CVE-2023-41890

Sustainsys.Saml2 library adds SAML2P support to ASP.NET web sites, allowing the web site to act as a SAML2 Service Provider. Prior to versions 1.0.3 and 2.9.2, when a response is processed, the issuer of the Identity Provider is not sufficiently validated. This could allow a malicious identity provider to craft a Saml2 response that is processed as if issued by another identity provider. It is also possible for a malicious end user to cause stored state intended for one identity provider to be used when processing the response from another provider. An application is impacted if they rely on any of these features in their authentication/authorization logic: the issuer of the generated identity and claims; or items in the stored request state (AuthenticationProperties). This issue is patched in versions 2.9.2 and 1.0.3. The AcsCommandResultCreated notification can be used to add the validation required if an upgrade to patched packages is not possible.

Weakness

The product performs authentication based on the name of a resource being accessed, or the name of the actor performing the access, but it does not properly check all possible names for that resource or actor.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• 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.

References

• https://github.com/Sustainsys/Saml2/issues/712
• https://github.com/Sustainsys/Saml2/issues/713
• https://github.com/Sustainsys/Saml2/security/advisories/GHSA-fv2h-753j-9g39