CVE-2026-49284GHSA-Q8R6-XJ3F-WRRM
SimpleSAMLphp SP accepts a response from an unexpected IdP when unsigned `Response/InResponseTo` is combined with a signed assertion lacking `SubjectConfirmationData/InResponseTo`
- Published
- Last modified
- Where the record stands: published, rejected by its publisher, or superseded by another id.What do these mean? →
- published
- Whether CISA lists it in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog: proof that attackers are using it.What do these mean? →
- Not listed in CISA KEV
- Fix
- Fixed in 2.4.7, 2.5.2
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
CISA's decision points: whether it is exploited, whether attacks can be automated, and how much control an attacker gets. Assessed (SSVC 2.0.3).What do these mean? →
- Exploitation: none
- Automatable: no
- Technical impact: partial
Summary
SimpleSAMLphp versions before 1.18.6 contain an information disclosure vulnerability. Prior to 2.4.7 and 2.5.2, SimpleSAMLphp's SAML SP ACS path does not enforce the IdP selected for an SP-initiated login when unsigned Response/InResponseTo is combined with a signed assertion lacking SubjectConfirmationData/InResponseTo, allowing a response issued by one trusted IdP to be bound to SP state created for another IdP and bypass flows that route users to a specific IdP, including deployments that set enable_unsolicited to false. This issue is fixed in versions 2.4.7 and 2.5.2.
Timeline
- CVE published
- CISA SSVC assessment
Exploitation: none · Automatable: no · Technical impact: partial
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- simplesamlphp simplesamlphp
fixed in 2.4.7; From 2.5.0-rc1 · fixed in 2.5.2
- simplesamlphp/simplesamlphpPackagist
From 2.5.0 · fixed in 2.5.2
- simplesamlphp/simplesamlphpPackagist
fixed in 2.4.7