CVE-2005-2301
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 · uneditedPowerDNS before 2.9.18, when running with an LDAP backend, does not properly escape LDAP queries, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (failure to answer ldap questions) and possibly conduct an LDAP injection attack.
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 · moderate confidencePowerDNS before version 2.9.18, when configured with an LDAP backend for DNS zone lookups, fails to properly escape/sanitize user input before embedding it in LDAP queries. This allows specially crafted input to potentially manipulate LDAP query syntax (LDAP injection) or cause the LDAP backend to fail, resulting in denial of service.
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= 2.9.0= 2.9.1= 2.9.2= 2.9.3a= 2.9.4= 2.9.5= 2.9.6= 2.9.7= 2.9.8= 2.9.10= 2.9.11= 2.9.12CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Identify PowerDNS versionRun the command to display the PowerDNS version (e.g., pdns_control version or pdns --version)Affected if The version displayed is 2.9.0, 2.9.1, 2.9.2, 2.9.3a, 2.9.4, 2.9.5, 2.9.6, 2.9.7, 2.9.8, 2.9.10, 2.9.11, or 2.9.12
-
Locate PowerDNS configuration fileFind the PowerDNS configuration file (commonly pdns.conf or specified via --config-dir)Affected if Configuration file exists and can be examined
-
Verify LDAP backend is enabledSearch the configuration file for the 'launch' or 'backend' directive and check if 'ldap' is specifiedAffected if The LDAP backend is listed in the launch or backend configuration directive
You are affected if PowerDNS version is 2.9.0 through 2.9.12 AND the LDAP backend is configured/enabled for DNS zone lookups.
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 PowerDNS to version 2.9.18 or later. If upgrade is not feasible, implement input validation/escaping at the application layer before queries reach the LDAP backend.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-2301 — 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-2005-2301 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