Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

xml-crypto Vulnerable to XML Signature Verification Bypass via DigestValue Comment

MonitorNot in CISA KEVCVE-2025-29775CWE-347

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 9 rule sources name it; Vercel blocks by default.

Edge rules
1/9
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
9.3
EPSS
—
Posts, 14d
02026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts2026-11-04: 0 posts
Published
2025-03-14

What it is

xml-crypto is an XML digital signature and encryption library for Node.js. An attacker may be able to exploit a vulnerability in versions prior to 6.0.1, 3.2.1, and 2.1.6 to bypass authentication or authorization mechanisms in systems that rely on xml-crypto for verifying signed XML documents. The vulnerability allows an attacker to modify a valid signed XML message in a way that still passes signature verification checks. For example, it could be used to alter critical identity or access control attributes, enabling an attacker to escalate privileges or impersonate another user. Users of versions 6.0.0 and prior should upgrade to version 6.0.1 to receive a fix. Those who are still using v2.x or v3.x should upgrade to patched versions 2.1.6 or 3.2.1, respectively.

Read the full descriptionShow less
From the CVE record · CVE-2025-29775 ↗
MonitorLast checked 2026-11-04

The risk

It is reachable over the network without credentials or any user interaction (CVSS 9.3). Exploitation in the wild is not established by CISA KEV.

Who is affected

Teams running node-saml xml-crypto (>= 4.0.0, < 6.0.1; >= 3.0.0, < 3.2.1; < 2.1.6). Prioritise internet-facing instances.

Next steps

  1. Apply the vendor's fix; the advisory lists the affected and fixed versions.
  2. Keep a WAF rule in place while you patch: Vercel blocks it by default. A WAF rule reduces exposure; it does not replace the patch. Edge coverage
  3. Check which WAF sits in front of your site and whether it covers this CVE. Check your domain

Attack traffic on Cloudflare

Cloudflare Radar
  • Broken Authentication14% of mitigated layer 7 attacks, 7 days2026-10-07: 5.3%2026-10-08: 4.3%2026-10-09: 5.1%2026-10-10: 4.3%2026-10-11: 5.2%2026-10-12: 5%2026-10-13: 6%2026-10-14: 5.4%2026-10-15: 6.6%2026-10-16: 5.8%2026-10-17: 5.2%2026-10-18: 4.2%2026-10-19: 5%2026-10-20: 4.2%2026-10-21: 3.2%2026-10-22: 4.5%2026-10-23: 6.3%2026-10-24: 4.4%2026-10-25: 3.9%2026-10-26: 4.5%2026-10-27: 6.5%2026-10-28: 5.9%2026-10-29: 6.5%2026-10-30: 16.3%2026-10-31: 13.4%2026-11-01: 18.1%2026-11-02: 17%2026-11-03: 14%2026-11-04: 15.9%
  • Rules for named CVEs5.6% of mitigated layer 7 attacks, 7 days2026-10-07: 1.8%2026-10-08: 3%2026-10-09: 6.3%2026-10-10: 1.9%2026-10-11: 0.8%2026-10-12: 0.6%2026-10-13: 0.6%2026-10-14: 4.2%2026-10-15: 2.3%2026-10-16: 1.3%2026-10-17: 1.6%2026-10-18: 1.1%2026-10-19: 3.2%2026-10-20: 4.7%2026-10-21: 5.7%2026-10-22: 5.5%2026-10-23: 9.8%2026-10-24: 7%2026-10-25: 5%2026-10-26: 7.3%2026-10-27: 8.1%2026-10-28: 10.1%2026-10-29: 0.9%2026-10-30: 4.1%2026-10-31: 7.5%2026-11-01: 8.7%2026-11-02: 2.4%2026-11-03: 7.5%2026-11-04: 1.1%

Radar groups Cloudflare's WAF managed rules by category; it does not publish counts per CVE. These shares show how much attack traffic targets this kind of flaw across Cloudflare's network (28-day trend). They are not compromised systems, and seeing few attempts on Cloudflare does not prove an absence elsewhere. Radar data as of 2026-11-04. Radar ↗

Check your exposure with an agent

Read-only

Copy this into an agent with access to your infrastructure. It asks for an evidence-based, read-only assessment: affected systems, exposure, compensating controls and what is still unknown. It does not scan or change anything by itself.

