Skip to content

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] - #9

Open
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability
Open

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY]#9
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability

Conversation

@2tle

@2tle2tle commented Apr 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

This PR contains the following updates:

PackageTypeUpdateChange
jsonwebtokendependenciesmajor^8.5.1 -> ^9.0.0

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2022-23541

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library can be misconfigured so that passing a poorly implemented key retrieval function (referring to the secretOrPublicKey argument from the readme link) will result in incorrect verification of tokens. There is a possibility of using a different algorithm and key combination in verification than the one that was used to sign the tokens. Specifically, tokens signed with an asymmetric public key could be verified with a symmetric HS256 algorithm. This can lead to successful validation of forged tokens.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if your application is supporting usage of both symmetric key and asymmetric key in jwt.verify() implementation with the same key retrieval function.

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0.

Will the fix impact my users?

There is no impact for end users

CVE-2022-23539

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library could be misconfigured so that legacy, insecure key types are used for signature verification. For example, DSA keys could be used with the RS256 algorithm.

Am I affected?

You are affected if you are using an algorithm and a key type other than the combinations mentioned below

Key typealgorithm
ecES256, ES384, ES512
rsaRS256, RS384, RS512, PS256, PS384, PS512
rsa-pssPS256, PS384, PS512

And for Elliptic Curve algorithms:

algCurve
ES256prime256v1
ES384secp384r1
ES512secp521r1

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0. This version validates for asymmetric key type and algorithm combinations. Please refer to the above mentioned algorithm / key type combinations for the valid secure configuration. After updating to version 9.0.0, If you still intend to continue with signing or verifying tokens using invalid key type/algorithm value combinations, you’ll need to set the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and/or verify() functions.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you already use a valid secure combination of key type and algorithm. Otherwise, use the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and verify() functions to continue usage of invalid key type/algorithm combination in 9.0.0 for legacy compatibility.

CVE-2022-23540

Overview

In versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library, lack of algorithm definition and a falsy secret or key in the jwt.verify() function can lead to signature validation bypass due to defaulting to the none algorithm for signature verification.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if all the following are true in the jwt.verify() function:

  • a token with no signature is received
  • no algorithms are specified
  • a falsy (e.g. null, false, undefined) secret or key is passed

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0 which removes the default support for the none algorithm in the jwt.verify() method.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you don’t need to allow for the none algorithm. If you need 'none' algorithm, you have to explicitly specify that in jwt.verify() options.


Release Notes

auth0/node-jsonwebtoken (jsonwebtoken)

v9.0.0

Compare Source

Breaking changes: See Migration from v8 to v9

Breaking changes
Security fixes
  • security: fixes Arbitrary File Write via verify function - CVE-2022-23529
  • security: fixes Insecure default algorithm in jwt.verify() could lead to signature validation bypass - CVE-2022-23540
  • security: fixes Insecure implementation of key retrieval function could lead to Forgeable Public/Private Tokens from RSA to HMAC - CVE-2022-23541
  • security: fixes Unrestricted key type could lead to legacy keys usage - CVE-2022-23539

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@2tle
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all
 blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] by 2tle · Pull Request #9 · 2tle/SurvirunAPI · GitHub
Skip to content

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] - #9

Open
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability
Open

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY]#9
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability

Conversation

@2tle

@2tle2tle commented Apr 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

This PR contains the following updates:

PackageTypeUpdateChange
jsonwebtokendependenciesmajor^8.5.1 -> ^9.0.0

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2022-23541

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library can be misconfigured so that passing a poorly implemented key retrieval function (referring to the secretOrPublicKey argument from the readme link) will result in incorrect verification of tokens. There is a possibility of using a different algorithm and key combination in verification than the one that was used to sign the tokens. Specifically, tokens signed with an asymmetric public key could be verified with a symmetric HS256 algorithm. This can lead to successful validation of forged tokens.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if your application is supporting usage of both symmetric key and asymmetric key in jwt.verify() implementation with the same key retrieval function.

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0.

Will the fix impact my users?

There is no impact for end users

CVE-2022-23539

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library could be misconfigured so that legacy, insecure key types are used for signature verification. For example, DSA keys could be used with the RS256 algorithm.

Am I affected?

You are affected if you are using an algorithm and a key type other than the combinations mentioned below

Key typealgorithm
ecES256, ES384, ES512
rsaRS256, RS384, RS512, PS256, PS384, PS512
rsa-pssPS256, PS384, PS512

And for Elliptic Curve algorithms:

algCurve
ES256prime256v1
ES384secp384r1
ES512secp521r1

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0. This version validates for asymmetric key type and algorithm combinations. Please refer to the above mentioned algorithm / key type combinations for the valid secure configuration. After updating to version 9.0.0, If you still intend to continue with signing or verifying tokens using invalid key type/algorithm value combinations, you’ll need to set the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and/or verify() functions.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you already use a valid secure combination of key type and algorithm. Otherwise, use the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and verify() functions to continue usage of invalid key type/algorithm combination in 9.0.0 for legacy compatibility.

CVE-2022-23540

Overview

In versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library, lack of algorithm definition and a falsy secret or key in the jwt.verify() function can lead to signature validation bypass due to defaulting to the none algorithm for signature verification.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if all the following are true in the jwt.verify() function:

  • a token with no signature is received
  • no algorithms are specified
  • a falsy (e.g. null, false, undefined) secret or key is passed

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0 which removes the default support for the none algorithm in the jwt.verify() method.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you don’t need to allow for the none algorithm. If you need 'none' algorithm, you have to explicitly specify that in jwt.verify() options.


Release Notes

auth0/node-jsonwebtoken (jsonwebtoken)

v9.0.0

Compare Source

Breaking changes: See Migration from v8 to v9

Breaking changes
Security fixes
  • security: fixes Arbitrary File Write via verify function - CVE-2022-23529
  • security: fixes Insecure default algorithm in jwt.verify() could lead to signature validation bypass - CVE-2022-23540
  • security: fixes Insecure implementation of key retrieval function could lead to Forgeable Public/Private Tokens from RSA to HMAC - CVE-2022-23541
  • security: fixes Unrestricted key type could lead to legacy keys usage - CVE-2022-23539

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@2tle
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Force GitHub README to respect dark mode (function() { var style = document.createElement('style'); style.textContent = ' .markdown-body { color-scheme: dark light; } .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; } .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; } .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; } .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; } .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; } .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; } '; document.head.appendChild(style); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + ' Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] by 2tle · Pull Request #9 · 2tle/SurvirunAPI · GitHub
Skip to content

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] - #9

Open
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability
Open

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY]#9
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability

Conversation

@2tle

@2tle2tle commented Apr 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

This PR contains the following updates:

PackageTypeUpdateChange
jsonwebtokendependenciesmajor^8.5.1 -> ^9.0.0

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2022-23541

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library can be misconfigured so that passing a poorly implemented key retrieval function (referring to the secretOrPublicKey argument from the readme link) will result in incorrect verification of tokens. There is a possibility of using a different algorithm and key combination in verification than the one that was used to sign the tokens. Specifically, tokens signed with an asymmetric public key could be verified with a symmetric HS256 algorithm. This can lead to successful validation of forged tokens.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if your application is supporting usage of both symmetric key and asymmetric key in jwt.verify() implementation with the same key retrieval function.

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0.

Will the fix impact my users?

There is no impact for end users

CVE-2022-23539

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library could be misconfigured so that legacy, insecure key types are used for signature verification. For example, DSA keys could be used with the RS256 algorithm.

Am I affected?

You are affected if you are using an algorithm and a key type other than the combinations mentioned below

Key typealgorithm
ecES256, ES384, ES512
rsaRS256, RS384, RS512, PS256, PS384, PS512
rsa-pssPS256, PS384, PS512

And for Elliptic Curve algorithms:

algCurve
ES256prime256v1
ES384secp384r1
ES512secp521r1

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0. This version validates for asymmetric key type and algorithm combinations. Please refer to the above mentioned algorithm / key type combinations for the valid secure configuration. After updating to version 9.0.0, If you still intend to continue with signing or verifying tokens using invalid key type/algorithm value combinations, you’ll need to set the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and/or verify() functions.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you already use a valid secure combination of key type and algorithm. Otherwise, use the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and verify() functions to continue usage of invalid key type/algorithm combination in 9.0.0 for legacy compatibility.

