Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 0.88% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceRed Hat · Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
Official source article: Red Hat RHSA-2024:3267 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Alpine, Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 1 affected package state shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpine v3.23v3.23 · community | py3-jwcrypto | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 1.5.1-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 11 Sep 2026 |
| Alpine v3.22v3.22 · community | py3-jwcrypto | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 1.5.1-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 11 Sep 2026 |
| Alpine v3.21v3.21 · community | py3-jwcrypto | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 1.5.1-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 19 Aug 2026 |
| Debian trixietrixie · source | python-jwcrypto | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.5.4-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | python-jwcrypto | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | python-jwcrypto | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.5.4-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | python-jwcrypto | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.5.4-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | python-jwcrypto | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by productA vulnerability was found in JWCrypto. This flaw allows an attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) attack and possible password brute-force and dictionary attacks to be more resource-intensive. This issue can result in a large amount of computational consumption, causing a denial of service attack.
A vulnerability was found in JWCrypto. This flaw allows an attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) attack and possible password brute-force and dictionary attacks to be more resource-intensive. This issue can result in a large amount of computational consumption, causing a denial of service attack.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
A vulnerability was found in JWCrypto. This flaw allows an attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) attack and possible password brute-force and dictionary attacks to be more resource-intensive. This issue can result in a large amount of computational consumption, causing a denial of service attack.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption. The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:LCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 12 Feb 2024 · Last source change 26 Feb 2026, 20:34 UTC · CWE-400 · Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Missing structured fields: affected versions. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.