Affected versions of Idna are vulnerable to Denial Of Service via the idna.encode(), where a specially crafted argument could lead to significant resource consumption. In version 3.7, this function has been updated to reject such inputs efficiently, minimizing resource use. A practical workaround involves enforcing a maximum domain name length of 253 characters before encoding, as the vulnerability is triggered by unusually large inputs that normal operations wouldn't encounter.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Py 1.10.0 includes a fix for CVE-2020-29651: A denial of service via regular expression in the py.path.svnwc component of py (aka python-py) through 1.9.0 could be used by attackers to cause a compute-time denial of service attack by supplying malicious input to the blame functionality.

PyJWT 2.4.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-29217: An attacker submitting the JWT token can choose the used signing algorithm. The PyJWT library requires that the application chooses what algorithms are supported. The application can specify 'jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' to get support for all algorithms, or specify a single algorithm. The issue is not that big as 'algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' has to be used. As a workaround, always be explicit with the algorithms that are accepted and expected when decoding.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. The library does not validate the `crit` (Critical) Header Parameter as required by RFC 7515 §4.1.11 — when a JWT contains a `crit` array listing extensions that the library does not understand, the token is accepted instead of rejected. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by crafting JWTs with unknown critical extensions (e.g., MFA requirements, token binding, scope restrictions) that are silently ignored, potentially bypassing security policies or causing split-brain verification in mixed-library deployments where other RFC-compliant libraries would reject the same token.

Affected versions of Idna are vulnerable to Denial Of Service via the idna.encode(), where a specially crafted argument could lead to significant resource consumption. In version 3.7, this function has been updated to reject such inputs efficiently, minimizing resource use. A practical workaround involves enforcing a maximum domain name length of 253 characters before encoding, as the vulnerability is triggered by unusually large inputs that normal operations wouldn't encounter.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Py 1.10.0 includes a fix for CVE-2020-29651: A denial of service via regular expression in the py.path.svnwc component of py (aka python-py) through 1.9.0 could be used by attackers to cause a compute-time denial of service attack by supplying malicious input to the blame functionality.

PyJWT 2.4.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-29217: An attacker submitting the JWT token can choose the used signing algorithm. The PyJWT library requires that the application chooses what algorithms are supported. The application can specify 'jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' to get support for all algorithms, or specify a single algorithm. The issue is not that big as 'algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' has to be used. As a workaround, always be explicit with the algorithms that are accepted and expected when decoding.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. The library does not validate the `crit` (Critical) Header Parameter as required by RFC 7515 §4.1.11 — when a JWT contains a `crit` array listing extensions that the library does not understand, the token is accepted instead of rejected. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by crafting JWTs with unknown critical extensions (e.g., MFA requirements, token binding, scope restrictions) that are silently ignored, potentially bypassing security policies or causing split-brain verification in mixed-library deployments where other RFC-compliant libraries would reject the same token.

Affected versions of Idna are vulnerable to Denial Of Service via the idna.encode(), where a specially crafted argument could lead to significant resource consumption. In version 3.7, this function has been updated to reject such inputs efficiently, minimizing resource use. A practical workaround involves enforcing a maximum domain name length of 253 characters before encoding, as the vulnerability is triggered by unusually large inputs that normal operations wouldn't encounter.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Py 1.10.0 includes a fix for CVE-2020-29651: A denial of service via regular expression in the py.path.svnwc component of py (aka python-py) through 1.9.0 could be used by attackers to cause a compute-time denial of service attack by supplying malicious input to the blame functionality.

PyJWT 2.4.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-29217: An attacker submitting the JWT token can choose the used signing algorithm. The PyJWT library requires that the application chooses what algorithms are supported. The application can specify 'jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' to get support for all algorithms, or specify a single algorithm. The issue is not that big as 'algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' has to be used. As a workaround, always be explicit with the algorithms that are accepted and expected when decoding.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. The library does not validate the `crit` (Critical) Header Parameter as required by RFC 7515 §4.1.11 — when a JWT contains a `crit` array listing extensions that the library does not understand, the token is accepted instead of rejected. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by crafting JWTs with unknown critical extensions (e.g., MFA requirements, token binding, scope restrictions) that are silently ignored, potentially bypassing security policies or causing split-brain verification in mixed-library deployments where other RFC-compliant libraries would reject the same token.

Affected versions of Idna are vulnerable to Denial Of Service via the idna.encode(), where a specially crafted argument could lead to significant resource consumption. In version 3.7, this function has been updated to reject such inputs efficiently, minimizing resource use. A practical workaround involves enforcing a maximum domain name length of 253 characters before encoding, as the vulnerability is triggered by unusually large inputs that normal operations wouldn't encounter.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Py 1.10.0 includes a fix for CVE-2020-29651: A denial of service via regular expression in the py.path.svnwc component of py (aka python-py) through 1.9.0 could be used by attackers to cause a compute-time denial of service attack by supplying malicious input to the blame functionality.

