JOSE is JSON Web Almost Everything - JWA, JWS, JWE, JWT, JWK, JWKS with no dependencies using runtimes native crypto in Node.js, Browser, Cloudflare Workers, Electron, and Deno. The PBKDF2-based JWE key management algorithms expect a JOSE Header Parameter named p2c PBES2 Count, which determines how many PBKDF2 iterations must be executed in order to derive a CEK wrapping key. The purpose of this parameter is to intentionally slow down the key derivation function in order to make password brute-force and dictionary attacks more expensive. This makes the PBES2 algorithms unsuitable for situations where the JWE is coming from an untrusted source: an adversary can intentionally pick an extremely high PBES2 Count value, that will initiate a CPU-bound computation that may take an unreasonable amount of time to finish. Under certain conditions, it is possible to have the users environment consume unreasonable amount of CPU time. The impact is limited only to users utilizing the JWE decryption APIs with symmetric secrets to decrypt JWEs from untrusted parties who do not limit the accepted JWE Key Management Algorithms (alg Header Parameter) using the keyManagementAlgorithms (or algorithms in v1.x) decryption option or through other means. The v1.28.2, v2.0.6, v3.20.4, and v4.9.2 releases limit the maximum PBKDF2 iteration count to 10000 by default. It is possible to adjust this limit with a newly introduced maxPBES2Count decryption option. If users are unable to upgrade their required library version, they have two options depending on whether they expect to receive JWEs using any of the three PBKDF2-based JWE key management algorithms. They can use the keyManagementAlgorithms decryption option to disable accepting PBKDF2 altogether, or they can inspect the JOSE Header prior to using the decryption API and limit the PBKDF2 iteration count (p2c Header Parameter).
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource, thereby enabling an actor to influence the amount of resources consumed, eventually leading to the exhaustion of available resources.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jose | Jose_project | 1.0.0 (including) | 1.28.2 (excluding) |
| Jose | Jose_project | 2.0.0 (including) | 2.0.6 (excluding) |
| Jose | Jose_project | 3.0.0 (including) | 3.20.4 (excluding) |
| Jose | Jose_project | 4.0.0 (including) | 4.9.2 (excluding) |
| Jose | Ubuntu | kinetic | * |
| Jose | Ubuntu | lunar | * |
| Jose | Ubuntu | mantic | * |
| Jose | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
| Jose | Ubuntu | xenial | * |
| Node-jose | Ubuntu | esm-apps/jammy | * |
| Node-jose | Ubuntu | jammy | * |
| Node-jose | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
| Node-jose | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
| Node-jose | Ubuntu | xenial | * |
Limited resources include memory, file system storage, database connection pool entries, and CPU. If an attacker can trigger the allocation of these limited resources, but the number or size of the resources is not controlled, then the attacker could cause a denial of service that consumes all available resources. This would prevent valid users from accessing the product, and it could potentially have an impact on the surrounding environment. For example, a memory exhaustion attack against an application could slow down the application as well as its host operating system. There are at least three distinct scenarios which can commonly lead to resource exhaustion:
Resource exhaustion problems are often result due to an incorrect implementation of the following situations:
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.