CVE-2025-48994VulnerabilityPublished 2 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-48994: XML-Security signxml · Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm

Affects XML-Security signxmlSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium : upgrade to 4.0.4 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.0.4

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 2 Jun 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade XML-Security signxml to 4.0.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIsignxml`pkg:pypi/signxml`Other threats	Affected <4.0.4	Fixed in 4.0.4

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately audit their use of the SignXML library to identify any deployments running versions prior to 4.0.4. If found, they should upgrade to version 4.0.4 or later, which enforces proper algorithm restrictions when using HMAC keys. Additionally, organizations should review their XML signature verification configurations to ensure that X509 certificate validation is enabled where possible, as this adds an important layer of security. Where disabling X509 validation is necessary, users must explicitly restrict accepted signature algorithms using the expect_config parameter to only allow HMAC algorithms when an hmac_key is used. Implementing strict input validation and monitoring XML signature verification logs for anomalies can also help detect attempts to exploit this vulnerability. Security teams should incorporate this vulnerability into their threat modeling and penetration testing exercises to validate defenses. Finally, organizations should maintain an inventory of software dependencies and apply security patches promptly to reduce exposure to similar algorithm confusion attacks.

Description

SignXML is an implementation of the W3C XML Signature standard in Python. When verifying signatures with X509 certificate validation turned off and HMAC shared secret set (`signxml.XMLVerifier.verify(require_x509=False, hmac_key=...`), versions of SignXML prior to 4.0.4 are vulnerable to a potential algorithm confusion attack. Unless the user explicitly limits the expected signature algorithms using the `signxml.XMLVerifier.verify(expect_config=...)` setting, an attacker may supply a signature unexpectedly signed with a key other than the provided HMAC key, using a different (asymmetric key) signature algorithm. Starting with SignXML 4.0.4, specifying `hmac_key` causes the set of accepted signature algorithms to be restricted to HMAC only, if not already restricted by the user.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be significant, especially for those relying on SignXML for secure XML signature verification in critical systems such as web services, document signing, or identity federation. Exploitation could allow attackers to bypass signature validation, leading to unauthorized data manipulation, injection of malicious XML content, or impersonation of trusted entities. This could compromise confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data exchanges, disrupt business processes, or facilitate further attacks such as privilege escalation or fraud. Sectors like finance, government, healthcare, and telecommunications, which often use XML signatures for secure messaging and document workflows, are particularly at risk. Given the medium severity and ease of exploitation without authentication, attackers could target exposed APIs or services using vulnerable SignXML versions. The absence of known exploits suggests limited immediate threat but also indicates the need for proactive mitigation to prevent future attacks. Organizations that have disabled X509 validation and rely on HMAC keys without strict algorithm restrictions are the most vulnerable. Overall, the threat could undermine trust in XML-based security mechanisms and lead to data breaches or operational disruptions.

CWE-303Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Reflection Attack in Authentication Protocol (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Jul 2025, 08:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-303

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats