Fedora CoreOperating system · Redhat
CVE-2006-0451
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 · uneditedMultiple memory leaks in the LDAP component in Fedora Directory Server 1.0 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via invalid BER packets that trigger an error, which might prevent memory from being freed if it was allocated during the ber_scanf call, as demonstrated using the ProtoVer LDAP test suite.
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 confidenceMultiple memory leaks in the LDAP component of Fedora Directory Server 1.0 allow remote attackers to cause denial of service via memory consumption. Invalid BER (Basic Encoding Rules) packets trigger errors, but memory allocated during ber_scanf calls is not freed in error paths, leading to gradual memory exhaustion.
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
Fedora CoreOperating system
= 1.0CVSS 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
- 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 if Fedora Directory Server is installedCheck for the presence of the fedora-ds or fedora-directory-server package using rpm -qa | grep -i fedora-ds, or check for directory server processes using ps aux | grep ns-slapdAffected if The package or process is found on the system
-
Determine the installed versionRun rpm -q fedora-ds-base or rpm -q fedora-ds to retrieve the exact version number, or check /opt/fedora-ds/VERSION if the directory existsAffected if The version is 1.0 exactly (1.0.x or 1.0) since only version 1.0 is affected
-
Verify the LDAP service is running and enabledCheck service status using systemctl status dirsrv or service dirsrv status, and confirm the LDAP listener port 389 is open using netstat -tlnp | grep 389Affected if The LDAP service (ns-slapd) is running and listening on network ports, making it remotely accessible
-
Confirm network exposureReview firewall rules or netstat output to determine if the LDAP port (389 or 636 for LDAPS) is bound to a public or untrusted network interfaceAffected if The LDAP service is exposed to untrusted network traffic rather than localhost only
A system is affected if Fedora Directory Server version 1.0 is installed with the LDAP service running and exposed to network traffic, allowing remote attackers to send malformed BER packets that trigger memory leaks.
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 a patched version of Fedora Directory Server that properly frees memory in error handling paths of BER parsing. If upgrade is not possible, consider network-level filtering to block malformed LDAP/BER packets.
Fix this in Fedora Core
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-0451 — 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-2006-0451 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