Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2021-33054
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 · uneditedSOGo 2.x before 2.4.1 and 3.x through 5.x before 5.1.1 does not validate the signatures of any SAML assertions it receives. Any actor with network access to the deployment could impersonate users when SAML is the authentication method. (Only versions after 2.0.5a are affected.)
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 confidenceSOGo fails to validate digital signatures on SAML authentication assertions, allowing remote attackers to forge SAML responses and impersonate any user who authenticates via SAML.
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 9.0= 10.0= 11.0>= 2.0.6, < 2.4.1>= 3.0.0, < 5.1.1CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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 installed SOGo versionRun 'dpkg -l | grep -i sogo' on Debian systems, or 'sogo --version' if the binary is available, or check the package metadata in /var/lib/dpkg/info/Affected if Version is >= 2.0.6 and < 2.4.1, or >= 3.0.0 and < 5.1.1
-
Confirm SAML authentication is configuredInspect the SOGo configuration file (typically /etc/sogo/sogo.conf or /etc/sogo/sogo.conf.d/) for SAML-related settings such as 'SOGoSAML2Enabled', 'SOGoSAML2IdP', or other SAML configuration blocksAffected if SAML authentication is enabled and configured in SOGo
-
Verify XML signature validation is not enforcedExamine the SOGo configuration for any signature validation settings related to SAML. Check if 'SOGoSAML2VerifySignature' or similar options are set to 'YES' or 'ON' - if absent or set to 'NO', the vulnerability is presentAffected if Signature validation is disabled, not configured, or explicitly set to a disabled state
A system is affected if SOGo is configured to use SAML authentication AND the installed version falls within the vulnerable ranges (2.0.6 to 2.4.0, or 3.0.0 to 5.1.0), regardless of signature validation settings in the configuration.
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 data2.4.15.1.1
Upgrade SOGo to version 2.4.1 or 5.1.1 or later where signature validation is implemented, or ensure the upstream Identity Provider is trusted and properly secured.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-33054 — 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-2021-33054 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