CVE-2026-11610: 389 Directory Server SASL Heap Buffer Overflow Denial of Service
A heap buffer overflow vulnerability exists in 389 Directory Server's SASL authentication layer. After an authenticated user successfully logs in with integrity protection enabled, they can send a malformed LDAP packet that causes the server to write up to 2 megabytes of data into a 512-byte memory buffer. This memory corruption crashes the server. In FreeIPA and Red Hat Identity Management environments, any domain user, enrolled host, or service account with valid credentials can exploit this over the network to cause an outage.
Source data · NVD / CISA · public domain
- CVSS
- 3.1 · 8.8 HIGH · CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Weaknesses (CWE)
- CWE-122
- Affected products
- 0 configuration(s)
- Published / Modified
- 2026-07-07 / 2026-07-08
NVD description (verbatim)
A heap buffer overflow flaw was found in the SASL I/O layer of 389 Directory Server (389-ds-base). After a successful SASL bind with integrity protection (SSF > 0), an authenticated attacker can send a specially crafted oversized LDAP UNBIND packet that is copied into a 512-byte heap receive buffer without a bounds check in sasl_io_recv() in sasl_io.c. This allows up to approximately 2 megabytes of attacker-controlled data to overflow the buffer, causing a denial of service (server crash). In FreeIPA and Red Hat Identity Management deployments, any domain user with a valid Kerberos ticket, any enrolled host, or any service account can trigger this vulnerability over the network after authenticating via GSSAPI. The vulnerable code path has existed since approximately 2013 (389-ds-base 1.3.2) and was not addressed by the CVE-2025-14905 fix, which patched a separate heap overflow in schema.c only.
19 reference(s) · View on NVD →
SEC.co analysis · AI-assisted, reviewed against source
Technical summary
The vulnerability resides in the sasl_io_recv() function within sasl_io.c of 389-ds-base. The flaw is a heap buffer overflow occurring after successful SASL authentication with SSF > 0 (security strength factor indicating integrity/confidentiality protection is active). An attacker sends an oversized LDAP UNBIND packet that is copied into a fixed 512-byte heap buffer without bounds validation, permitting approximately 2 megabytes of controlled data to overflow the allocation. This corrupts adjacent heap memory and typically results in process termination. The vulnerable code path has persisted since 389-ds-base version 1.3.2 (circa 2013) and was not remediated by the separate CVE-2025-14905 fix, which addressed a different heap overflow in schema.c.
Business impact
This vulnerability enables authenticated denial of service attacks against directory infrastructure. Organizations using FreeIPA or Red Hat Identity Management face operational disruption when any domain user, service account, or enrolled system with valid Kerberos credentials triggers the flaw. Recovery requires manual server restart. In environments where directory services underpin authentication, account management, and policy distribution, sustained exploitation could degrade user access and system provisioning workflows. The attacker requires only valid credentials—no privilege escalation or additional exploitation chain is necessary.
Affected systems
389 Directory Server (389-ds-base) is affected, particularly in deployments integrated with FreeIPA or Red Hat Identity Management. The vulnerability is present in 389-ds-base 1.3.2 and subsequent versions through the current release. Verify specific vulnerable version ranges and patched releases in the official Red Hat security advisory. Red Hat Identity Management customers should prioritize assessment of their deployment scale and credential distribution scope.
Exploitability
Exploitability is straightforward for any entity holding valid LDAP credentials (domain user, service account, enrolled host with Kerberos ticket in FreeIPA/IdM). No special attack tools or code execution are required—a crafted LDAP packet can be transmitted via standard protocol mechanisms after authentication. Network accessibility is required, but the attack occurs post-authentication over the normal LDAP port. The low complexity and minimal prerequisites make this a practical denial-of-service vector for insider threats or compromised account scenarios.
Remediation
Apply the security patch provided by Red Hat for 389-ds-base. Verify the patched version number against the official security advisory to ensure the fix addresses sasl_io.c, not just the separately patched schema.c overflow. Organizations should coordinate patching with directory service maintenance windows to minimize authentication service downtime. No workarounds are available short of restricting SASL integrity protection, which would weaken authentication security.
