Attack ChainAIDerived
Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain
-
AccessObtain target envelope file
-
DeliveryLocate recovery-slot header fields
-
ExploitDelete/forge fields (no key needed)
-
ExecutionRewrite file, tool accepts unauthenticated header
-
ImpactOwner's recovery path silently removed
Vulnerability Assessment
| Weakness |
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures
ASVS 5.0
V11 - Cryptography Signature verification
|
| Exploitation Conditions | The attacker must be able to obtain and write back a modified copy of an openssl_encrypt envelope-format file (version below 1.4.9) that actually contains one or more recovery slots - that is the concrete prerequisite. No encryption key, password, or authentication is needed because the recovery-slot header fields are not cryptographically verified, which is the essence of the flaw. What limits exploitation: it only affects the envelope format (not other output modes), the targeted file must contain recovery slots for there to be anything to strip, the attacker needs read/write access to the file itself rather than merely network reachability to a service, and the impact is confined to destroying recovery paths - the primary key still decrypts the payload, so this does not itself disclose plaintext. |
| Impact | Signals here are mixed and should be read carefully. The supplied CVSS 4.0 vector (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N, VC:H/VI:H/VA:H = 9.3) treats this as a full confidentiality, integrity, and availability breach, but the description supports mainly an integrity impact: the attacker removes recovery slots but does not decrypt or disclose the payload, so the VC:H (high confidentiality) rating looks inflated relative to the described behaviour - verify with the vendor advisory. Real exploitation prerequisites are also stronger than PR:N suggests, since the attacker must be able to obtain and rewrite the target encrypted file, which is closer to a local/data-in-transit tampering scenario than fully remote unauthenticated access. On exploitation maturity, there is no public exploit identified at time of analysis, no CISA KEV listing, and no EPSS probability was provided, so this is a high-CVSS finding without evidence of active or widespread exploitation. The mitigating counterweight is prevalence: openssl_encrypt is an obscure single-maintainer tool, so even an organisation running a small deployment should patch, but the blast radius across typical enterprise fleets is minimal. Net assessment: genuinely serious for the specific users who rely on recovery slots for key-loss resilience, but not a broad emergency for most environments. |
| Exploit ScenarioDerived | An attacker who can read and rewrite a victim's envelope-format encrypted file (for example on shared storage, a backup share, or a file in transit) opens the header, deletes the recovery-slot fields, and saves the file back. The tool accepts the modified file as valid because the header is not authenticated, so the owner's deliberately added recovery key can no longer decrypt the payload and the change is invisible until recovery is attempted. No exploit code is publicly identified at time of analysis, but the manipulation requires no cryptographic keys and only low attack complexity. |
Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.
Alert meAnalysisAIv1 – Aug 27, 2026
Cryptographic-integrity bypass in the openssl_encrypt file-encryption utility (jahlives) before 1.4.9 lets an attacker edit the header of an envelope-format encrypted file to delete recovery-slot fields without any key and without re-encrypting the payload. Because recovery-slot presence is never cryptographically verified (CWE-347), recovery paths that the owner deliberately added can be silently stripped and the tampering goes undetected. There is no public exploit or CISA KEV listing at time of analysis, and no EPSS score was supplied; the action is trivially performed by anyone able to modify the file, which drives the critical CVSS 4.0 score of 9.3.
RemediationAI
Vendor-released patch: 1.4.9 - upgrade openssl_encrypt to 1.4.9 or later, which authenticates recovery-slot presence in the envelope header. Details are in the GitHub advisory GHSA-grhj-cpmg-f5mx (https://github.com/jahlives/openssl_encrypt/security/advisories/GHSA-grhj-cpmg-f5mx) and the VulnCheck advisory (https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openssl-encrypt-before-1.4.9-authentication-bypass-via-recovery-slot-removal). If you cannot upgrade immediately, restrict write access to stored envelope files so untrusted parties cannot rewrite headers (trade-off: does not protect files in transit or on shared storage), keep an independent signed hash or detached signature of each encrypted file and verify it before trusting recovery slots (trade-off: added operational step and key management), and re-encrypt any existing envelope files with 1.4.9 after upgrading since previously tampered headers will not be retroactively detected. Avoid relying on recovery slots as a sole recovery mechanism until patched.
Affected VersionsENISA
Affected Packages
Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)
Affects your stack
Affects 1 package in pypi
Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.
Technical ContextAI · show details
openssl_encrypt is a Python-based OpenSSL wrapper (CPE cpe:2.3:a:jahlives:openssl_encrypt) that stores ciphertext in an 'envelope' container. Envelope formats typically wrap a data-encryption key in one or more key-slots so multiple parties or recovery keys can each decrypt the payload; 'recovery slots' are extra slots the owner adds so the data can still be recovered if the primary key is lost. The root cause is CWE-347 (Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature/Authentication of a Message): the header region that enumerates these slots is not covered by any authentication tag or signature, so its contents can be altered and the modified file is still accepted as valid. The 'Jwt Attack' / 'Authentication Bypass' tags point to the same class of failure seen in unauthenticated/forgeable metadata headers - the payload stays intact and encrypted, but its surrounding trust metadata is malleable.
Know when Jwt Attack gets its next vulnerability
- Watch products and get an email when something new is published
- Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
- Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources
No credit card · 7-day full trial
Severity by source
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Header is forgeable without keys (PR:N/AC:L), but the payload is not disclosed so C:N; integrity of the file is fully compromised (I:H) and loss of recovery paths yields limited availability impact (A:L).
Primary rating from Vendor (VulnCheck).
CVSS VectorVendor: VulnCheck
Lifecycle Timeline
2DescriptionCVE.org
openssl_encrypt versions before 1.4.9 fail to authenticate recovery-slot presence in envelope-format encrypted files, allowing attackers to remove recovery slots without re-encrypting the payload. Attackers can modify the file header to delete recovery-slot fields and bypass authentication, silently removing recovery paths the owner deliberately added.
Executive ViewAI
The openssl_encrypt (jahlives) file-encryption utility before version 1.4.9 allows attackers with file-write access to silently strip recovery mechanisms from encrypted files without detection, compromising disaster-recovery capabilities and creating risk of unrecoverable data loss.
Restrict file-write access to encrypted files via OS-level access controls; deploy file-integrity monitoring (FIM) with real-time alerting on header modifications; regularly validate recovery-slot functionality remains intact; consider disabling recovery-slot feature if not operationally critical; avoid using jahlives for new data encryption until vendor-released patch becomes available.
Threat Intelligence Overview
How this decision was reached
The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.
What every action level means
SSVC AssessmentENISA
Priority Score
Attack Technique
Authentication bypass attacks exploit flaws in the verification mechanisms that control access to systems and applications.
More in Jwt Attack
View allWhy is Microsoft republishing a CVE from 2013? We are republishing CVE-2013-3900 in the Security Update Guide to update
Authentication bypass in SimpleHelp 5.5.15 and prior (plus 6.0 pre-release builds) allows remote unauthenticated attacke
Authentication bypass in WSO2 API Manager and related components (Universal Gateway, Traffic Manager, API Control Plane,
Authentication bypass in Fortinet FortiOS, FortiProxy, and FortiSwitchManager allows unauthenticated remote attackers to
ruby-saml provides security assertion markup language (SAML) single sign-on (SSO) for Ruby. Rated critical severity (CVS
Security feature bypass in Microsoft .NET (shipped via Visual Studio 2022 17.12/17.14 and Visual Studio 2026 18.7) lets
ruby-saml provides security assertion markup language (SAML) single sign-on (SSO) for Ruby. Rated critical severity (CVS
The package jsrsasign before 10.5.25 are vulnerable to Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature when JWS or JWT
Authentication and authorization bypass in fast-jwt 6.2.0 through 6.2.4 (npm, NearForm) lets a remote, unauthenticated a
A library injection vulnerability exists in Microsoft Teams (work or school) 24046.2813.2770.1094 for macOS. Rated criti
A library injection vulnerability exists in the WebView.app helper app of Microsoft Teams (work or school) 24046.2813.27
A library injection vulnerability exists in the com.microsoft.teams2.modulehost.app helper app of Microsoft Teams (work
EUVD-2026-67036
GHSA-59ww-7vhf-hj2q
NVD
CVE.org
EPSS
VulDB
Exploit-DB