CVE-2015-5301
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedproviders/saml2/admin.py in the Identity Provider (IdP) server in Ipsilon 0.1.0 before 1.0.2 and 1.1.x before 1.1.1 does not properly check permissions, which allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service by deleting a SAML2 Service Provider (SP).
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe Ipsilon IdP server's SAML2 admin interface in providers/saml2/admin.py lacks proper authorization checks before allowing deletion of Service Providers. Any authenticated user can delete any SP, causing denial of service by removing SP configurations.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 0.1.0= 0.3.0= 0.4.0= 0.5.0= 0.6.0= 1.0.0= 1.0.1= 1.1.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Ipsilon versionRun package manager command or check installed package version (e.g., rpm -q ipsilon, pip show ipsilon, or check packaging metadata)Affected if Installed version matches 0.1.0, 0.3.0, 0.4.0, 0.5.0, 0.6.0, 1.0.0, 1.0.1, or 1.1.0
-
Confirm SAML2 admin interface is configuredCheck if the SAML2 IdP provider is enabled in the Ipsilon configuration (look for SAML2-related configuration files or provider registration)Affected if SAML2 provider is registered and the admin interface is accessible
-
Verify authorization controls in admin.pyInspect the file providers/saml2/admin.py and look for role-based access control or permission checks before the delete operation (search for authorization, permission, or role validation logic around the SP deletion function)Affected if No authorization or role checks are present before the delete SP function, allowing any authenticated user to delete any SP
Environment is affected if running an affected Ipsilon version (0.1.0 through 1.1.0) with SAML2 admin interface enabled and the admin.py file lacks proper authorization checks before SP deletion.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade to Ipsilon 1.0.2 or 1.1.1 or later which contain the proper permission validation. Alternatively, review and add role-based access control checks in the admin.py delete operations.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-5301 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2015-5301 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data