CVE-2022-23540

Overview

In versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library, lack of algorithm definition and a falsy secret or key in the jwt.verify() function can lead to signature validation bypass due to defaulting to the none algorithm for signature verification.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if all the following are true in the jwt.verify() function:

  • a token with no signature is received
  • no algorithms are specified
  • a falsy (e.g. null, false, undefined) secret or key is passed

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0 which removes the default support for the none algorithm in the jwt.verify() method.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you don’t need to allow for the none algorithm. If you need 'none' algorithm, you have to explicitly specify that in jwt.verify() options.


Release Notes

auth0/node-jsonwebtoken (jsonwebtoken)

v9.0.0

Compare Source

Breaking changes: See Migration from v8 to v9

Breaking changes
Security fixes
  • security: fixes Arbitrary File Write via verify function - CVE-2022-23529
  • security: fixes Insecure default algorithm in jwt.verify() could lead to signature validation bypass - CVE-2022-23540
  • security: fixes Insecure implementation of key retrieval function could lead to Forgeable Public/Private Tokens from RSA to HMAC - CVE-2022-23541
  • security: fixes Unrestricted key type could lead to legacy keys usage - CVE-2022-23539

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@2tle
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer (function() { var ref = document.referrer; var terms = []; if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) { var url = new URL(ref); var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p'); if (q) { terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; }); } } if (terms.length === 0) return; var style = document.createElement('style'); style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }'; document.head.appendChild(style); function highlight(node) { if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node var text = node.textContent; var found = false; terms.forEach(function(term) { var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi'); if (regex.test(text)) { found = true; var frag = document.createDocumentFragment(); var parts = text.split(regex); parts.forEach(function(part, i) { if (i % 2 === 0) { frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part)); } else { var span = document.createElement('span'); span.className = 'userscript-highlight'; span.textContent = part; frag.appendChild(span); } }); node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node); } }); } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT']; if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) { Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight); } } } highlight(document.body); // Re-highlight on dynamic content var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) { mutations.forEach(function(m) { m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) { if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node); }); }); }); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true }); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + ' Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] by 2tle · Pull Request #9 · 2tle/SurvirunAPI · GitHub
Skip to content

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] - #9

Open
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability
Open

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY]#9
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability

Conversation

@2tle

@2tle2tle commented Apr 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

This PR contains the following updates:

PackageTypeUpdateChange
jsonwebtokendependenciesmajor^8.5.1 -> ^9.0.0

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2022-23541

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library can be misconfigured so that passing a poorly implemented key retrieval function (referring to the secretOrPublicKey argument from the readme link) will result in incorrect verification of tokens. There is a possibility of using a different algorithm and key combination in verification than the one that was used to sign the tokens. Specifically, tokens signed with an asymmetric public key could be verified with a symmetric HS256 algorithm. This can lead to successful validation of forged tokens.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if your application is supporting usage of both symmetric key and asymmetric key in jwt.verify() implementation with the same key retrieval function.

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0.

Will the fix impact my users?

There is no impact for end users

CVE-2022-23539

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library could be misconfigured so that legacy, insecure key types are used for signature verification. For example, DSA keys could be used with the RS256 algorithm.

Am I affected?

You are affected if you are using an algorithm and a key type other than the combinations mentioned below

Key typealgorithm
ecES256, ES384, ES512
rsaRS256, RS384, RS512, PS256, PS384, PS512
rsa-pssPS256, PS384, PS512

And for Elliptic Curve algorithms:

algCurve
ES256prime256v1
ES384secp384r1
ES512secp521r1

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0. This version validates for asymmetric key type and algorithm combinations. Please refer to the above mentioned algorithm / key type combinations for the valid secure configuration. After updating to version 9.0.0, If you still intend to continue with signing or verifying tokens using invalid key type/algorithm value combinations, you’ll need to set the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and/or verify() functions.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you already use a valid secure combination of key type and algorithm. Otherwise, use the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and verify() functions to continue usage of invalid key type/algorithm combination in 9.0.0 for legacy compatibility.