Patch guidance
Obtain and deploy the patched 389-ds-base version from Red Hat's package repositories. Test the update in a non-production environment first, particularly if FreeIPA or Red Hat Identity Management relies on this service for critical infrastructure. Verify the patch release notes explicitly mention the sasl_io.c overflow fix to confirm the correct version addresses this CVE. After patching, restart affected directory server instances and validate authentication and replication functionality before returning to production.
Detection guidance
Monitor directory server logs for unexpected UNBIND packets or connection resets that correlate with SASL authentication events. Heap corruption may be detectable via OS-level memory sanitizers or debug assertions if enabled in your build. Check system logs for segmentation fault errors from the ns-slapd process. Network-based detection is challenging without deep packet inspection of LDAP protocol details; prioritize log correlation on the server side. Track failed or anomalous authentication patterns that precede service crashes.
Why prioritize this
CVSS 8.8 (HIGH) reflects the combination of network accessibility, requirement for valid credentials only (post-authentication), and direct denial of service impact. While the attack requires authentication, compromise of any domain user or service account credential—common in large environments—enables exploitation. For organizations where directory services underpin identity infrastructure, availability is critical. The 13-year existence of the vulnerable code path and its survival of a related patch indicate mature exploitation potential and increased likelihood of external awareness.
Risk score, explained
The score of 8.8 reflects HIGH severity: the vulnerability is network-accessible (AV:N), requires low attack complexity post-authentication (AC:L), needs valid credentials (PR:L), causes high impact to availability via denial of service (A:H), and also impacts confidentiality and integrity through memory corruption (C:H/I:H). The lack of user interaction (UI:N) and universal scope (S:U) increase the score. However, the hard prerequisite of valid authentication prevents a critical rating. In environments with thousands of user credentials or service accounts, the practical impact escalates substantially.
Frequently asked questions
Do we need to be in FreeIPA or Red Hat Identity Management to be vulnerable?
No. The vulnerability affects any 389 Directory Server deployment using SASL with integrity protection. FreeIPA and Red Hat Identity Management are explicitly mentioned because those products integrate 389-ds-base and automatically enable SASL features, broadening the attack surface. Standalone 389-ds-base instances with SASL enabled and users authenticated via GSSAPI or similar mechanisms are equally vulnerable.
Can an unauthenticated attacker exploit this?
No. The vulnerability requires a successful SASL bind with integrity protection (SSF > 0) already established. An attacker must hold valid credentials and complete authentication first. This significantly limits the threat to insider threats, compromised accounts, or scenarios where credentials have been leaked.
What happens if SASL integrity protection is disabled?
Disabling integrity protection (SSF = 0) would bypass the vulnerable code path, but this severely weakens authentication security and is not recommended as a remediation. The proper fix is to apply the patch, not to relax authentication controls.
Is there a difference between this and CVE-2025-14905?
Yes. CVE-2025-14905 patched a separate heap overflow in schema.c. This vulnerability is in sasl_io.c and was not addressed by that fix. Organizations that applied the CVE-2025-14905 patch are still vulnerable to this flaw and require a separate update.
This analysis is based on the CVE-2026-11610 description and CVSS vector provided as ground truth. Specific patch version numbers, affected version ranges, and remediation steps should be verified against the official Red Hat security advisory before implementation. No exploit code or weaponized proof-of-concept is provided. Organizations should assess their environment's reliance on 389-ds-base and credential distribution scope to prioritize patching. This document is for informational purposes and does not constitute professional security advice tailored to your infrastructure. Source: NVD (public-domain), retrieved 2026-08-16. Analysis generated by SEC.co (claude-haiku-4-5).
Weaknesses (CWE)
Related vulnerabilities
- CVE-2023-43688HIGHMalwarebytes Heap Buffer Overflow Denial of Service Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-0059HIGHAndroid Heap Buffer Overflow in SDP Discovery – Remote Code Execution
- CVE-2026-0100HIGHAndroid Heap Buffer Overflow Local Privilege Escalation
- CVE-2026-0132HIGHAndroid Modem Heap Buffer Overflow - RCE Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-0149HIGHAndroid RTP Heap Buffer Overflow Leading to Remote Code Execution
- CVE-2026-10929HIGHChrome Android Heap Buffer Overflow & Sandbox Escape Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-10946HIGHChrome Heap Buffer Overflow in Media Processing—Patch Guidance
- CVE-2026-10949HIGHChrome Heap Overflow Sandbox Escape Vulnerability