CVE Intelligence
Critical Cryptography exploit reference

CVE-2025-25292 — Ruby SAML vulnerable to SAML authentication bypass due to namespace handling (parser differential)

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 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.

Published Mar 12, 2025 · Updated Oct 14, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP, GitHub Security Advisories · CNA: GitHub_M

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 65.1% (30-day exploitation probability)+15
  • Technical severity (critical)+10
  • Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

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

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
65.09%
ahead of 99% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Netapp
Storagegrid and 2 more
CVSS base
9.8
Critical · 4 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

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

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

  • Documented patch — about.gitlab.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
  • Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
  • Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
  • Rubygems Ruby-saml: fixed in version 1.18.0 — github.com (GitHub Security Advisories)
  • Rubygems Ruby-saml: fixed in version 1.12.4 — github.com (GitHub Security Advisories)

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Netapp Storagegrid, Omniauth Omniauth Saml, Onelogin Ruby-saml…).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
  4. EPSS ahead of 99% of scored CVEs: prioritize it in the patch queue.
  5. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (cryptography), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Netapp Storagegrid versions not specified by the source Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Omniauth Omniauth Saml < 1.10.6≥ 2.0.0 and < 2.1.3≥ 2.2.0 and < 2.2.3 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Onelogin Ruby-saml < 1.12.4≥ 1.13.0 and < 1.18.0 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
SAML-Toolkits Ruby-saml version < 1.12.4version >= 1.13.0, < 1.18.0 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
Rubygems Ruby-saml ≥ 1.13.0 and < 1.18.0< 1.12.4 Vulnerable GitHub Security Advisories

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

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

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
9.3 CVSS 4.0 Critical — — security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
9.3 CVSS 4.0 Critical — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
9.8 CVSS 3.1 Critical 3.9 5.9 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
9.8 CVSS 3.1 Critical — — GitHub, Inc. via GitHub Security Advisories
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-347 · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 14, 2026 → Oct 15, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 65.09%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Check TLS negotiations and unexpected certificates in the component’s traffic.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 14, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisories
  • Affected products added · rubygems/ruby-saml
    Oct 14, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisories
  • Affected products added · saml-toolkits/ruby-saml
    Oct 14, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 14, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 14, 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 14, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Affected products added · omniauth/omniauth saml, onelogin/ruby-saml, netapp/storagegrid
    Oct 14, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 9.8
    Oct 14, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Modified
    Oct 14, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 14, 2026 · Alertas do Telegram
  • 2025
  • CVE published
    Mar 12, 2025 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 2× References added · Oct 14, 2026 – Oct 14, 2026
  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 14, 2026 – Oct 14, 2026

References

17 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Netapp
every CVE for this vendor
Cryptography
same class
CWE-347
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-22056 CVE-2026-22056 Denial of Service Vulnerability in StorageGRID (formerly StorageGRID Webscale) Aug 28, 2026
  • CVE-2026-22051 Exposure of Sensitive Information in Netapp Storagegrid Apr 20, 2026
  • CVE-2025-66567 ruby-saml has a SAML authentication bypass due to namespace handling (parser differential) Dec 9, 2025
  • CVE-2025-66568 ruby-saml Libxml2 Canonicalization errors can bypass Digest/Signature validation Dec 9, 2025
  • CVE-2022-37434 zlib through 1.2.12 has a heap-based buffer over-read or buffer overflow in inflate in inflate.c... Aug 5, 2022
  • CVE-2022-0778 Infinite loop in BN_mod_sqrt() reachable when parsing certificates Mar 15, 2022

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.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2025-25292 is "Ruby SAML vulnerable to SAML authentication bypass due to namespace handling (parser differential)", rated Critical. It affects Storagegrid (Netapp); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 9.8 describes technical severity. EPSS 65.09% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.