CVE-2009-1384
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 · uneditedpam_krb5 2.2.14 through 2.3.4, as used in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 5, generates different password prompts depending on whether the user account exists, which allows remote attackers to enumerate valid usernames.
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 confidencepam_krb5 versions 2.2.14 through 2.3.4, used in RHEL 5, produces different authentication error messages or behaviors depending on whether a user account exists in the system. This information leakage allows remote attackers to iteratively test usernames and determine which accounts are valid on the system, facilitating further attacks.
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= 2.2.14= 2.3= 2.3.4CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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_krb5 is installedRun 'rpm -q pam_krb5' on Red Hat-based systems or 'dpkg -l | grep libpam-krb5' on Debian-based systemsAffected if pam_krb5 package is installed on the system
-
Determine the installed pam_krb5 versionRun 'rpm -q --queryformat "%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}" pam_krb5' on RHEL/CentOS or check the package details from the dpkg query outputAffected if The version is 2.2.14, 2.3.x through 2.3.4, or any version in the range between 2.2.14 and 2.3.4 inclusive
-
Verify pam_krb5 is configured in PAM authenticationSearch for 'pam_krb5.so' in PAM configuration files: grep -r "pam_krb5" /etc/pam.d/ or grep pam_krb5 /etc/pam.confAffected if pam_krb5 is listed in any PAM service configuration used for authentication (such as login, sshd, su, or system-auth)
-
Confirm the vulnerability conditionReview the PAM configuration to verify pam_krb5 is set as sufficient or required for authentication, and the system uses Kerberos authentication for user loginsAffected if pam_krb5 is actively used as an authentication module and the version falls within the affected range
A system is affected if pam_krb5 version 2.2.14 through 2.3.4 is installed and actively configured in PAM for authentication, allowing different error messages to leak account validity information.
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_krb5 to a version beyond 2.3.4 where uniform error responses are returned, or configure PAM to provide identical feedback regardless of account existence.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-1384 — 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-2009-1384 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