CVE-2022-23540

Overview

In versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library, lack of algorithm definition and a falsy secret or key in the jwt.verify() function can lead to signature validation bypass due to defaulting to the none algorithm for signature verification.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if all the following are true in the jwt.verify() function:

  • a token with no signature is received
  • no algorithms are specified
  • a falsy (e.g. null, false, undefined) secret or key is passed

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0 which removes the default support for the none algorithm in the jwt.verify() method.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you don’t need to allow for the none algorithm. If you need 'none' algorithm, you have to explicitly specify that in jwt.verify() options.


Release Notes

auth0/node-jsonwebtoken (jsonwebtoken)

v9.0.0

Compare Source

Breaking changes: See Migration from v8 to v9

Breaking changes
Security fixes
  • security: fixes Arbitrary File Write via verify function - CVE-2022-23529
  • security: fixes Insecure default algorithm in jwt.verify() could lead to signature validation bypass - CVE-2022-23540
  • security: fixes Insecure implementation of key retrieval function could lead to Forgeable Public/Private Tokens from RSA to HMAC - CVE-2022-23541
  • security: fixes Unrestricted key type could lead to legacy keys usage - CVE-2022-23539

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@2tle
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page (function() { var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content', 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid', 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign']; function cleanUrl(url) { try { var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin); var changed = false; trackingParams.forEach(function(p) { if (u.searchParams.has(p)) { u.searchParams.delete(p); changed = true; } }); return changed ? u.toString() : url; } catch (e) { return url; } } function cleanLinks() { document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) { var clean = cleanUrl(a.href); if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean; }); } cleanLinks(); var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) { mutations.forEach(function(m) { m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) { if (node.nodeType === 1) { if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks(); node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) { var clean = cleanUrl(a.href); if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean; }); } }); }); }); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true }); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + ' Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] by 2tle · Pull Request #9 · 2tle/SurvirunAPI · GitHub
Skip to content

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] - #9

Open
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability
Open

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY]#9
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability

Conversation

@2tle

@2tle2tle commented Apr 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

This PR contains the following updates:

PackageTypeUpdateChange
jsonwebtokendependenciesmajor^8.5.1 -> ^9.0.0

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2022-23541

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library can be misconfigured so that passing a poorly implemented key retrieval function (referring to the secretOrPublicKey argument from the readme link) will result in incorrect verification of tokens. There is a possibility of using a different algorithm and key combination in verification than the one that was used to sign the tokens. Specifically, tokens signed with an asymmetric public key could be verified with a symmetric HS256 algorithm. This can lead to successful validation of forged tokens.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if your application is supporting usage of both symmetric key and asymmetric key in jwt.verify() implementation with the same key retrieval function.

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0.

Will the fix impact my users?

There is no impact for end users

CVE-2022-23539

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library could be misconfigured so that legacy, insecure key types are used for signature verification. For example, DSA keys could be used with the RS256 algorithm.

Am I affected?

You are affected if you are using an algorithm and a key type other than the combinations mentioned below

Key typealgorithm
ecES256, ES384, ES512
rsaRS256, RS384, RS512, PS256, PS384, PS512
rsa-pssPS256, PS384, PS512

And for Elliptic Curve algorithms:

algCurve
ES256prime256v1
ES384secp384r1
ES512secp521r1

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0. This version validates for asymmetric key type and algorithm combinations. Please refer to the above mentioned algorithm / key type combinations for the valid secure configuration. After updating to version 9.0.0, If you still intend to continue with signing or verifying tokens using invalid key type/algorithm value combinations, you’ll need to set the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and/or verify() functions.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you already use a valid secure combination of key type and algorithm. Otherwise, use the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and verify() functions to continue usage of invalid key type/algorithm combination in 9.0.0 for legacy compatibility.

