Pam LdapApplication · Padl Software

CVE-2005-2641

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v2.0 Published 2005-08-23
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Unknown vulnerability in pam_ldap before 180 does not properly handle a new password policy control, which could allow attackers to gain privileges. NOTE: CVE-2005-2497 had also been assigned to this issue, but CVE-2005-2641 is the correct candidate.

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 confidence

pam_ldap before version 180 contains a vulnerability in how it handles LDAP password policy controls. The improper handling allows attackers to bypass password policy enforcement and potentially gain elevated privileges by exploiting the password policy control processing logic.

MitigationUpgrade pam_ldap to version 180 or later to obtain the fixed password policy control handling. Verify LDAP password policies are properly enforced after the upgrade.

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
Pam LdapApplication
Affected:<= build_178

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify pam_ldap installation
    Run 'rpm -q pam_ldap' or 'dpkg -l | grep pam_ldap' to find the installed package, or check for the library file /lib/security/pam_ldap.so or /lib64/security/pam_ldap.so
    Affected if The package is not found (not installed) or the version number returned is lower than or equal to 178
  2. Determine exact pam_ldap version
    If installed via RPM, run 'rpm -qi pam_ldap' to get the full version details including build number. For source installations, check the file version or run 'ldd' on the pam_ldap.so library
    Affected if The version shows build_178 or any build number lower than 178, or the version string indicates a release prior to version 180
  3. Locate LDAP password policy configuration
    Check /etc/ldap.conf or /etc/pam_ldap.conf for lines containing 'pam_password_prohibit_message' or 'nss_base_passwd' directives, and look for 'ssl' or 'tls' settings that indicate active LDAP communication
    Affected if Password policy related directives are present in the LDAP configuration, meaning password policies would be enforced if pam_ldap were working correctly
  4. Verify password policy control processing
    Inspect the PAM configuration files in /etc/pam.d/ (such as system-auth, login, sshd) for any 'pam_ldap.so' module entries, and check /etc/ldap.conf for 'pam_login_attribute' or similar policy-related settings
    Affected if PAM stack uses pam_ldap and the LDAP configuration contains password policy controls - this means the vulnerable code path would be exercised during authentication

A system is affected if pam_ldap version 178 or earlier is installed AND the LDAP configuration uses password policy controls, allowing attackers to bypass password expiration, lockout, or complexity requirements.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade pam_ldap to version 180 or later to obtain the fixed password policy control handling. Verify LDAP password policies are properly enforced after the upgrade.

Fix this in Pam Ldap Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,750
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-2641 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2005-2641 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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