dbcve.org
Jose4jApplication · Jose4j Project

CVE-2023-31582

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2023-10-25
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 0.9.3 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
jose4j before v0.9.3 allows attackers to set a low iteration count of 1000 or less.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · moderate confidence

The jose4j library before v0.9.3 fails to enforce minimum iteration counts in key derivation operations (likely PBKDF2). Attackers can specify iteration counts of 1000 or less, severely weakening cryptographic protection and enabling brute-force attacks against encrypted data or tokens.

MitigationUpgrade jose4j to v0.9.3 or later which enforces proper minimum iteration counts; also validate iteration counts in application code before using them in cryptographic operations.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.

NVD · CPE data
Jose4jApplication
Affected:< 0.9.3

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Locate jose4j library in your project
    Search for jose4j JAR files in your application deployment, or check your build configuration (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or similar) for the jose4j dependency
    Affected if jose4j version is present and is below 0.9.3
  2. Determine installed jose4j version
    Check the exact version of jose4j in your dependency management system or examine the JAR file manifest for the version attribute
    Affected if The version number is lower than 0.9.3
  3. Identify key derivation usage in your code
    Search your codebase for uses of PBKDF2, PBE (Password-Based Encryption), or the KeyDerivationFunction class from jose4j. Look for code that processes passwords or secrets for encryption or token signing
    Affected if Your application uses jose4j's key derivation features to derive cryptographic keys from passwords
  4. Inspect iteration count configuration
    Review any code paths where iteration counts are specified for PBKDF2 or similar key derivation operations. Check configuration files or API calls where iteration counts can be set
    Affected if Iteration counts can be externally specified or configured and are not validated to exceed 1000

You are affected if jose4j version 0.9.3 or earlier is in use AND your application leverages jose4j's key derivation functions with configurable iteration counts that could be set to 1000 or below.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

dbcve · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 0.9.3 or later
Fixed in 0.9.3
Interim mitigation

Upgrade jose4j to v0.9.3 or later which enforces proper minimum iteration counts; also validate iteration counts in application code before using them in cryptographic operations.

Recommended fix High confidence

jose4j 0.9.3

  1. Identify the build system used for the project (Maven, Gradle, or direct JAR dependency)
  2. For Maven: Update the jose4j dependency in pom.xml to version 0.9.3 or later by changing the version tag
  3. For Gradle: Update the jose4j dependency in build.gradle to version 0.9.3 or later
  4. For manual JAR management: Replace the existing jose4j JAR with version 0.9.3 or later from Maven Central or the official distribution
  5. Run dependency resolution to confirm the correct version is pulled
  6. Rebuild the application and run tests to ensure functionality is maintained

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Jose4j Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
12.0 hours of engineering $2,130
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,408.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-31582 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-31582 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data