CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
MEDIUM

CVE-2026-63761

CVE-2026-63761 — SurrealDB before 3.1.0 Algorithm Downgrade via ES512

SurrealDB before 3.1.0 silently substitutes the ES384 algorithm when a JWT access method is configured with ALGORITHM ES512 (DEFINE ACCESS ... TYPE JWT ALGORITHM ES512), because the underlying jsonwebtoken crate (v10.x) has no ES512 variant and the mapping defaults to ES384 without any error, warning, or log message. Users who supply the correct P-521 key for ES512 experience authentication handshake failures due to the curve mismatch with ES384 (which expects P-384), and tokens are rejected by external systems expecting genuine ES512 signatures. The flaw cannot be used to forge tokens or compromise data confidentiality or integrity, as ES384 remains cryptographically strong.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, VulnCheck

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

surrealdb

surrealdb

CVSS base

4.3

MEDIUM

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

surrealdb

Products (1)

surrealdb

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
4.3CVSS 3.1MEDIUM——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-327

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

  • T1036.001Masquerading: Invalid Code Signature
  • T1553.002Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.