By Null Ventures MCP platform
Menu

vulnerability / NVI-00004300 / Revision 3

SimpleSAMLphp SP accepts a response from an unexpected IdP when unsigned `Response/InResponseTo` is combined with a signed assertion lacking `SubjectConfirmationData/InResponseTo`

OSV carries this publisher advisory for simplesamlphp/simplesamlphp, simplesamlphp/simplesamlphp. This is an aggregated source copy; consult the original publisher and compare update dates.

source listedactiveGHSA-q8r6-xj3f-wrrmCVE-2026-49284

This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.

01 / Meaning

Why it matters

Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.

EPSS

0.222%

FIRST EPSS model v2026.06.15; exploitation probability over 30 days, percentile 0.12838. Missing scores are unknown.

As of · FIRST EPSS

02 / Applicability

The affected context

Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.

simplesamlphp/simplesamlphp

source listed
  • ECOSYSTEM: introduced 2.5.0; fixed 2.5.2

## Summary SimpleSAMLphp's SAML SP ACS path does not enforce the IdP selected for an SP-initiated login. If a saved SP state contains `ExpectedIssuer = IdP A`, but the ACS receives a valid response from `IdP B`, the code logs a warning and continues processing instead of rejecting the response. That behavior becomes security-relevant when combined with the response-processing rule that accepts an unsigned `samlp:Response/@InResponseTo` outside the signed assertion whenever the signed assertion's `SubjectConfirmationData` does not carry its own `InResponseTo`. A response issued by one trusted IdP can therefore be bound to SP state created for another IdP. ## Impact In a multi-IdP deployment, a lower-trust IdP can satisfy SP state created for a different expected IdP. This can bypass an SP flow that intentionally routes the user to a specific IdP, including deployments that set `enable_unsolicited` to `false` to prevent IdP-initiated logins. The impact is highest when the SP trusts multiple IdPs with different assurance levels, tenant boundaries, or attribute namespaces, and application authorization depends on the selected/expected IdP. In those deployments this is an authentic

GitHub Advisory Database via OSV

simplesamlphp/simplesamlphp

source listed
  • ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0; fixed 2.4.7

## Summary SimpleSAMLphp's SAML SP ACS path does not enforce the IdP selected for an SP-initiated login. If a saved SP state contains `ExpectedIssuer = IdP A`, but the ACS receives a valid response from `IdP B`, the code logs a warning and continues processing instead of rejecting the response. That behavior becomes security-relevant when combined with the response-processing rule that accepts an unsigned `samlp:Response/@InResponseTo` outside the signed assertion whenever the signed assertion's `SubjectConfirmationData` does not carry its own `InResponseTo`. A response issued by one trusted IdP can therefore be bound to SP state created for another IdP. ## Impact In a multi-IdP deployment, a lower-trust IdP can satisfy SP state created for a different expected IdP. This can bypass an SP flow that intentionally routes the user to a specific IdP, including deployments that set `enable_unsolicited` to `false` to prevent IdP-initiated logins. The impact is highest when the SP trusts multiple IdPs with different assurance levels, tenant boundaries, or attribute namespaces, and application authorization depends on the selected/expected IdP. In those deployments this is an authentic

GitHub Advisory Database via OSV

03 / Response

What to do next

  1. vendor patch

    The original advisory lists fixed boundaries 2.5.2 for simplesamlphp/simplesamlphp. Confirm the publisher’s latest guidance.

    Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. GitHub Advisory Database via OSV

  2. vendor patch

    The original advisory lists fixed boundaries 2.4.7 for simplesamlphp/simplesamlphp. Confirm the publisher’s latest guidance.

    Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. GitHub Advisory Database via OSV

  3. investigate

    Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.

    Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. FIRST EPSS

A fixed release is not deployment evidence.

Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.

04 / Limits

What this report cannot establish

  • Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
  • NVD lastModified does not establish freshness of every associated CPE record.
Read the collection and interpretation limits ↗

05 / Provenance

Sources you can inspect

Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.

  1. GHSA-q8r6-xj3f-wrrm ↗

    GitHub Advisory Database via OSV · vendor advisory

    Observed . GitHub-origin advisory, CC-BY-4.0; OSV is an aggregate copy, not independent corroboration.

  2. CVE-2026-49284 ↗

    NIST National Vulnerability Database · official catalog

    Observed . This product uses data from the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.

  3. CVE-2026-49284 ↗

    FIRST EPSS · official catalog

    Observed . FIRST EPSS; probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, not local compromise. Dataset date/model retained; FIRST services terms apply.

Public revision history

Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.

  1. Revision 3 ·

    Source facts changed; compare the preserved prior revision.

  2. Revision 2 ·

    Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.

  3. Revision 1 ·

    First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.

Read the public revision data ↗

The next step is private

Bring the question into your environment.

The connected workflow is a development preview for inventory, contextual matching, owner decisions and evidence-based verification. No system-specific result is generated by this page.

See the synthetic workflow preview ↗