CVE-2026-9090
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 · uneditedCasdoor versions 2.362.0 and earlier contain a vulnerability that allows an attacker to bypass authentication by supplying an arbitrary signing certificate. The buildSpCertificateStore function extracts the X.509 certificate directly from the incoming SAMLResponse instead of using the trusted pre-configured Identity Provider certificate, allowing an attacker to forge assertions signed with an attacker-controlled key.
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 confidenceCasdoor versions 2.362.0 and earlier contain an authentication bypass in SAML authentication. The buildSpCertificateStore function extracts the X.509 certificate from the incoming SAMLResponse instead of validating against pre-configured trusted Identity Provider certificates, allowing attackers to sign forged SAML assertions with attacker-controlled keys.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 Casdoor installation and versionLocate the Casdoor binary or container image and retrieve its version (e.g., run 'casdoor --version', check docker image tag, or inspect the binary metadata)Affected if Version is 2.362.0 or earlier
-
Determine if SAML authentication is configuredSearch for SAML IdP configuration files or database records containing SAML provider settings (look for fields like 'issuer', 'idpMetadataUrl', or 'samlEndpoint')Affected if SAML authentication is enabled with at least one external Identity Provider configured
-
Verify SAML certificate validation behaviorInspect the buildSpCertificateStore function source code or runtime behavior to confirm whether it accepts certificates directly from incoming SAMLResponse rather than validating against pre-configured trusted IdP certificatesAffected if The function extracts and trusts certificates from SAMLResponse instead of using pre-configured trusted IdP certificates
-
Check for unauthorized SAML trust relationshipsReview SAML IdP configurations to identify any IdPs with certificates that were not explicitly configured by administratorsAffected if Any SAML IdP configuration contains certificates that were not explicitly provisioned by the administrator prior to the authentication attempt
A user is affected if running Casdoor version 2.362.0 or earlier with SAML authentication configured, as the system accepts attacker-supplied certificates from SAML responses instead of validating against trusted IdP certificates.
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 dataUpdate Casdoor to a version newer than 2.362.0 that implements proper certificate validation against trusted IdP configuration rather than accepting certificates from the SAMLResponse.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9090 — 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-2026-9090 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