CVE-2025-25292
Omniauth Saml ≤ 1.10.6
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-25292 is a critical-severity Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (CWE-347) vulnerability in Omniauth Omniauth Saml. Its CVSS base score is 9.3 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Supply Chain Compromise (T1195); ranked in the top 0.8% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SC-13 (Cryptographic Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
ruby-saml is a Ruby library that implements SAML-based single sign-on. CVE-2025-25292 is an authentication-bypass flaw present in all versions prior to 1.12.4 and 1.18.0. The root cause is a parser differential: the same XML document can produce structurally different trees when processed by ReXML versus Nokogiri, enabling a signature-wrapping attack that satisfies the library’s signature checks while substituting attacker-controlled assertions.
An unauthenticated network attacker who can reach a ruby-saml service provider can submit a crafted SAML response that passes signature validation yet asserts an arbitrary identity. Successful exploitation grants the attacker a valid session under the chosen identity, bypassing the intended SSO authentication entirely. The CVSS 9.3 score reflects the absence of required privileges or user interaction and the high impact on confidentiality and integrity.
Patches released in ruby-saml 1.12.4 and 1.18.0 normalize XML handling to eliminate the differential. Corresponding updates appear in dependent products such as GitLab 17.9.2, and the project’s commit history documents the specific changes that enforce consistent document structure before signature verification.
EPSS rose from a low baseline to a peak of 0.0548 on 2025-12-11 before receding, indicating measurable post-disclosure exploitation interest that warrants renewed attention for any still-unpatched deployments.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-6414
Vulnerability Data
ruby-saml provides security assertion markup language (SAML) single sign-on (SSO) for Ruby. An authentication bypass vulnerability was found in ruby-saml prior to versions 1.12.4 and 1.18.0 due to a parser differential. ReXML and Nokogiri parse XML differently, the parsers can…
more
generate entirely different document structures from the same XML input. That allows an attacker to be able to execute a Signature Wrapping attack. This issue may lead to authentication bypass. Versions 1.12.4 and 1.18.0 contain a patch for the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 14 hardening rules · 5 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover cases where two products interpret the same inputs or state transitions differently.
Requiring cryptographic protection mechanisms forces correct signature verification to be implemented for data protection.
Strict, consistently applied input validation reduces the chance that one product will accept data the other product rejects or interprets differently.
Mandating integrity verification tools directly requires proper cryptographic signature checking to detect unauthorized changes.
Applying security engineering principles during design can require unambiguous protocol and data-format specifications that eliminate divergent interpretations between products.
Protecting session authenticity requires correct verification of cryptographic signatures or equivalent mechanisms.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Digital signatures are explicitly cited to protect integrity of data-at-rest, so proper verification directly mitigates the weakness.
Digital signatures are explicitly cited to protect integrity of data-in-transit, so proper verification directly mitigates the weakness.
Secure SDLC practices directly reduce the chance of introducing parser or state-machine inconsistencies.
Correlating logs from multiple products can surface discrepancies caused by interpretation conflicts.
Runtime monitoring of software behavior can detect adverse outcomes stemming from differing interpretations.
Supplier risk assessments can identify products whose differing interpretations create systemic exposure.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect and correct cases where one component misinterprets another’s state or messages.
Establishing approved cryptographic solutions and usage practices lowers the probability that signature-verification steps will be omitted or incorrectly implemented.
Secure development lifecycle can require consistent interface contracts and canonicalization rules that reduce interpretation conflicts between components.
Explicit application security requirements can mandate unambiguous protocol and data-format specifications that prevent divergent interpretations.
Secure architecture principles include well-defined component boundaries and shared data models that limit conflicting state perceptions.
Secure coding standards can enforce canonical input handling and strict protocol compliance to avoid misinterpretation between products.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
- V-248574 YUM must be configured to prevent the installation of patches, service packs, device drivers, or OL 8 system components that have not been digitally signed using a certificate that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
- V-248575 OL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
Oracle Linux 9 (2 rules)
- V-271525 OL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. prevents CWE-347
- V-271523 OL 9 must check the GPG signature of locally installed software packages before installation. prevents CWE-347
RHEL 7 (2 rules)
- V-204447 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
- V-204448 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230264 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
RHEL 9 (1 rule)
- V-257822 RHEL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. prevents CWE-347