LinuxOperating system · Redhat
CVE-2002-0045
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedslapd in OpenLDAP 2.0 through 2.0.19 allows local users, and anonymous users before 2.0.8, to conduct a "replace" action on access controls without any values, which causes OpenLDAP to delete non-mandatory attributes that would otherwise be protected by ACLs.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe slapd daemon in OpenLDAP 2.0 through 2.0.19 contains an access control bypass where local users and anonymous users (in versions before 2.0.8) can perform a 'replace' action on access control entries without providing any values. This causes OpenLDAP to delete non-mandatory attributes that should be protected by ACLs, effectively bypassing access controls.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
LinuxOperating system
= 7.0= 7.1= 7.2<= 2.0.19= 2.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check if OpenLDAP slapd is installedRun 'rpm -qa | grep -i openldap' or 'ldapd -v' to list installed OpenLDAP packagesAffected if OpenLDAP server packages are found on the system
-
Determine installed OpenLDAP versionRun 'rpm -q openldap' or 'slapd -V' to get the exact version numberAffected if Version is 2.0.x where x is 19 or lower, or specifically 2.0.0 through 2.0.19
-
Verify Red Hat Linux versionRun 'cat /etc/redhat-release' to check the OS versionAffected if Running Red Hat Linux 7.0, 7.1, or 7.2
-
Check if slapd daemon is runningRun 'ps aux | grep slapd' or 'service ldap status' to see if the LDAP server is activeAffected if slapd process is currently running on a vulnerable version
-
Inspect anonymous access configurationCheck slapd.conf for 'disallow bind_anon' or 'require authc' directives; also check for 'anonymous_bind' settingsAffected if Anonymous access is not explicitly denied (particularly relevant for versions before 2.0.8)
You are affected if OpenLDAP slapd version 2.0 through 2.0.19 is installed and running on Red Hat Linux 7.0-7.2 with anonymous or local user access allowed.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade to OpenLDAP 2.0.20 or later which contains the patch. For vulnerable older versions, restrict or disable anonymous access and limit local user privileges until upgrade can be performed.
Fix this in Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-0045 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2002-0045 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data