The Ruby SAML library vulnerable to a SAML authentication bypass via Incorrect XPath selector
Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.
The Ruby SAML library is for implementing the client side of a SAML authorization. Ruby-SAML in <= 12.2 and 1.13.0 <= 1.16.0 does not properly verify the signature of the SAML Response. An unauthenticated attacker with access to any signed… More
The Ruby SAML library is for implementing the client side of a SAML authorization. Ruby-SAML in <= 12.2 and 1.13.0 <= 1.16.0 does not properly verify the signature of the SAML Response. An unauthenticated attacker with access to any signed saml document (by the IdP) can thus forge a SAML Response/Assertion with arbitrary contents. This would allow the attacker to log in as arbitrary user within the vulnerable system. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.17.0 and 1.12.3.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 3.1Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality and integrity, and the impact can reach components beyond the vulnerable one.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- ScopeThe attack can spread beyond the vulnerable component to other parts of the system.Changed
- Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.High
- Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.High
- Availability impactThe component keeps working normally.None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:NPublic exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.
Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.
A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.
Public exploits
None foundNo exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.
Timeline
- 2024-09-10CVE publishedCVE List
- 2024-11-12F5 ships a ruleGitlab SAML Authentication Bypass
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
First rule 2024-11-12, 63 days after the CVE was published.
Added: signature 200014040 "Gitlab SAML Authentication Bypass" (Abuse of Functionality, risk High), systems: Other Web Server, Ruby. References: CVE-2024-45409.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.