CVE-2022-23540

Overview

In versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library, lack of algorithm definition and a falsy secret or key in the jwt.verify() function can lead to signature validation bypass due to defaulting to the none algorithm for signature verification.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if all the following are true in the jwt.verify() function:

  • a token with no signature is received
  • no algorithms are specified
  • a falsy (e.g. null, false, undefined) secret or key is passed

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0 which removes the default support for the none algorithm in the jwt.verify() method.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you don’t need to allow for the none algorithm. If you need 'none' algorithm, you have to explicitly specify that in jwt.verify() options.


Release Notes

auth0/node-jsonwebtoken (jsonwebtoken)

v9.0.0

Compare Source

Breaking changes: See Migration from v8 to v9

Breaking changes
Security fixes
  • security: fixes Arbitrary File Write via verify function - CVE-2022-23529
  • security: fixes Insecure default algorithm in jwt.verify() could lead to signature validation bypass - CVE-2022-23540
  • security: fixes Insecure implementation of key retrieval function could lead to Forgeable Public/Private Tokens from RSA to HMAC - CVE-2022-23541
  • security: fixes Unrestricted key type could lead to legacy keys usage - CVE-2022-23539

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@2tle
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube (function() { function tryTheater() { var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]'); if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) { btn.click(); } } // Try immediately tryTheater(); // Try after navigation (SPA) var lastUrl = location.href; setInterval(function() { if (location.href !== lastUrl) { lastUrl = location.href; setTimeout(tryTheater, 500); } }, 1000); // Also try on player load var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true }); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + ' Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] by 2tle · Pull Request #9 · 2tle/SurvirunAPI · GitHub
Skip to content

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] - #9

Open
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability
Open

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY]#9
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability

Conversation

@2tle

@2tle2tle commented Apr 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

This PR contains the following updates:

PackageTypeUpdateChange
jsonwebtokendependenciesmajor^8.5.1 -> ^9.0.0

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2022-23541

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library can be misconfigured so that passing a poorly implemented key retrieval function (referring to the secretOrPublicKey argument from the readme link) will result in incorrect verification of tokens. There is a possibility of using a different algorithm and key combination in verification than the one that was used to sign the tokens. Specifically, tokens signed with an asymmetric public key could be verified with a symmetric HS256 algorithm. This can lead to successful validation of forged tokens.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if your application is supporting usage of both symmetric key and asymmetric key in jwt.verify() implementation with the same key retrieval function.

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0.

Will the fix impact my users?

There is no impact for end users

CVE-2022-23539

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library could be misconfigured so that legacy, insecure key types are used for signature verification. For example, DSA keys could be used with the RS256 algorithm.

Am I affected?

You are affected if you are using an algorithm and a key type other than the combinations mentioned below

Key typealgorithm
ecES256, ES384, ES512
rsaRS256, RS384, RS512, PS256, PS384, PS512
rsa-pssPS256, PS384, PS512

And for Elliptic Curve algorithms:

algCurve
ES256prime256v1
ES384secp384r1
ES512secp521r1

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0. This version validates for asymmetric key type and algorithm combinations. Please refer to the above mentioned algorithm / key type combinations for the valid secure configuration. After updating to version 9.0.0, If you still intend to continue with signing or verifying tokens using invalid key type/algorithm value combinations, you’ll need to set the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and/or verify() functions.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you already use a valid secure combination of key type and algorithm. Otherwise, use the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and verify() functions to continue usage of invalid key type/algorithm combination in 9.0.0 for legacy compatibility.

CVE-2022-23540

Overview

In versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library, lack of algorithm definition and a falsy secret or key in the jwt.verify() function can lead to signature validation bypass due to defaulting to the none algorithm for signature verification.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if all the following are true in the jwt.verify() function:

  • a token with no signature is received
  • no algorithms are specified
  • a falsy (e.g. null, false, undefined) secret or key is passed

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0 which removes the default support for the none algorithm in the jwt.verify() method.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you don’t need to allow for the none algorithm. If you need 'none' algorithm, you have to explicitly specify that in jwt.verify() options.


