Evidence-led vulnerability intelligence · 2026-05-20 15:46 IST

CVE-2026-9064

A flaw was found in 389-ds-base. The get_ldapmessage_controls_ext() function in the LDAP server does not enforce an upper bound on the number of controls per LDAP message. A remote, unauthenticated attacker can send a specially crafted LDAP request containing hundreds of thousands of minimal controls within the default maximum BER message size (2 MB), causing excessive CPU consumption and heap allocation on the server. Under concurrent exploitation, this leads to significant latency degradation, worker thread starvation, or out-of-memory termination, resulting in a denial of service.

HIGH · 7.5Linux

Executive briefing

The source record describes: A flaw was found in 389-ds-base. The get_ldapmessage_controls_ext() function in the LDAP server does not enforce an upper bound on the number of controls per LDAP message. A remote, unauthenticated attacker can send a specially crafted LDAP request containing hundreds of thousands of minimal controls within the default maximum BER message size (2 MB), causing excessive CPU consumption and heap allocation on the server. Under concurrent exploitation, this leads to significant latency degradation, worker thread starvation, or out-of-memory termination, resulting in a denial of service. The practical risk depends on whether an affected product/version is present, reachable and configured in an exploitable way. Review the affected-product evidence and linked vendor advisories before assigning exposure status.

Assessment: Potential exposure only — validate the installed product, exact version, configuration and vendor applicability before treating an asset as confirmed vulnerable.

Evidence confidence: Moderate Evidence-derived, not an exploitability verdict

Severity & attack characteristics

7.5 / 10 · 3.1

CVSS vector:
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vectorN
Attack complexityL
Privileges requiredN
User interactionN
ScopeU
Confidentiality impactN
Integrity impactN
Availability impactH

Technical explanation & impact

The technical mechanism is not expanded beyond the source description unless a referenced advisory supplies additional evidence. Read the linked vendor/CERT advisories for root-cause detail.

Potential impact must be interpreted from the published CVSS impact metrics and the affected component. A CVSS impact score is not proof that a particular asset is exploitable.

Weakness classification

CWE-770

Affected products and versions

Products below are parsed from NVD vulnerable CPE configuration entries. Version boundaries are shown as published; verify applicability with the vendor.

VendorProductVersion evidence
redhatdirectory_serverCPE version 11.0 · CPE version 12.0 · CPE version 13.0
redhat389_directory_serverVersion not specified in CPE
redhatenterprise_linuxCPE version 6.0 · CPE version 7.0 · CPE version 8.0 · CPE version 9.0 · CPE version 10.0

Remediation & validation

  1. Identify exposure by comparing the affected product and version ranges with your asset inventory, SBOM and externally exposed services.
  2. Review the linked vendor security advisory or patch notes. Upgrade to a vendor-confirmed fixed release; do not infer a fixed version from the CVE description.
  3. Until patched, consider restricting network access or disabling the affected feature where operationally safe. These are temporary controls, not a substitute for a vendor fix.
  4. Validate the remediation with a version check and vulnerability rescan, then retain change evidence.

No fixed version is displayed unless it is explicitly established by a vendor advisory. Follow the vendor's release notes for exact product and branch applicability.

Vendor advisories, patches & exploit references

Open NVD record ← Back to CVE Watch

Threat intelligence, made actionable · CVE data sourced from the NVD