PyJWT 2.4.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-29217: An attacker submitting the JWT token can choose the used signing algorithm. The PyJWT library requires that the application chooses what algorithms are supported. The application can specify 'jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' to get support for all algorithms, or specify a single algorithm. The issue is not that big as 'algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' has to be used. As a workaround, always be explicit with the algorithms that are accepted and expected when decoding.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. The library does not validate the `crit` (Critical) Header Parameter as required by RFC 7515 §4.1.11 — when a JWT contains a `crit` array listing extensions that the library does not understand, the token is accepted instead of rejected. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by crafting JWTs with unknown critical extensions (e.g., MFA requirements, token binding, scope restrictions) that are silently ignored, potentially bypassing security policies or causing split-brain verification in mixed-library deployments where other RFC-compliant libraries would reject the same token.

Affected versions of Idna are vulnerable to Denial Of Service via the idna.encode(), where a specially crafted argument could lead to significant resource consumption. In version 3.7, this function has been updated to reject such inputs efficiently, minimizing resource use. A practical workaround involves enforcing a maximum domain name length of 253 characters before encoding, as the vulnerability is triggered by unusually large inputs that normal operations wouldn't encounter.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Py 1.10.0 includes a fix for CVE-2020-29651: A denial of service via regular expression in the py.path.svnwc component of py (aka python-py) through 1.9.0 could be used by attackers to cause a compute-time denial of service attack by supplying malicious input to the blame functionality.

PyJWT 2.4.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-29217: An attacker submitting the JWT token can choose the used signing algorithm. The PyJWT library requires that the application chooses what algorithms are supported. The application can specify 'jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' to get support for all algorithms, or specify a single algorithm. The issue is not that big as 'algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' has to be used. As a workaround, always be explicit with the algorithms that are accepted and expected when decoding.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. The library does not validate the `crit` (Critical) Header Parameter as required by RFC 7515 §4.1.11 — when a JWT contains a `crit` array listing extensions that the library does not understand, the token is accepted instead of rejected. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by crafting JWTs with unknown critical extensions (e.g., MFA requirements, token binding, scope restrictions) that are silently ignored, potentially bypassing security policies or causing split-brain verification in mixed-library deployments where other RFC-compliant libraries would reject the same token.

Affected versions of Idna are vulnerable to Denial Of Service via the idna.encode(), where a specially crafted argument could lead to significant resource consumption. In version 3.7, this function has been updated to reject such inputs efficiently, minimizing resource use. A practical workaround involves enforcing a maximum domain name length of 253 characters before encoding, as the vulnerability is triggered by unusually large inputs that normal operations wouldn't encounter.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Py 1.10.0 includes a fix for CVE-2020-29651: A denial of service via regular expression in the py.path.svnwc component of py (aka python-py) through 1.9.0 could be used by attackers to cause a compute-time denial of service attack by supplying malicious input to the blame functionality.

PyJWT 2.4.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-29217: An attacker submitting the JWT token can choose the used signing algorithm. The PyJWT library requires that the application chooses what algorithms are supported. The application can specify 'jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' to get support for all algorithms, or specify a single algorithm. The issue is not that big as 'algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' has to be used. As a workaround, always be explicit with the algorithms that are accepted and expected when decoding.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. The library does not validate the `crit` (Critical) Header Parameter as required by RFC 7515 §4.1.11 — when a JWT contains a `crit` array listing extensions that the library does not understand, the token is accepted instead of rejected. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by crafting JWTs with unknown critical extensions (e.g., MFA requirements, token binding, scope restrictions) that are silently ignored, potentially bypassing security policies or causing split-brain verification in mixed-library deployments where other RFC-compliant libraries would reject the same token.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

PyJWT 2.4.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-29217: An attacker submitting the JWT token can choose the used signing algorithm. The PyJWT library requires that the application chooses what algorithms are supported. The application can specify 'jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' to get support for all algorithms, or specify a single algorithm. The issue is not that big as 'algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' has to be used. As a workaround, always be explicit with the algorithms that are accepted and expected when decoding.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. The library does not validate the `crit` (Critical) Header Parameter as required by RFC 7515 §4.1.11 — when a JWT contains a `crit` array listing extensions that the library does not understand, the token is accepted instead of rejected. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by crafting JWTs with unknown critical extensions (e.g., MFA requirements, token binding, scope restrictions) that are silently ignored, potentially bypassing security policies or causing split-brain verification in mixed-library deployments where other RFC-compliant libraries would reject the same token.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

PyJWT 2.4.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-29217: An attacker submitting the JWT token can choose the used signing algorithm. The PyJWT library requires that the application chooses what algorithms are supported. The application can specify 'jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' to get support for all algorithms, or specify a single algorithm. The issue is not that big as 'algorithms=jwt.algorithms.get_default_algorithms()' has to be used. As a workaround, always be explicit with the algorithms that are accepted and expected when decoding.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. The library does not validate the `crit` (Critical) Header Parameter as required by RFC 7515 §4.1.11 — when a JWT contains a `crit` array listing extensions that the library does not understand, the token is accepted instead of rejected. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by crafting JWTs with unknown critical extensions (e.g., MFA requirements, token binding, scope restrictions) that are silently ignored, potentially bypassing security policies or causing split-brain verification in mixed-library deployments where other RFC-compliant libraries would reject the same token.