Release Notes

auth0/node-jsonwebtoken (jsonwebtoken)

v9.0.0

Compare Source

Breaking changes: See Migration from v8 to v9

Breaking changes
Security fixes
  • security: fixes Arbitrary File Write via verify function - CVE-2022-23529
  • security: fixes Insecure default algorithm in jwt.verify() could lead to signature validation bypass - CVE-2022-23540
  • security: fixes Insecure implementation of key retrieval function could lead to Forgeable Public/Private Tokens from RSA to HMAC - CVE-2022-23541
  • security: fixes Unrestricted key type could lead to legacy keys usage - CVE-2022-23539

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@2tle
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content (function() { function unstick() { document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) { if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') { el.style.position = 'static'; el.style.top = 'auto'; el.style.zIndex = 'auto'; } }); } unstick(); var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] }); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + ' Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] by 2tle · Pull Request #9 · 2tle/SurvirunAPI · GitHub
Skip to content

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] - #9

Open
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability
Open

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY]#9
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability

Conversation

@2tle

@2tle2tle commented Apr 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

This PR contains the following updates:

PackageTypeUpdateChange
jsonwebtokendependenciesmajor^8.5.1 -> ^9.0.0

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2022-23541

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library can be misconfigured so that passing a poorly implemented key retrieval function (referring to the secretOrPublicKey argument from the readme link) will result in incorrect verification of tokens. There is a possibility of using a different algorithm and key combination in verification than the one that was used to sign the tokens. Specifically, tokens signed with an asymmetric public key could be verified with a symmetric HS256 algorithm. This can lead to successful validation of forged tokens.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if your application is supporting usage of both symmetric key and asymmetric key in jwt.verify() implementation with the same key retrieval function.

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0.

Will the fix impact my users?

There is no impact for end users

CVE-2022-23539

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library could be misconfigured so that legacy, insecure key types are used for signature verification. For example, DSA keys could be used with the RS256 algorithm.

Am I affected?

You are affected if you are using an algorithm and a key type other than the combinations mentioned below

Key typealgorithm
ecES256, ES384, ES512
rsaRS256, RS384, RS512, PS256, PS384, PS512
rsa-pssPS256, PS384, PS512

And for Elliptic Curve algorithms:

algCurve
ES256prime256v1
ES384secp384r1
ES512secp521r1

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0. This version validates for asymmetric key type and algorithm combinations. Please refer to the above mentioned algorithm / key type combinations for the valid secure configuration. After updating to version 9.0.0, If you still intend to continue with signing or verifying tokens using invalid key type/algorithm value combinations, you’ll need to set the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and/or verify() functions.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you already use a valid secure combination of key type and algorithm. Otherwise, use the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and verify() functions to continue usage of invalid key type/algorithm combination in 9.0.0 for legacy compatibility.

CVE-2022-23540

Overview

In versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library, lack of algorithm definition and a falsy secret or key in the jwt.verify() function can lead to signature validation bypass due to defaulting to the none algorithm for signature verification.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if all the following are true in the jwt.verify() function:

  • a token with no signature is received
  • no algorithms are specified
  • a falsy (e.g. null, false, undefined) secret or key is passed

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0 which removes the default support for the none algorithm in the jwt.verify() method.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you don’t need to allow for the none algorithm. If you need 'none' algorithm, you have to explicitly specify that in jwt.verify() options.


Release Notes

auth0/node-jsonwebtoken (jsonwebtoken)

v9.0.0

Compare Source

Breaking changes: See Migration from v8 to v9

Breaking changes
Security fixes
  • security: fixes Arbitrary File Write via verify function - CVE-2022-23529
  • security: fixes Insecure default algorithm in jwt.verify() could lead to signature validation bypass - CVE-2022-23540
  • security: fixes Insecure implementation of key retrieval function could lead to Forgeable Public/Private Tokens from RSA to HMAC - CVE-2022-23541
  • security: fixes Unrestricted key type could lead to legacy keys usage - CVE-2022-23539

