CVE-2026-114615

CRITICALNVD 9.19.1
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.

This critical-severity CVE scores 9.1 under NVD CVSS v3. EPSS exploit probability: 0.2% (11th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). GitHub Security Advisory CVSS 7.4 is lower than this score; a lower GitHub score revises it only when its advisory is newer than the CVE record's last change, and this advisory (published 2026-10-27) is not newer than that change (2026-10-29), so it does not.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from NVD CVSS v3
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3
Trending — Patch released this weekElevated

Also known asEUVD-2026-108514 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-7vr2-2fgp-9w7p (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

9.1EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • CISA's Vulnrichment rates exploitation as PoC; EchelonGraph holds no exploit-code reference for it
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 9.1Exploit: No code on recordExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

Authlib is a Python library which builds OAuth and OpenID Connect servers. From 1.3.1 until 1.9.0, OctKey.import_key() checks asymmetric-key markers only at byte zero while Authlib's PEM loaders accept leading whitespace, comments, or a byte-order mark. In deployments that use the documented mixed algorithm registry and already configure verification with PEM or certificate bytes containing such a prefix, an unauthenticated attacker who knows those same public-key bytes can use them as an HMAC secret and forge HS256 tokens with arbitrary identity or authorization claims. This is a bypass of the remediation for CVE-2024-37568. The module-level jwt object reaches OctKey.import_key() in authlib/jose/rfc7518/oct_key.py, where POSSIBLE_UNSAFE_KEYS fails to identify prefixed asymmetric key material. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.0.

CVSS v3
9.1
EG Score
9.1CRITICALmedium confidence
EG Risk
57
EG Risk 57/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity91% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 9.1 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation40% × 40%
EchelonGraph's fixed weight for EG-KEV Tier 3 (Elevated): a constant, not a probability.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.
Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
11th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (9.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
9.1 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
EG Likelihood
0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-01). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track* at medium mission impactTrack at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.

Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

October 22, 2026

Last Modified

October 29, 2026

Advisory Details (4)

Auto-updated Oct 22, 2026
🔬 Proof of concept available. Patch available. Sources: github, github_pr, github_commit, github_release.
GitHub release Patch Available

v1.9.0

Patch available: authlib/authlib v1.9.0

https://github.com/authlib/authlib/releases/tag/v1.9.0
GitHub commit Patch Available

commit e3bd41cb29dc (authlib/authlib)

Patch available: authlib/authlib v1.9.0 (contains commit e3bd41cb29dc)

https://github.com/authlib/authlib/commit/e3bd41cb29dcfee434453b135ffb487884baeedf
GitHub pull request Patch Available

fix(oauth): enforce JOSE key, scope, and audience validation

Patch available: authlib/authlib v1.9.0 (PR #945 merged 2026-10-09)

https://github.com/authlib/authlib/pull/945
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)🟡 PoC Available

Authlib: anchored startswith() asymmetric-key guard in OctKey.import_key is bypassed by any leading byte before -----BEGIN, re-enabling HS256 forgery from the public key (incomplete fix of CVE-2024-37568) · Advisory · authlib/authlib · GitHub

https://github.com/authlib/authlib/security/advisories/GHSA-7vr2-2fgp-9w7p

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-114615(3)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(3)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
redhatsatellite/foreman-mcp-server-rhel9:17932722762026-10-29redhat
redhatsatellite/foreman-mcp-server-rhel9:17932722792026-10-29redhat
pipauthlib @ 1.9.0 (fixes >= 1.3.1, <= 1.8.0)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
PyPI(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
authlib1.3.1 ... 1.8.0 (24 versions)
  • 1.3.1 up to 1.9.0: fixed in 1.9.0
—

Weakness Classification(2)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 19× in last 7d / 27× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-01 18:03 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-11-01 18:03 UTCVendor advisory
  3. 2026-11-01 18:03 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-7vr2-2fgp-9w7p · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.4
  4. 2026-11-01 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  5. 2026-11-01 07:59 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-7vr2-2fgp-9w7p · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.4
  6. 2026-11-01 07:59 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-31 17:06 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-31 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  9. 2026-10-30 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  10. 2026-10-30 16:05 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-29 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  12. 2026-10-29 15:07 UTCEG score recompute▲ 1.70
  13. 2026-10-29 15:06 UTCNVD updateCVSS v3 → 9.1 · severity → CRITICAL
  14. 2026-10-29 04:27 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-29 03:25 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-10-29 02:44 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-28 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  18. 2026-10-27 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  19. 2026-10-26 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  20. 2026-10-25 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  21. 2026-10-25 14:50 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-10-24 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  23. 2026-10-23 19:47 UTCEG score recompute
  24. 2026-10-23 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  25. 2026-10-22 22:28 UTCEG score recompute
Show 2 more
  1. 2026-10-22 21:27 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.4 HIGH
  2. 2026-10-22 21:25 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Related CVEs(same product + same vendor + same CWE)

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-114615?
CVE-2026-114615 is a critical-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 22, 2026. Authlib is a Python library which builds OAuth and OpenID Connect servers. From 1.3.1 until 1.9.0, OctKey.import_key() checks asymmetric-key markers only at byte zero while Authlib's PEM loaders accept leading whitespace, comments, or a byte-order mark. In deployments that use the documented mixed…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-114615 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-114615 was published on October 22, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 29, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-114615 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-114615 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (11th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-114615?
CVE-2026-114615 has a CVSS v3 base score of 9.1 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-114615?
A fix for CVE-2026-114615 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-114615 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-114615

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-114615?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs