Skip to content

sigstore-ruby verifier returns success for DSSE bundles with mismatched in-toto subject digest

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 10, 2026 in sigstore/sigstore-ruby • Updated Mar 11, 2026

Package

bundler sigstore (RubyGems)

Affected versions

< 0.2.3

Patched versions

0.2.3

Description

Summary

Sigstore::Verifier#verify does not propagate the VerificationFailure returned by verify_in_toto when the artifact digest does not match the digest in the in-toto attestation subject. As a result, verification of DSSE bundles containing in-toto statements returns VerificationSuccess regardless of whether the artifact matches the attested subject.

Details

In lib/sigstore/verifier.rb, the verify method calls verify_in_toto (line 176) without capturing or checking its return value:

verify_in_toto(input, in_toto)

When verify_in_toto detects a digest mismatch, it returns a VerificationFailure object. Because the caller discards this return value, execution unconditionally falls through to return VerificationSuccess. This is the only verification sub-check in the method (out of 12) whose failure is not propagated.

The message_signature code path is not affected.

Impact

An attacker who possesses a valid signed DSSE bundle containing an in-toto attestation for artifact A can present it as a valid attestation for a different artifact B. All other verification checks (DSSE envelope signature, certificate chain, Rekor inclusion, SCTs, policy) pass because they are independent of the artifact content. Only the in-toto subject digest check detects the mismatch, and its result is discarded.

This allows an attacker to bypass artifact-to-attestation binding for any consumer that relies on Sigstore::Verifier#verify to validate DSSE/in-toto bundles.

Workarounds

None. Consumers cannot work around this without patching the library.

References

@Hayden-IO Hayden-IO published to sigstore/sigstore-ruby Mar 10, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 10, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 11, 2026
Reviewed Mar 11, 2026
Last updated Mar 11, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(8th percentile)

Weaknesses

Unchecked Return Value

The product does not check the return value from a method or function, which can prevent it from detecting unexpected states and conditions. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-31830

GHSA ID

GHSA-mhg6-2q2v-9h2c

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.