cve.bz

CVE-2026-102894

9.1 critical

Critical (9.1).

On this page
GPUStack is an open-source GPU cluster manager for AI model serving and GPU instance provisioning. From 0.7.1 until 2.2.2, the /auth/saml/callback endpoint decoded SAML XML, used its NameID and attributes to resolve or provision a user, and minted a gpustack_session JWT without calling OneLogin_Saml2_Auth.process_response to verify the signature, issuer, audience, destination, or time conditions. Any network client could submit an identity for an existing user, including an administrator, or provision a new non-administrator account, even when SAML was not configured. Response and Assertion identifiers were not consumed, so captured signed responses could also be replayed. This issue is fixed in version 2.2.2.

Severity

CVSS 3.1

9.1 critical
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CWEs
CWE-294 Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay
CWE-347 Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature
OWASP Top 10
A04:2025 Cryptographic Failures, A07:2025 Authentication Failures
Published
Record from
the NVD, synced

Ask an AI about this CVE

ChatGPTClaudeGoogle AI Mode

Show the promptExplain CVE-2026-102894 for an engineer deciding whether to act. Use https://cve.bz/api/public/cves/CVE-2026-102894?via=ask-ai-copy and https://cve.bz/cve/CVE-2026-102894?via=ask-ai-copy as the source of truth: what is affected and which versions fix it, whether it is in CISA KEV, public exploits, and its EPSS (an internet-wide 30-day estimate of exploitation activity, not a forecast for my systems). If they give no fixed versions, use the CVE record https://cveawg.mitre.org/api/cve/CVE-2026-102894 or the vendor advisory, not third-party mirrors. Tell me how to check whether I am affected and how to verify a fix. Cite the sources and say where they are uncertain.

Opens a third-party assistant; its answer is its own, not cve.bz's. The prompt holds only this CVE's id and public links.

Versions

From the CNA's record in the CVE List.

ProductAffected
gpustack>= 0.7.1, < 2.2.2

Attack patterns (CAPEC)

  • CAPEC-463 Padding Oracle Crypto Attack Severity: High
  • CAPEC-475 Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation Likelihood: Low · Severity: High
  • CAPEC-60 Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay) Likelihood: High · Severity: High
  • CAPEC-94 Adversary in the Middle (AiTM) Likelihood: High · Severity: Very High
  • CAPEC-102 Session Sidejacking Likelihood: High · Severity: High
  • CAPEC-509 Kerberoasting Severity: High
  • CAPEC-555 Remote Services with Stolen Credentials Severity: Very High
  • CAPEC-561 Windows Admin Shares with Stolen Credentials
  • CAPEC-644 Use of Captured Hashes (Pass The Hash) Likelihood: Medium · Severity: High
  • CAPEC-645 Use of Captured Tickets (Pass The Ticket) Likelihood: Low · Severity: High

The attack patterns MITRE's CAPEC relates to this record's weaknesses, as MITRE names them. Credits. More on the page of CWE-294.

References

Check your stackJSON