CVE-2002-0374
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 · uneditedFormat string vulnerability in the logging function for the pam_ldap PAM LDAP module before version 144 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via format strings in the configuration file name.
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 confidenceA format string vulnerability exists in the logging function of pam_ldap (PAM LDAP module) before version 144. The vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary code by embedding format string specifiers (e.g., %s, %x) in the configuration file name, which is improperly passed to logging functions that interpret format strings.
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<= 144CVSS 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 pam_ldap is installedLook for pam_ldap library files (typically libpam_ldap.so or pam_ldap.so) in PAM module directories such as /lib/security/, /lib64/security/, or /usr/lib/pam_modules/Affected if pam_ldap is present on the system
-
Determine installed pam_ldap versionRun 'rpm -q pam_ldap' (Red Hat) or 'dpkg -l libpam-ldap' (Debian), or check the library file version with 'file' or 'strings' on the pam_ldap binaryAffected if Installed version is 144 or lower, or version cannot be determined (treat as vulnerable)
-
Identify pam_ldap configuration fileCheck /etc/pam_ldap.conf, /etc/ldap.conf, or /etc/pam.d/ files that reference pam_ldap for the configuration file path being usedAffected if A pam_ldap configuration file exists on the system
-
Inspect configuration filename for format specifiersReview the actual configuration filename (not contents) and check if it contains any '%' character followed by format characters like 's', 'x', 'd', 'n', 'p'Affected if The configuration filename contains format string specifiers (%, followed by any format character)
-
Check PAM configuration for pam_ldap usageExamine PAM configuration files in /etc/pam.d/ for any entries using pam_ldap module (auth sufficient pam_ldap.so or similar)Affected if PAM configuration references pam_ldap and the module is in use
A system is affected if pam_ldap version 144 or lower is installed AND the configuration filename contains format string specifiers (%), or if version cannot be determined and a config file exists with such characters in its name.
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 pam_ldap to version 144 or later. If immediate upgrade is not possible, ensure configuration filenames do not contain any format string specifiers (%, followed by any format character). Review and test LDAP authentication functionality after patching.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $3,872.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-0374 — 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-2002-0374 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