Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:56:55 +1000
From: David Black <>
Subject: Re: CVE request - ldapauth-fork versions < 2.3.3 are vulnerable to
 ldap injection.

On 19 September 2015 at 05:08, <> wrote:

> Hash: SHA256
> >
> >
> Use CVE-2015-7294.
> The existence of a fork does not, by itself, lead to use of multiple CVE
> IDs.
> The CVE ID is for the vulnerability in the shared codebase, regardless of
> the
> product names in which that codebase is used.
> has comments from the vendor about possible mitigating factors. Given
> those comments, is the most straightforward threat that the attacker
> may be able to arrange for a search result to be exactly one username,
> and may not know the complete username in advance but may know the
> password in advance?

That's one option. I was actually thinking that an attacker could also
exploit this issue to extract information from ldap - provided that the
attacker knows a working username and password combination then they should
be able craft ldap queries that only match their username if an additional
search condition is met.

David Black / Security Engineer.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.