HIGH 7.6

CVE-2026-11774: 389 Directory Server SASL Integer Overflow Remote Code Execution

389 Directory Server contains an integer overflow vulnerability in its SASL authentication layer that allows authenticated attackers to bypass size restrictions and overflow heap memory. An attacker with valid domain credentials (such as any user in a FreeIPA or Red Hat Identity Management environment) can send a specially crafted authentication packet that causes an integer wraparound, enabling them to write up to 2MB of malicious data into memory. This can crash the directory service or, in some cases, lead to remote code execution. The vulnerability requires prior authentication but is easily triggerable over the network.

Source data · NVD / CISA · public domain

CVSS
3.1 · 7.6 HIGH · CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-190
Affected products
0 configuration(s)
Published / Modified
2026-06-11 / 2026-07-15

NVD description (verbatim)

An integer overflow flaw was found in the SASL I/O layer of 389 Directory Server (389-ds-base). In sasl_io_start_packet(), adding sizeof(uint32_t) to a crafted SASL packet length prefix of 0xFFFFFFFC causes unsigned wraparound to zero, bypassing the nsslapd-maxsasliosize limit and leading to a heap buffer overflow of up to approximately 2 megabytes of attacker-controlled data. After a successful SASL bind with integrity protection (SSF > 0), a remote attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) or achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE). In FreeIPA and Red Hat Identity Management deployments, any domain user with a valid Kerberos ticket, enrolled host, or service account can trigger this vulnerability over the network. This flaw is independent of CVE-2025-14905, which patched schema.c only and did not modify sasl_io.c.

39 reference(s) · View on NVD →

SEC.co analysis · AI-assisted, reviewed against source

Technical summary

The vulnerability exists in the sasl_io_start_packet() function within 389-ds-base's SASL I/O layer. When processing a SASL packet with a crafted length prefix of 0xFFFFFFFC, the addition of sizeof(uint32_t) causes unsigned integer wraparound to zero. This bypass circumvents the nsslapd-maxsasliosize limit check, allowing subsequent allocation and write operations to proceed without the intended bounds protection. The overflow occurs during or after SASL bind completion when integrity protection is active (SSF > 0). This is a distinct flaw from CVE-2025-14905, which addressed schema validation separately and did not remediate this sasl_io.c code path.

Business impact

Directory services are critical for authentication and identity management across enterprise networks. Compromise of 389 Directory Server can lead to service unavailability affecting all dependent applications, or worse, unauthorized code execution with directory server privileges. In FreeIPA and Red Hat Identity Management contexts, any domain user becomes a potential attack vector, significantly expanding the threat surface. Organizations relying on these systems for Kerberos-based authentication face both availability and confidentiality/integrity risks.

Affected systems

389 Directory Server (389-ds-base) is affected. The vulnerability is particularly acute in FreeIPA and Red Hat Identity Management deployments where the authentication model allows domain users, enrolled hosts, and service accounts to initiate SASL binds. Any environment using SASL with integrity protection (SSF > 0) is vulnerable. Verify the specific version running in your environment against the vendor's security advisory for precise patch applicability.

Exploitability

Exploitability is moderate-to-high in federated identity environments. An attacker must first obtain valid credentials (Kerberos ticket, service account, or domain user status), but in FreeIPA deployments this is a low bar since any domain user qualifies. No user interaction is required, and the attack is triggered over the network with a single malformed packet after authentication. The simplicity of the integer overflow condition and the broad credential eligibility make this relatively easy to weaponize once access is present.

Remediation

Apply the security patch released by Red Hat or 389 Directory Server maintainers for this vulnerability. The patch addresses the sasl_io.c code path to properly validate packet lengths before arithmetic operations. Organizations should prioritize patching directory servers, then verify that integrity protection settings (SSF configuration) are appropriate for their security posture. No workarounds are available; patching is the only mitigation.

Patch guidance

Check the Red Hat Security Advisory and 389 Directory Server release notes for the corrected version. Install the patched 389-ds-base package and restart the directory service. In high-availability deployments, apply patches in rolling fashion to maintain service continuity. Test the patch in a non-production environment first, particularly if custom SASL configurations are in use. Verify that SASL authentication continues to function correctly post-patch.

Detection guidance

Monitor directory server logs for unusual packet structures or size errors in SASL I/O processing. Intrusion detection systems may flag packets with suspiciously large SASL payloads or repeated connection attempts with crafted authentication data. Track authentication events for domain users or service accounts originating from unexpected network locations. Heap corruption or segmentation faults in the directory server process can indicate exploitation attempts; monitor process stability and core dumps.

Why prioritize this

This vulnerability merits urgent attention due to the combination of: (1) unauthenticated-seeming ease of exploitation by any domain user; (2) potential for remote code execution in addition to denial of service; (3) criticality of directory services to enterprise authentication infrastructure; (4) broad applicability in FreeIPA and Red Hat Identity Management deployments. The CVSS score of 7.6 (HIGH) appropriately reflects the risk.

Risk score, explained

CVSS 3.1 score of 7.6 reflects a high-severity flaw with network accessibility (AV:N), low attack complexity (AC:L), and requirement for low-level privileges (PR:L—any domain user suffices). The impact is substantial: loss of availability (heap overflow causing DoS), partial confidentiality and integrity impact (RCE potential). The score does not require active exploitation in the wild but accounts for the realistic threat in identity-managed environments.

Frequently asked questions

Does this affect my organization if we don't use FreeIPA or Red Hat Identity Management?

If you run 389 Directory Server with SASL integrity protection enabled, you are potentially affected. However, the attack surface is smallest if your SASL configuration is restricted to service-to-service authentication rather than user authentication. Review your nsslapd-sasl-secprops and SSF requirements to understand your exposure.

What's the difference between this and CVE-2025-14905?

CVE-2025-14905 patched schema validation in schema.c only. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-11774) is a separate, independent flaw in sasl_io.c that was not fixed by the prior patch. Both should be treated as separate security issues requiring separate patches.

Can an attacker exploit this without valid credentials?

No. The vulnerability requires successful completion of a SASL bind operation with integrity protection (SSF > 0). An attacker must first authenticate legitimately or have valid credentials. In FreeIPA environments, this is any domain user; in closed systems, the threat surface is narrower but still real for insider threats.

What's the risk if we have integrity protection disabled (SSF = 0)?

The integer overflow and heap corruption can still occur if SSF > 0 is configured elsewhere or if the attacker establishes a SASL connection that negotiates integrity. Disabling SSF entirely weakens your authentication layer in other ways. The safest approach is to patch rather than weaken security controls.

This analysis is based on disclosed vulnerability information and CVSS metrics as of the published date. Specific patch versions, affected product versions, and remediation steps must be verified against official Red Hat and 389 Directory Server security advisories. No exploit code or weaponized proof-of-concept is provided. Organizations should conduct their own risk assessment and testing before deploying patches in production. SEC.co makes no warranty regarding the completeness or accuracy of this analysis for any particular deployment. Source: NVD (public-domain), retrieved 2026-07-20. Analysis generated by SEC.co (claude-haiku-4-5).