Skip to content

lightrag-hku: JWT Algorithm Confusion Vulnerability

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 7, 2026 in HKUDS/LightRAG • Updated May 9, 2026

Package

pip lightrag-hku (pip)

Affected versions

<= 1.4.13

Patched versions

1.4.14

Description

Summary

The LightRAG API is vulnerable to a JWT algorithm confusion attack where an attacker can forge tokens by specifying 'alg': 'none' in the JWT header. Since the jwt.decode() call does not explicitly deny the 'none' algorithm, a crafted token without a signature will be accepted as valid, leading to unauthorized access.

Details

In lightrag/api/auth.py at line 128, the validate_token method calls:

payload = jwt.decode(token, self.secret, algorithms=[self.algorithm])

This allows any algorithm listed in the token's header to be processed, including 'none'. The code does not explicitly specify that 'none' is not allowed, making it possible for an attacker to bypass authentication.

PoC

An attacker can generate a JWT with the following structure:

{
  "header": {
    "alg": "none",
    "typ": "JWT"
  },
  "payload": {
    "sub": "admin",
    "exp": 1700000000,
    "role": "admin"
  }
}

Then send a request like:

curl -H "Authorization: Bearer eyJhbGciOiJub25lIiwidHlwIjoiSldUIn0.eyJzdWIiOiJhZG1pbiIsImV4cCI6MTcwMDAwMDAwMCwicm9sZSI6ImFkbWluIn0." http://localhost:8000/api/protected-endpoint

Impact

An attacker can impersonate any user, including administrators, by forging a JWT with 'alg': 'none', gaining full access to protected resources without needing valid credentials.

Recommended Fix

Explicitly specify allowed algorithms and exclude 'none'. Modify the validate_token method to:

allowed_algorithms = [self.algorithm] if self.algorithm != 'none' else ['HS256', 'HS384', 'HS512']
payload = jwt.decode(token, self.secret, algorithms=allowed_algorithms)

Or better yet, hardcode the expected algorithm(s):

payload = jwt.decode(token, self.secret, algorithms=['HS256'])

References

@danielaskdd danielaskdd published to HKUDS/LightRAG Apr 7, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Apr 8, 2026
Reviewed Apr 8, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Apr 8, 2026
Last updated May 9, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
High
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(5th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-39413

GHSA ID

GHSA-8ffj-4hx4-9pgf

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.