CVE-2025-48995VulnerabilityPublished 2 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-48995: XML-Security signxml · Timing Side Channel

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 13% 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:L/VI:N/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: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 upgrade SignXML to version 4.0.4 or later, where the timing attack vulnerability has been addressed by implementing constant-time comparison functions during HMAC verification. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, organizations should ensure that X509 certificate validation is enabled (require_x509=True) to avoid using the vulnerable HMAC verification path. Additionally, review and audit XML signature verification configurations to confirm that HMAC keys are not used insecurely or without proper certificate validation. Implement network-level protections such as rate limiting and anomaly detection to identify and block suspicious timing attack attempts. Where possible, employ additional layers of cryptographic validation or use alternative secure libraries that do not exhibit timing side channels. Finally, conduct security awareness and training for developers and system administrators on secure XML signature practices and the risks of disabling certificate validation.

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 timing attack. The verifier may leak information about the correct HMAC when comparing it with the user supplied hash, allowing users to reconstruct the correct HMAC for any data.

Impact

For European organizations relying on SignXML for XML signature verification, especially in scenarios where X509 certificate validation is disabled and HMAC-based authentication is used, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized data manipulation or forgery. Attackers could reconstruct valid HMACs to forge signatures on XML documents, potentially bypassing integrity checks and authentication controls. This could lead to unauthorized transactions, data tampering, or privilege escalation in systems that trust XML signatures for security decisions. Sectors such as finance, government, healthcare, and critical infrastructure in Europe that use XML-based messaging or document workflows could be particularly impacted. The vulnerability's exploitation could undermine trust in signed XML documents, disrupt automated processing, and expose sensitive data or operations to attackers. However, the impact is somewhat mitigated by the requirement that X509 validation be disabled and the use of HMAC keys, which may not be the default configuration in many deployments.

CWE-208Observable Timing Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
Two separate operations in a product require different amounts of time to complete, in a way that is observable to an actor and reveals security-relevant information about the state of the product, such as whether a particular operation was successful or not.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Application Fingerprinting (opens in a new tab)
System Footprinting (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, 08:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-208

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats