Directory ServerApplication · Redhat
CVE-2011-0019
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 · uneditedslapd (aka ns-slapd) in 389 Directory Server 1.2.7.5 (aka Red Hat Directory Server 8.2.x or dirsrv) does not properly handle simple paged result searches, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via multiple search requests.
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 confidenceThe slapd daemon in 389 Directory Server 1.2.7.5 (and Red Hat Directory Server 8.2.x) contains a vulnerability in handling simple paged result searches. Remote attackers can send multiple search requests that improperly interact with the paged results mechanism, causing the daemon to crash (denial of service) or potentially achieve unspecified additional impact.
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
= 8.2= 8.2.3= 1.2.7.5CVSS 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 installed Directory Server productRun 'rpm -qa | grep -i directory' or 'yum list installed | grep -i directory' to list installed directory server packagesAffected if Package name indicates 389 Directory Server or Red Hat Directory Server
-
Determine installed versionRun 'rpm -q <package-name>' or check the specific package version installed, comparing to affected versions 1.2.7.5 (389 DS) or 8.2/8.2.3 (RH DS)Affected if Version matches exactly 1.2.7.5 for 389 DS or 8.2.x for Red Hat Directory Server
-
Verify slapd daemon is runningRun 'ps -ef | grep slapd' or 'systemctl status dirsrv' to confirm the directory server daemon is activeAffected if slapd process is running (vulnerable code path is exposed)
-
Confirm LDAP service accessibilityCheck network listening status with 'netstat -tlnp | grep 389' or verify LDAP port 389 is open and accessibleAffected if LDAP service is exposed to network (enables remote attack vector)
User is affected if they run vulnerable versions (389 DS 1.2.7.5 or RH DS 8.2/8.2.3) with slapd running and LDAP accessible to potential attackers.
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 the vendor patch or upgrade to a patched version of 389 Directory Server. Consider implementing rate limiting or access controls on LDAP search operations as a temporary mitigation while patching.
Fix this in Directory Server
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-0019 — 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-2011-0019 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