Directory ServerApplication · Redhat
CVE-2008-1677
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in the regular expression handler in Red Hat Directory Server 8.0 and 7.1 before SP6 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (slapd crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted LDAP query that triggers the overflow during translation to a regular expression.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow in the regular expression handler in Red Hat Directory Server 8.0 and 7.1 allows remote attackers to cause denial of service (slapd crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted LDAP query that triggers the overflow during translation to a regular expression.
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
Directory ServerApplication
= 7.1= 8.0
Fedora Directory ServerApplication
= 1.1CVSS 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.
-
Identify if Red Hat Directory Server or Fedora Directory Server is installedRun 'rpm -qa | grep -i directory' or check for /opt/redhat-ds or /opt/fedora-ds directory. Also check for 'dirsrv' service processes: 'ps -ef | grep dirsrv'Affected if No Red Hat or Fedora Directory Server is found (not affected)
-
Determine the exact installed version of the directory serverFor RHDS 7.1/8.0: rpm -qiredhat-ds-base or check /opt/redhat-ds/version. For FDS: rpm -qafedora-ds-base. Compare against affected versions 7.1, 8.0, and 1.1Affected if Installed version equals 7.1, 8.0, or 1.1 exactly
-
Check if slapd service is running and network-accessibleRun 'ps -ef | grep slapd' to find slapd processes, then check listening ports with 'netstat -tlnp | grep slapd' or 'ss -tlnp | grep slapd'Affected if slapd is running and bound to a network interface accessible to potential attackers
-
Determine if LDAP queries from untrusted sources are acceptedCheck the LDAP service configuration in /etc/dirsrv/slapd-<instance>/dse.ldif for 'allow' or 'deny' rules, and review network ACLs in cn=plugins,cn=configAffected if LDAP service accepts queries from untrusted network sources without input filtering
System is affected if Red Hat Directory Server version 7.1 or 8.0 (or Fedora Directory Server 1.1) is installed, the slapd service is network-accessible, and untrusted LDAP queries can reach the server.
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 dataApply Red Hat Directory Server 7.1 SP6 or later补丁 to affected systems. Additionally, network-level filtering of LDAP queries and input validation at the directory server boundary can reduce attack surface.
Fix this in Directory Server
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-1677 — 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-2008-1677 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