Start with Identity
Identity CVE · SAML

CVE-2025-47949samlify signature wrapping, forge SAML as any user

critical
Product: samlifyVendor: samlifyCWE-347Disclosed: 2025-05-20Status: PatchedProtocol deep diveNVD ↗

What broke

samlify below 2.10.0 did not correctly bind the XML signature to the assertion it later consumed. An attacker can wrap a valid signature around a new SAML response and authenticate as any user, including admins (CWE-347). Fixed in samlify 2.10.0.

Why it matters

The 2025 SAML story is not "Ruby is bad." It is that the most widely copied SSO libraries, in Ruby and in Node, failed the same signature-wrapping test. If your SP is a Node service using samlify (or a SaaS that embeds it), the blast radius matches ruby-saml. authentik later shipped its own ACS wrapping fix in 2025.12.5 / 2026.2.3 / 2026.5.1, which is the same pattern in a different codebase.

What to do

  • Upgrade samlify to 2.10.0 or later. Check lockfiles, not just package.json ranges.
  • Rotate IdP signing keys after the upgrade if the ACS was public.
  • Inventory Node SPs the same way you inventory Rails SPs. npm ls samlify in every SSO-facing service.

After you patch

A SAML bypass means the service provider accepted an assertion it should have rejected, so anyone who exploited it authenticated as a real user and left a normal-looking log line.

  • Revoke every session issued by the affected service provider, then rotate its session signing keys. Patching stops new forgeries and does nothing about sessions already minted.
  • Audit administrative accounts and group memberships for changes during the exposure window. Signing in as an administrator is the point of this class, and adding a second account is the standard persistence step.
  • Rotate the identity provider signing certificate if the flaw involved signature validation, and confirm the service provider pins the expected certificate rather than trusting anything in the assertion.
  • Check your own implementation for the same class: exact-match comparison on verification results, rejection of unexpected signature algorithms, and audience and recency checks on every assertion. See SAML 2.0 and SAML vs OIDC.

Sources

Last reviewed By SWI Community TeamSuggest a correctionHow we research

Technique

This CVE is an instance of Federation trust abuse and SAML forgery. A service provider that accepts a SAML assertion it should have rejected treats a forged identity as authenticated, because the failure sits in signature validation code, not in cryptography.

Know a primary source we should add, or a patch status that has changed? Email community@startwithidentity.com. See all briefs in the identity CVE catalog, or volunteer as a CVE Analyst.
Compiled from vendor advisories, NVD, CISA KEV, and public research. CVSS figures can disagree across NVD and the CNA. Confirm affected versions against the vendor advisory before you patch. Independent, community-driven analysis. See the disclaimer.