CVE-2026-53776
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 · uneditedPerry before 0.5.1166 contains a JWT validation vulnerability that allows remote attackers to bypass token expiration by exploiting the unconditional setting of validate_exp = false in the verify_decode helper within the stdlib JWT verification path. Attackers in possession of a previously issued bearer token can present expired tokens to any jwt.verify() call and retain authenticated access indefinitely, bypassing force-expired sessions such as user logout or administrative revocation.
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 confidencePerry before 0.5.1166 contains a JWT validation flaw where the verify_decode helper unconditionally sets validate_exp=false, disabling token expiration checks. This allows attackers with previously issued bearer tokens to present expired tokens and retain authenticated access indefinitely, bypassing session revocation mechanisms like logout or administrative token revocation.
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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed Perry versionRun 'pip show perry' or 'pip list | grep -i perry' to identify the installed version numberAffected if The installed version is below 0.5.1166 (e.g., 0.5.1165, 0.5.1100, etc.)
-
Locate verify_decode usage in codebaseSearch source files for 'verify_decode' function calls using 'grep -r "verify_decode" .' or similar pattern matchingAffected if The verify_decode function is present and used in the codebase for JWT token processing
-
Check for validate_exp configurationExamine the verify_decode function implementation or its调用 site to see if validate_exp parameter is explicitly set to falseAffected if The code contains 'validate_exp = False' or 'validate_exp=False' when calling verify_decode or any JWT decoding routine
You are affected if Perry version is below 0.5.1166 AND the verify_decode helper is used for token validation with validate_exp disabled.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade to Perry version 0.5.1166 or later which implements proper token expiration validation in the verify_decode helper.
Perry >= 0.5.1166
- Upgrade Perry to version 0.5.1166 or later to resolve the JWT token expiration validation bypass vulnerability.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-53776 — 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-2026-53776 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