Prompt12 lines
Assess whether the infrastructure available to you is affected by CVE-2025-29775 (xml-crypto Vulnerable to XML Signature Verification Bypass via DigestValue Comment). Perform a read-only assessment within your authorized access. Do not send exploit traffic, scan third-party systems, change configuration or restart services.

1. Verify the CVE record at https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-29775 and the vendor advisory. Establish affected and fixed versions, including vendor backports. The record lists: node-saml xml-crypto: affected >= 4.0.0, < 6.0.1; >= 3.0.0, < 3.2.1; < 2.1.6. Cite sources and retrieval dates; flag anything you cannot verify.
2. Inventory deployments of node-saml xml-crypto: asset, environment, owner where known, installed version or build, and how you confirmed it (package metadata, a version endpoint, image tags). An image tag alone does not prove the running version.
3. Identify which deployments are reachable from the internet or untrusted networks, and through which paths (direct origin, load balancer, CDN or WAF).
4. Assess compensating controls separately from patch status. Current edge WAF coverage for this CVE: Vercel: rule blocks by default. Live data: https://cve.vigilbase.com/api/v1/cves/CVE-2025-29775. Check whether the rule is enabled and in block mode on each path, and whether any path bypasses the WAF. A WAF rule is not a patch.
5. Check logs on exposed instances for requests matching the public exploit, if your access allows.

Return a short summary and a table: asset | version/build | assessment (affected, fixed, not applicable, unknown) | exposure | compensating control | evidence | next action. List what you could not assess and the access needed to resolve it. Do not infer absence of compromise from patch status or a lack of alerts.

Remediation guidance: Apply the vendor's fix; the advisory lists the affected and fixed versions. Keep a WAF rule in place while you patch: Vercel blocks it by default. A WAF rule reduces exposure; it does not replace the patch.
More: https://cve.vigilbase.com/cve/CVE-2025-29775

Sources

Cited
CVE record

CVSS 4.0 9.3 (critical). Weakness: CWE-347.

CVE-2025-29775 ↗NVD ↗

Exploit evidence

No public exploit code found in Exploit-DB, Metasploit, nuclei-templates or GitHub. That does not mean none exists.

CISA KEV

Not in the KEV catalog (catalog 2026.11.03, checked 2026-11-04). Absence from KEV is not evidence that it cannot be exploited.

CISA KEV catalog ↗

WAF vendor statements

Vercel names it in a changelog. Quotes and dates below.

Vendor statements

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2025-29775: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 4.0
Critical · 9.3 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.

Over the internetNo login neededNo user actionWorks reliablyFull compromise
How the score is built11 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Attack requirementsThe attack works without any special deployment or timing conditions.
    None
  • Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
    None
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
    High
  • Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems' data is not exposed.
    None
  • Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.
    None
  • Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.
    None
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationProof of concept

Public exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.

AutomatableYes

Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

None found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

  1. 2025-03-14
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2025-03-18
    Vercel ships a rule
    Vercel Firewall protects against the SAMLStorm vulnerability

Social

2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts2026-11-04: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

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)No public claim

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 rulesNo public claim

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 patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

VercelVercel WAF (platform rules)1 quoteBlocks by default

First rule 2025-03-18, 4 days after the CVE was published.

2025-03-18New ruleDefault: BlockSource
We have deployed a proactive security update to the Vercel Firewall , protecting against a recently disclosed vulnerability in the xml-crypto package, dubbed SAMLStorm ( CVE-2025-29774 and CVE-2025-29775 ).
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.

AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

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.