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@2tle
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Universal Dark Mode - works on any site (function() { var enabled = true; function applyDarkMode() { if (!enabled) return; // Create style element if it doesn't exist var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style'); if (!style) { style = document.createElement('style'); style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style'; document.head.appendChild(style); } // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video style.textContent = ' /* Invert everything except media */ html { filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important; background: #1a1a2e !important; } /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */ img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] { filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important; } /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */ .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *, [data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"], .ace_editor, .ace_editor *, .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *, .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *, .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *, .highlight, .highlight *, pre code, pre code * { filter: none !important; } /* Fix common UI elements */ .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover { filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important; background: #2d2d44 !important; border-color: #444 !important; } /* Scrollbars */ ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; } ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; } ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; } /* Selection */ ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; } ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; } '; } function removeDarkMode() { var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style'); if (style) style.remove(); } // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) { if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') { e.preventDefault(); enabled = !enabled; if (enabled) { applyDarkMode(); console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled'); } else { removeDarkMode(); console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled'); } } }); // Apply on load applyDarkMode(); // Re-apply on dynamic content var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) { if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) { applyDarkMode(); } }); observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true }); console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle'); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })(); Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] by 2tle · Pull Request #9 · 2tle/SurvirunAPI · GitHub
Skip to content

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY] - #9

Open
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability
Open

Update dependency jsonwebtoken to v9 [SECURITY]#9
2tle wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
renovate/npm-jsonwebtoken-vulnerability

Conversation

@2tle

@2tle2tle commented Apr 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

This PR contains the following updates:

PackageTypeUpdateChange
jsonwebtokendependenciesmajor^8.5.1 -> ^9.0.0

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2022-23541

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library can be misconfigured so that passing a poorly implemented key retrieval function (referring to the secretOrPublicKey argument from the readme link) will result in incorrect verification of tokens. There is a possibility of using a different algorithm and key combination in verification than the one that was used to sign the tokens. Specifically, tokens signed with an asymmetric public key could be verified with a symmetric HS256 algorithm. This can lead to successful validation of forged tokens.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if your application is supporting usage of both symmetric key and asymmetric key in jwt.verify() implementation with the same key retrieval function.

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0.

Will the fix impact my users?

There is no impact for end users

CVE-2022-23539

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library could be misconfigured so that legacy, insecure key types are used for signature verification. For example, DSA keys could be used with the RS256 algorithm.

Am I affected?

You are affected if you are using an algorithm and a key type other than the combinations mentioned below

Key typealgorithm
ecES256, ES384, ES512
rsaRS256, RS384, RS512, PS256, PS384, PS512
rsa-pssPS256, PS384, PS512

And for Elliptic Curve algorithms:

algCurve
ES256prime256v1
ES384secp384r1
ES512secp521r1

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0. This version validates for asymmetric key type and algorithm combinations. Please refer to the above mentioned algorithm / key type combinations for the valid secure configuration. After updating to version 9.0.0, If you still intend to continue with signing or verifying tokens using invalid key type/algorithm value combinations, you’ll need to set the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and/or verify() functions.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you already use a valid secure combination of key type and algorithm. Otherwise, use the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and verify() functions to continue usage of invalid key type/algorithm combination in 9.0.0 for legacy compatibility.

CVE-2022-23540

Overview

In versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library, lack of algorithm definition and a falsy secret or key in the jwt.verify() function can lead to signature validation bypass due to defaulting to the none algorithm for signature verification.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if all the following are true in the jwt.verify() function:

  • a token with no signature is received
  • no algorithms are specified
  • a falsy (e.g. null, false, undefined) secret or key is passed

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0 which removes the default support for the none algorithm in the jwt.verify() method.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you don’t need to allow for the none algorithm. If you need 'none' algorithm, you have to explicitly specify that in jwt.verify() options.


Release Notes

auth0/node-jsonwebtoken (jsonwebtoken)

v9.0.0

Compare Source

Breaking changes: See Migration from v8 to v9

Breaking changes
Security fixes
  • security: fixes Arbitrary File Write via verify function - CVE-2022-23529
  • security: fixes Insecure default algorithm in jwt.verify() could lead to signature validation bypass - CVE-2022-23540
  • security: fixes Insecure implementation of key retrieval function could lead to Forgeable Public/Private Tokens from RSA to HMAC - CVE-2022-23541
  • security: fixes Unrestricted key type could lead to legacy keys usage - CVE-2022-23539

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@2tle