vciy

CVE-2024-45409

INDEX BUILT · 2026-09-20

No source can show you its own past. This one can.

Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.

The Ruby SAML library vulnerable to a SAML authentication bypass via Incorrect XPath selector

CVE-2024-454094 of 4 sources documented this
53

rank 53 = 17 + 25 + 3 + 8 + 0

rank@v1 · this cycle

Someone is already using it

CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS

EPSS 0.10684  ·  without this subject the record ranks 36

What it costs you if it fires

NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own

CVSS 9.8, from NVD  ·  without this subject the record ranks 28

It is getting worse, not staying still

FIRST EPSS series, rescorings and bad loads removed

rose on 2025-10-19  ·  without this subject the record ranks 50

How much of the world it touches

NVD CPE configurations

10 products in the CPE ranges  ·  without this subject the record ranks 45

Someone else already set the date

CISA KEV remediation due date

no CISA due date  ·  without this subject the record ranks 53

Unaudited dollar value2 of 3 inputs carry a receipt
Exposure$470,000over the next 30 days, if this record is yours
Movement-$1.05Mon 2025-03-30, the last material move, 1 year, 2 months before this reading
Basisassumeda published average, not your estate

$470,000 = $4.99M incident cost x 0.8814887365328109 exposure x 0.10684 likelihood

udv@v1 · unaudited · wrong for you until you say what you run

$4.99M is the cost of a breach that happened, from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, global average. It is not the value of any asset of yours. That average already covers breaches of every severity, so scaling it by exposure understates a partial-impact record. That is an assumption, not a measurement. Your own asset value goes in the decision record.

Hindsight · the state

0.10684EPSSNOT IN KEVas of 2026-09-20
Severity10 CRITICALreceipt
Harmunauthenticated · networkreceipt
Exploitationpublic proof-of-conceptreceipt
Defenseunaffected versions publishedreceipt
Movementdoubled within 72hreceipt
RISING10Risen from 0.00045 to 0.10684 across 55 observations. arc-rules@v1

Foresight · where to check next

Palo AltoFortinetMicrosoft WindowsMicrosoft WindowsSimpleHelpCVE-2025-4782745409

This record is one instance of CWE-347, improper verification of cryptographic signature. The index holds 862 prior instances of this class, 6 KEV-listed. The nearest of its KEV-listed records are drawn beside this. taxonomy@v1

Full pattern panel

Prior records in this weakness class. Each is its own record, dated and receipted.
Color is a claim, not decoration:the hostile worldthe defenseno signalspoke length is how much of the record matches, not how bad it is

Sources disagree here.

Severity score
GitHub_M10 CRITICALreceipt
NVD9.8 CRITICALreceipt
What it costs
GitHub_MComplete confidentiality and integrity loss, with impact beyond the vulnerable componentreceipt
NVDComplete confidentiality, integrity and availability lossreceipt

Both shown, dated. We don't pick winners. disagreement-rules@v1

Running SAML-Toolkits ruby-saml? Check your version

A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.

Watch this record

Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.

What counts as a move

Set up a watchlist (needs a Practitioner account)

Record your call

Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.

AcceptDeferPatch by…Not affectedMitigated

Choose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.

Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.

Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness

Written for the ticket you're about to file.

Reachnetwork-reachable · no privileges required · no user interaction · low attack complexityreceipt
ImpactComplete confidentiality and integrity loss, with impact beyond the vulnerable componentreceipt
Scored fromCVSS v3.1 · the CNA's vectorreceipt
Weakness classCWE-347 Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signaturereceipt
Published consequencesCWE-347: Access Control, Integrity, Confidentiality: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Modify Application Data, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands[email protected]

CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA

The fix, and how long it's been waiting.

First unaffected version, by branchruby-saml 1.12.3; ruby-saml 1.17.0; gitlab 16.11.10; gitlab 17.0.8; gitlab 17.1.8; gitlab 17.2.7receipt
Patch available sinceNo dated patch-availability record in held sources. The index holds reference URLs without dates and only the current revision of the CVE record, so the day a fix first existed cannot be derived. Only the versions it landed in.

Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score

Current rung: Proof-of-concept published · 1 public repository, 2024-10-07.

  • RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
  • RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published · 1 public repository2024-10-07receipt
  • RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
  • RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known

Authority who says so

CVSS, the CNA10 CRITICALreceipt
CVSS, NVD9.8 CRITICALreceipt
Exploit probability0.10684 · top 4% of all CVEsreceipt
Blast breadth3 products across 3 vendorsderived
Assigned byGitHub_Mreceipt
Recorded changes58 · last 19 Sep 2026derived

Affected & Fixed Versions as published

Affected productSAML-Toolkits ruby-samlreceipt
Published rangesonelogin ruby-saml < 1.12.3; onelogin ruby-saml >= 1.13.0 < 1.17.0; omniauth saml <= 1.10.3; omniauth saml 2.0.0receipt
Show all 10 published ranges
onelogin ruby-saml < 1.12.3
onelogin ruby-saml >= 1.13.0 < 1.17.0
omniauth saml <= 1.10.3
omniauth saml 2.0.0
omniauth saml 2.1.0
gitlab < 16.11.10
gitlab >= 17.0.0 < 17.0.8
gitlab >= 17.1.0 < 17.1.8
gitlab >= 17.2.0 < 17.2.7
gitlab >= 17.3.0 < 17.3.3

A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.

Did this affect your environment?Answering needs an account.

