Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 0.22% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-75759High confidence
Encrypted ID token or JARM response accepted without a nested signature in erlef oidcc
erlef · oidcc
7.6HighCVSS 4.0
Within 7 days
Patch availableHigh technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:Critical, raised one band.upgradedsince 31 Aug 2026
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs erlef oidcc and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
High technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability in erlef oidcc allows an unauthenticated attacker to impersonate an arbitrary user via an encrypted ID token or JARM response carrying no nested signature. OpenID Connect Core 1.0 section 2 requires that an encrypted ID token be signed then encrypted, with the result being a Nested JWT, and JARM processing rule 5 requires the client to check the signature unconditionally. oidcc instead accepted a JWE wrapping unsigned claims as fully validated, so anyone holding the relying party's public encryption key could mint a token with an arbitrary sub, iss, and aud without possessing the provider's signing key. In oidcc_jwt_util:verify_decrypted_token/4, a decrypted payload that is not a signed JWS fell back to parsing the plaintext claims and returning them with no verifying key. oidcc_token:int_validate_jwt/4 then matched on the JOSE structure type rather than on whether a signature had been verified, and returned success. The JARM path in oidcc_token:validate_jarm/3 is reachable through the browser front channel. UserInfo responses are not affected, because OpenID Connect Core 1.0 section 5.3.2 permits them to be encrypted without also being signed. This issue affects oidcc: from 3.2.0-beta.1 before 3.9.0.
What
Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability in erlef oidcc allows an unauthenticated attacker to impersonate an arbitrary user via an encrypted ID token or JARM response carrying no nested signature. OpenID Connect Core 1.0 section 2 requires that an encrypted ID token be signed then encrypted, with the result being a Nested JWT, and JARM processing rule 5 requires the client to check the signature unconditionally. oidcc instead accepted a JWE wrapping unsigned claims as fully validated, so anyone holding the relying party's public encryption key could mint a token with an arbitrary sub, iss, and aud without possessing the provider's signing key. In oidcc_jwt_util:verify_decrypted_token/4, a decrypted payload that is not a signed JWS fell back to parsing the plaintext claims and returning them with no verifying key. oidcc_token:int_validate_jwt/4 then matched on the JOSE structure type rather than on whether a signature had been verified, and returned success. The JARM path in oidcc_token:validate_jarm/3 is reachable through the browser front channel. UserInfo responses are not affected, because OpenID Connect Core 1.0 section 5.3.2 permits them to be encrypted without also being signed. This issue affects oidcc: from 3.2.0-beta.1 before 3.9.0.
Why
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability in erlef oidcc allows an unauthenticated attacker to impersonate an arbitrary user via an encrypted ID token or JARM response carrying no nested signature. OpenID Connect Core 1.0 section 2 requires that an encrypted ID token be signed then encrypted, with the result being a Nested JWT, and JARM processing rule 5 requires the client to check the signature unconditionally. oidcc instead accepted a JWE wrapping unsigned claims as fully validated, so anyone holding the relying party's public encryption key could mint a token with an arbitrary sub, iss, and aud without possessing the provider's signing key. In oidcc_jwt_util:verify_decrypted_token/4, a decrypted payload that is not a signed JWS fell back to parsing the plaintext claims and returning them with no verifying key. oidcc_token:int_validate_jwt/4 then matched on the JOSE structure type rather than on whether a signature had been verified, and returned success. The JARM path in oidcc_token:validate_jarm/3 is reachable through the browser front channel. UserInfo responses are not affected, because OpenID Connect Core 1.0 section 5.3.2 permits them to be encrypted without also being signed. This issue affects oidcc: from 3.2.0-beta.1 before 3.9.0.
Why
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material Reference recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Passive interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-347 ↗
CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature. The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATPresentAttack requirements: A particular deployment or execution condition must be present.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIPassiveUser interaction: A user must unknowingly interact with the vulnerable system.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 30 Aug 2026 · Last source change 31 Aug 2026, 14:53 UTC · CWE-347 · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-30
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-68145
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Public exploit evidencePublic exploit evidence changed from No public exploit to Public exploit reference.CVE.org ↗
- Before
- No public exploit
- After
- Public exploit reference
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-68145 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-68145"}
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- 3.2.0-beta.1 < 3.9.0; 37a1361f704889816db2873f72d744d63ec39568 < 5f62fbccdae8526ff62653b8901657a6c1400fd9 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- oidcc: 3.2.0-beta.1 < 3.9.0, 37a1361f704889816db2873f72d744d63ec39568 < 5f62fbccdae8526ff62653b8901657a6c1400fd9 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.