CVE-2023-50966
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 · uneditederlang-jose (aka JOSE for Erlang and Elixir) through 1.11.6 allow attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via a large p2c (aka PBES2 Count) value in a JOSE header.
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 · high confidenceThe erlang-jose library (versions through 1.11.6) lacks proper validation of the p2c (PBES2 Count) parameter in JOSE headers. Attackers can specify an extremely large iteration count value, which causes excessive CPU consumption during key derivation, resulting in denial of service.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify erlang-jose library versionRun 'rebar3 deps' or check your application's dependency lock file (rebar.lock or Mix.lock) for the erlang-jose version. In Erlang, you can also run 'application:which_applications()' or query the vsn via 'erlang-jose' module if loaded.Affected if The installed version is 1.11.6 or any earlier version through 1.0.0, as all these versions lack p2c validation.
-
Confirm PBES2 encryption is in useReview your application code and configuration for usage of PBES2 algorithms (PBES2-HS256, PBES2-HS384, PBES2-HS512) or look for 'p2c' or 'p2s' parameters in JOSE headers being processed.Affected if Your application processes JOSE tokens using PBES2 password-based encryption, as p2c only applies to this encryption scheme.
-
Inspect incoming JOSE headers for p2c valuesLog or capture JOSE token headers being parsed by erlang-jose, specifically looking for the 'p2c' header field. If you have logging enabled, check for tokens that include this parameter.Affected if Any JOSE token processed by your application contains a p2c parameter with an excessively large iteration count value.
-
Monitor CPU usage during key derivationIf PBES2 is in use, observe CPU consumption when processing tokens with p2c parameters. Use system monitoring tools during token verification operations.Affected if Token processing causes unusually high or blocking CPU usage, indicating a potential p2c exhaustion attack.
You are affected if you run erlang-jose version 1.11.6 or earlier AND your application processes JOSE tokens using PBES2 encryption with attacker-controlled p2c values.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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.
From vendor dataImplement bounds checking on the p2c parameter to reject or cap unreasonably large values. Update to a patched version of erlang-jose when available, and consider implementing request timeouts or rate limiting as defense-in-depth.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-50966 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-50966 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
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.
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.
- 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