CVE-2026-46423 (GCVE-0-2026-46423)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-06-24 20:58 – Updated: 2026-06-26 03:55
VLAI
Title
Rocket.Chat: SAML signature validation skipped when IdP certificate field is empty
Summary
Rocket.Chat is an open-source, secure, fully customizable communications platform. Prior to 8.5.0, 8.4.1, 8.3.3, 8.2.3, 8.1.4, 8.0.5, 7.13.7, and 7.10.11, Rocket.Chat's SAML service provider implementation silently skips both SAML Response and Assertion signature validation when the configured IdP certificate field is empty. The verifySignatures routine performs an early return when serviceProviderOptions.cert is falsy, which is the default state of the setting. Because provider registration only gates on the SAML "enabled" toggle and not on the presence of a certificate, an administrator who enables SAML without pasting an IdP certificate obtains a fully wired, publicly reachable SAML login endpoint that accepts unsigned or attacker-supplied assertions. This is a default-configuration authentication-bypass class: the fail-open branch is reached with no misconfiguration beyond leaving a field at its shipped default. This vulnerability is fixed in 8.5.0, 8.4.1, 8.3.3, 8.2.3, 8.1.4, 8.0.5, 7.13.7, and 7.10.11.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
- CWE-347 - Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature
Assigner
References
1 reference
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat/securit… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| RocketChat | Rocket.Chat |
Affected:
>= 8.5.0-rc.0, < 8.5.0
Affected: >= 8.4.0-rc.0, < 8.4.1 Affected: >= 8.3.0-rc.0, < 8.3.3 Affected: >= 8.2.0-rc.0, < 8.2.3 Affected: >= 8.1.0-rc.0, < 8.1.4 Affected: >= 8.0.0-rc.0, < 8.0.5 Affected: >= 7.11.0-rc.0, < 7.13.7 Affected: < 7.10.11 |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-46423",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-06-25T00:00:00+00:00",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-26T03:55:31.819Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "Rocket.Chat",
"vendor": "RocketChat",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 8.5.0-rc.0, \u003c 8.5.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 8.4.0-rc.0, \u003c 8.4.1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 8.3.0-rc.0, \u003c 8.3.3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 8.2.0-rc.0, \u003c 8.2.3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 8.1.0-rc.0, \u003c 8.1.4"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 8.0.0-rc.0, \u003c 8.0.5"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 7.11.0-rc.0, \u003c 7.13.7"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 7.10.11"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Rocket.Chat is an open-source, secure, fully customizable communications platform. Prior to 8.5.0, 8.4.1, 8.3.3, 8.2.3, 8.1.4, 8.0.5, 7.13.7, and 7.10.11, Rocket.Chat\u0027s SAML service provider implementation silently skips both SAML Response and Assertion signature validation when the configured IdP certificate field is empty. The verifySignatures routine performs an early return when serviceProviderOptions.cert is falsy, which is the default state of the setting. Because provider registration only gates on the SAML \"enabled\" toggle and not on the presence of a certificate, an administrator who enables SAML without pasting an IdP certificate obtains a fully wired, publicly reachable SAML login endpoint that accepts unsigned or attacker-supplied assertions. This is a default-configuration authentication-bypass class: the fail-open branch is reached with no misconfiguration beyond leaving a field at its shipped default. This vulnerability is fixed in 8.5.0, 8.4.1, 8.3.3, 8.2.3, 8.1.4, 8.0.5, 7.13.7, and 7.10.11."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 9.3,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-347",
"description": "CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-24T20:58:57.909Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat/security/advisories/GHSA-rgg7-qvp9-wvx7",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat/security/advisories/GHSA-rgg7-qvp9-wvx7"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-rgg7-qvp9-wvx7",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Rocket.Chat: SAML signature validation skipped when IdP certificate field is empty"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-46423",
"datePublished": "2026-06-24T20:58:57.909Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-05-13T22:18:22.829Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-26T03:55:31.819Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"epss": {
"cve": "CVE-2026-46423",
"date": "2026-06-26",
"epss": "0.00149",
"percentile": "0.04518"
},
"vulnrichment": {
"containers": "{\"cna\": {\"title\": \"Rocket.Chat: SAML signature validation skipped when IdP certificate field is empty\", \"source\": {\"advisory\": \"GHSA-rgg7-qvp9-wvx7\", \"discovery\": \"UNKNOWN\"}, \"metrics\": [{\"cvssV4_0\": {\"version\": \"4.0\", \"baseScore\": 9.3, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"CRITICAL\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"attackRequirements\": \"NONE\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"NONE\", \"subIntegrityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnIntegrityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"subAvailabilityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnAvailabilityImpact\": \"LOW\", \"subConfidentialityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnConfidentialityImpact\": \"HIGH\"}}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"RocketChat\", \"product\": \"Rocket.Chat\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"\u003e= 8.5.0-rc.0, \u003c 8.5.0\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"\u003e= 8.4.0-rc.0, \u003c 8.4.1\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"\u003e= 8.3.0-rc.0, \u003c 8.3.3\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"\u003e= 8.2.0-rc.0, \u003c 8.2.3\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"\u003e= 8.1.0-rc.0, \u003c 8.1.4\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"\u003e= 8.0.0-rc.0, \u003c 8.0.5\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"\u003e= 7.11.0-rc.0, \u003c 7.13.7\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"\u003c 7.10.11\"}]}], \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat/security/advisories/GHSA-rgg7-qvp9-wvx7\", \"name\": \"https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat/security/advisories/GHSA-rgg7-qvp9-wvx7\", \"tags\": [\"x_refsource_CONFIRM\"]}], \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"Rocket.Chat is an open-source, secure, fully customizable communications platform. Prior to 8.5.0, 8.4.1, 8.3.3, 8.2.3, 8.1.4, 8.0.5, 7.13.7, and 7.10.11, Rocket.Chat\u0027s SAML service provider implementation silently skips both SAML Response and Assertion signature validation when the configured IdP certificate field is empty. The verifySignatures routine performs an early return when serviceProviderOptions.cert is falsy, which is the default state of the setting. Because provider registration only gates on the SAML \\\"enabled\\\" toggle and not on the presence of a certificate, an administrator who enables SAML without pasting an IdP certificate obtains a fully wired, publicly reachable SAML login endpoint that accepts unsigned or attacker-supplied assertions. This is a default-configuration authentication-bypass class: the fail-open branch is reached with no misconfiguration beyond leaving a field at its shipped default. This vulnerability is fixed in 8.5.0, 8.4.1, 8.3.3, 8.2.3, 8.1.4, 8.0.5, 7.13.7, and 7.10.11.\"}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-347\", \"description\": \"CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa\", \"shortName\": \"GitHub_M\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-06-24T20:58:57.909Z\"}}, \"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2026-46423\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"yes\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"total\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2026-06-25T13:23:11.884222Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-06-25T13:23:15.839Z\"}}]}",
"cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2026-46423\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-06-24T20:58:57.909Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2026-05-13T22:18:22.829Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa\", \"datePublished\": \"2026-06-24T20:58:57.909Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"GitHub_M\"}",
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…