ZDF
Sign inSign up

Vulnerabilities

Vulnerability · CVE-2026-62374

SD JWT JS: Tampered disclosures silently dropped instead of rejected

Published Nov 2, 2026 · catalog updated Nov 2, 2026 · SD JWT JS: Tampered

Last checked Nov 7, 2026. A connected source was read within the last 7 days.

Check if you run it

No confirmed exploitation is on record for CVE-2026-62374. EPSS is 0.23%. Act only if a listed version of SD JWT JS: Tampered is installed.

Gaps on this record

  • The stored product name is a package slug. The name on this page is taken from the title (SD JWT JS: Tampered).
  • No vendor fix or required action is stored. Compare the linked advisory before you change production.
Severity
High—
Known exploitation
Not in CISA/VulnCheck KEV
EPSS
0.23%
Remediation
Version ranges on file
Affected products
npm @sd-jwt · npm @sd-jwt/core · npm @sd-jwt/decode

## Summary When one Disclosure in an SD-JWT presentation is tampered so its digest no longer matches the Issuer-signed array, 0.19.0 does **not** reject the presentation. It silently drops the unmatched Disclosure and returns a **reduced claim set**, reporting success. The Issuer signature is untouched and valid. This is a downgrade/omission primitive. A malicious or curious **holder** can present a tampered Disclosure and have the relying party receive *fewer* claims than the credential carries, with no error surfaced. Where the relying party does **not** enforce key binding, an **in-transit (on-path) attacker** can achieve the same by mangling one Disclosure's bytes; where key binding **is** enforced, on-path tampering instead breaks the holder's KB-JWT binding (so it is rejected), and the downgrade is then exercisable by the key-bound holder — confirmed end-to-end with KB required. Two distinct tampering inputs converge on the same silent-drop sink: 1. **Genuinely non-decodable Disclosure** (broken base64url -> bytes that are not valid UTF-8, e.g. an injected lead byte). RFC 9901 §7.1 step 3 / §4.2.1 require rejection. instead **lossy-decodes** it: the / path substitutes U+FFFD (REPLACEMENT CHARACTER) for the invalid byte and recovers a syntactically valid disclosure (the gains a U+FFFD, claim = ). The recovered Disclosure then hashes to a digest **absent** from the signed array, so it is silently skipped. 2. **Tampered-but-still-valid-JSON Disclosure** (digest no longer matches ): same end state — the unmatched Disclosure is silently skipped. Two RFC 9901 MUSTs compound: - **§7.1 step 5 (primary):** "If any Disclosure was not referenced by digest value in the Issuer-signed JWT (directly or recursively via other Disclosures), the SD-JWT MUST be rejected." — instead silently dropped. - **§7.1 step 3 / §4.2.1 (secondary):** a non-base64url-JSON Disclosure MUST be rejected — the lenient lossy decode skips this check. Confirmed end-to-end through with a real ES256 is

Are you affected?

Enter the version you run. The result uses only the ranges stored on this record.

The check returns affected, not affected, or incomplete. It does not guess a version that is missing from the record.

  • npm @sd-jwtversion unspecified
  • npm @sd-jwt/core<= 0.19.0
  • npm @sd-jwt/decode<= 0.19.0

How to fix CVE-2026-62374

What to do

Three questions, each answered from this record only. Confirm the vendor advisory before you patch.

Should you patch?

No confirmed exploitation is on record for CVE-2026-62374. EPSS is 0.23%. Act only if a listed version of SD JWT JS: Tampered is installed.

Which versions are affected?

Compare what you have installed with <= 0.19.0. Compare the installed version with the linked vendor advisory before you change production.

What should an analyst verify?

CWE-176. EPSS 0.23%. There is no CISA KEV listing. No Exploit-DB or Metasploit reference is linked. Use the source links for the original advisory.

Code

The project this record applies to. Exploit listings stay in References.

Timeline

Detection, updates, and resolution for this record.

  1. Nov 2, 2026 · GitHub Advisory Database

    Detected

    ## Summary When one Disclosure in an SD-JWT presentation is tampered so its digest no longer matches the Issuer-signed array, 0.19.0 does **not** reject the presentation. It silently drops the unmatched Disclosure and returns a **reduced claim set**, reporting success. The Issuer signature is untouched and valid. This is a downgrade/omission primitive. A malicious or curious **holder** can present

  2. Nov 2, 2026 · GitHub Advisory Database

    Updated

    ## Summary When one Disclosure in an SD-JWT presentation is tampered so its digest no longer matches the Issuer-signed array, 0.19.0 does **not** reject the presentation. It silently drops the unmatched Disclosure and returns a **reduced claim set**, reporting success. The Issuer signature is untouched and valid. This is a downgrade/omission primitive. A malicious or curious **holder** can present

Sources

  • CVE.orgVulnerability recordCVE-2026-62374

    Official CVE identifier

    cve.org
  • GitHub Advisory DatabasePackage advisoryGHSA-f9j6-8p6x-r9j6

    SD JWT JS: Tampered disclosures silently dropped instead of rejected

    github.com
  • GitLab Advisory DatabasePackage advisoryCVE-2026-62374

    When one Disclosure in an SD-JWT presentation is tampered so its digest no longer matches the Issuer-signed _sd array, @sd-jwt/decode 0.19.0 does not reject the presentation. It silently drops the unmatched Disclosure and returns a reduced claim set, reporting success. The Issuer signature is untouched and valid. This is a downgrade/omission primitive. A malicious or curious holder can present a t

    advisories.gitlab.com
  • Tenable CVE DatabaseVulnerability recordCVE-2026-62374

    SD JWT JS is a JavaScript implementation of the Selective Disclosure JWT (SD-JWT) specification. In version 0.19.0 and earlier, , also used by , silently drops a tampered Disclosure whose digest no longer matches the Issuer-signed 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 co

    tenable.com

References

Freshness

Last verified in this catalog Nov 6, 2026. Significant claims (KEV, EPSS, CVSS, affected ranges) come from the source rows above — open the original publisher for the authoritative advisory.

  • GitHub Advisory DatabaseNov 7, 2026
  • GitLab Advisory DatabaseNov 6, 2026
  • Tenable CVE DatabaseNov 4, 2026
  • CVE.orgNov 4, 2026