Attack path

Unauthenticated network requestno credentials, no interactionSAML-Toolkits ruby-samlCWE-347 weaknessAdjacent componentsscope changeConfidentiality and integrity lossC:H / I:Hexploits CWE-347scope changedata compromise

What it is stated by the CNA

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. receipt

NVD's analysis a second authority

severity
9.8 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
weakness
CWE-347
affected versions
onelogin ruby-saml < 1.12.3; onelogin ruby-saml >= 1.13.0 < 1.17.0; omniauth saml <= 1.10.3; and 7 more, listed in full below
also scored by
[email protected] 10 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N

The CNA scored it 10 and NVD 9.8. Both are shown because both were published; we do not pick one.

check it yourself github.com github.com github.com github.com receipt

Dated events

2024-10-05EPSS moved 0.00 to 0.072026-06-15EPSS moved 0.45 to 0.11

Movement the material steps

11 Sep 20240.00045
8 Oct 20240.16407 · crossed 0.10
17 Mar 20250.55907 · crossed 0.50 · scoring model v2025.03.14
20 Mar 20250.49535 · crossed 0.50
23 Mar 20250.64775 · crossed 0.50
28 Mar 20250.49535 · crossed 0.50
29 Mar 20250.73505 · crossed 0.50
30 Mar 20250.49535 · crossed 0.50
15 Apr 20250.158
19 Oct 20250.34149
23 May 20260.44644
15 Jun 20260.10593 · scoring model v2026.06.15
17 Jun 20260.10684

This score more than doubled inside 72 hours. Both observations are in the full history below.

Show all 55 observations
11 Sep 20240.00045
21 Sep 20240.00094
5 Oct 20240.07237
8 Oct 20240.16407
18 Dec 20240.18020
26 Dec 20240.17715
20 Jan 20250.17670
13 Feb 20250.16712
21 Feb 20250.22519
17 Mar 20250.55907
20 Mar 20250.49535
23 Mar 20250.64775
24 Mar 20250.55907
27 Mar 20250.64775
28 Mar 20250.49535
29 Mar 20250.73505
30 Mar 20250.49535
15 Apr 20250.158
17 Apr 20250.14907
1 May 20250.19744
4 May 20250.14907
1 Jun 20250.17548
4 Jun 20250.14907
1 Jul 20250.16139
4 Jul 20250.14907
30 Jul 20250.12641
1 Aug 20250.16139
4 Aug 20250.12641
1 Sep 20250.16139
3 Sep 20250.1716
4 Sep 20250.12641
1 Oct 20250.1716
4 Oct 20250.12641
19 Oct 20250.34149
27 Oct 20250.39163
1 Nov 20250.39537
4 Nov 20250.39163
18 Nov 20250.43295
21 Nov 20250.39163
1 Dec 20250.39537
4 Dec 20250.39163
10 Dec 20250.4139
1 Jan 20260.41768
4 Jan 20260.4139
17 Jan 20260.39163
30 Jan 20260.42423
1 Feb 20260.42802
4 Feb 20260.42423
8 Feb 20260.40655
1 Mar 20260.41032
4 Mar 20260.40655
10 Apr 20260.42423
23 May 20260.44644
15 Jun 20260.10593
17 Jun 20260.10684

55 observations held. A highlighted step crossed a promotion threshold. A step marked with a scoring model moved because the instrument was replaced, not because the vulnerability changed. receipt

The full biography

EPSS 0.10684Published2024-09-10Public PoC2024-10-07Index as of2026-06-17

Exploit probability more than doubled between 2024-10-05 and 2024-10-08 (0.07237 → 0.16407) and the record had been public for 1 year, 9 months when this index was last written.

Published 2024-09-10 receipt · Public PoC 2024-10-07 receipt · Index as of 2026-06-17 derived

The pattern, elsewhere

This record is one instance of CWE-347, improper verification of cryptographic signature. The index holds 862 prior instances of this class, 6 KEV-listed. The nearest of its KEV-listed records are drawn beside this. [email protected]

CVE-2020-2021 · Palo Alto Networks PAN-OSmatches 7 of 9KEV listed · 2020receipt
CVE-2025-59718 · Fortinet FortiSwitchManagermatches 6 of 9KEV listed · 2025receipt
CVE-2020-1464 · Microsoft Windows 10 Version 1803matches 4 of 9KEV listed · 2020receipt
CVE-2013-3900 · Microsoft Windows 10 Version 1809matches 4 of 9KEV listed · 2013receipt
CVE-2026-48558 · SimpleHelponly 1 attribute comparableKEV listed · 2026receipt
CVE-2025-47827nothing comparable heldKEV listed · 2025receipt

"Matches n of m" counts the attributes the two records can both be compared on: the CVSS metrics they share a version of, any weakness class beyond this one, and the vendor. fit-rules@v1

862 records in this class held. The six above are drawn from the ones CISA has listed as exploited, ranked by how much of the record matches this one. That is why every one of them is KEV-listed: the pool is, so the colour on those spokes says nothing the pool has not already said.

No curated product neighbourhood is held for this product, so the records above are the nearest this index can name. The neighbourhood table covers a small set of products and is extended by hand.

Siblings and hubs

Records related to this one

Its defect family

saml-toolkits ruby-saml

Of the 5 records in this family, this is the only one whose title names library incorrect xpath.

Grouped by shared product and weakness, not by shared vulnerability. Each record's own state is on its own page.

Family membership: held values

This record is one of a group, and the group's page describes all of them. This page is kept and dated, and the defect family's own page is the one we offer for indexing: the whole group.

Browse the index from here

These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2024-45409.

What usually comes next

Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.

Everything on this page is free. Public data. Withholding it protects nothing.