VulnerabilityPublished 13 Mar 2026Updated 16 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32313: robrichards xmlseclibs · Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value

Affects robrichards xmlseclibsSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High : upgrade to 3.1.5 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 4% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.1.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 29 Oct 2026.

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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity 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 xmlseclibs and robrichards/xmlseclibs to 3.1.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
robrichardsxmlseclibs	Affected <3.1.5	Fixed in 3.1.5
Packagistrobrichards/xmlseclibs`pkg:composer/robrichards/xmlseclibs`Other threats	Affected <3.1.5	Fixed in 3.1.5

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately upgrade xmlseclibs to version 3.1.5 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. For applications unable to upgrade promptly, implement compensating controls such as restricting access to services using xmlseclibs to trusted networks and enforcing strict input validation on XML data. Monitor logs for unusual decryption failures or malformed XML messages that could indicate exploitation attempts. Conduct code audits to identify and isolate usage of vulnerable xmlseclibs versions. Employ network-level protections like Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious XML payloads. Educate developers and security teams about the risks of improper cryptographic validation and encourage secure coding practices. Finally, maintain an inventory of applications using xmlseclibs to ensure all instances are identified and remediated.

Description

xmlseclibs is a library written in PHP for working with XML Encryption and Signatures. Prior to 3.1.5, XML nodes encrypted with either aes-128-gcm, aes-192-gcm, or aes-256-gcm lack validation of the authentication tag length. An attacker can use this to brute-force an authentication tag, recover the GHASH key, and decrypt the encrypted nodes. It also allows to forge arbitrary ciphertexts without knowing the encryption key. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.5.

Impact

The vulnerability poses a significant risk to organizations using xmlseclibs for XML encryption and signature verification, especially in web services, SOAP APIs, and other XML-based communication systems. Successful exploitation compromises the confidentiality of encrypted XML data, potentially exposing sensitive information such as credentials, personal data, or configuration details. The ability to forge ciphertexts without the encryption key undermines data integrity, allowing attackers to inject or alter data undetected. This can lead to unauthorized actions, privilege escalation, or further compromise within affected systems. Since xmlseclibs is used in PHP applications worldwide, the scope of impact is broad. The lack of authentication or user interaction requirements makes exploitation easier for remote attackers. Although no known exploits are reported in the wild yet, the high CVSS score (8.2) indicates a critical risk that could be leveraged in targeted attacks or automated scanning campaigns. Organizations failing to patch may face data breaches, regulatory penalties, and reputational damage.

CWE-354Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message.
Implementation
The protocol specification describes the algorithm used for calculating the checksum. It is then a matter of implementing the calculation and verifying that the calculated checksum and the received checksum match.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Checksum Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files (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 21 Mar 2026, 00:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-354

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats