CVE Watch does not fill them with guessed product, exploit or patch details.

Last enrichment: 2026-11-05T04:50:38+00:00 · Source last modified: 2026-11-04T02:17:21.003

Open NVD record ← Back to CVE Watch

Threat intelligence, made actionable · CVE data sourced from the NVD