How severe is GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42?

No CVSS score has been assigned to GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 yet. Review the advisory details and affected package list to assess your exposure.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42?

GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 affects the following packages: signxml (PyPI). Ecosystems affected: PyPI.

How do I fix GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42?

Update signxml to 4.0.4 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 in my PyPI dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for signxml. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

How do I mitigate GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

How does O3 Security protect against GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42?

O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Is GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42?

GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.2%, placing it in the 10th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

When was GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 was published on June 5, 2025 and was last updated on June 5, 2025. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🐍 PyPI

GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42

SignXML's signature verification with HMAC is vulnerable to a timing attack

Also known asCVE-2025-48995

Published

Jun 5, 2025

Updated

Jun 5, 2025

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.2%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk10th percentile-0.04%

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

Blast Radius

1 pkg affected

🐍signxml

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

When verifying signatures with X509 certificate validation turned off and HMAC shared secret set (signxml.XMLVerifier.verify(require_x509=False, hmac_key=...), prior versions of SignXML are vulnerable to a potential timing attack. The verifier may leak information about the correct HMAC when comparing it with the user supplied hash, allowing users to reconstruct the correct HMAC for any data.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐍PyPI	`signxml`	all versions	4.0.4

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for signxml. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.
Fix
Update signxml to 4.0.4 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

When verifying signatures with X509 certificate validation turned off and HMAC shared secret set (`signxml.XMLVerifier.verify(require_x509=False, hmac_key=...`), prior versions of SignXML are vulnerable to a potential timing attack. The verifier may leak information about the correct HMAC when comparing it with the user supplied hash, allowing users to reconstruct the correct HMAC for any data.

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-gmhf-gg8w-jw42 across PyPI dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works