CVE-2011-0917
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 nLDAP.exe in IBM Lotus Domino allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a long string in an LDAP Bind operation, aka SPR KLYH87LMVX.
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 vulnerability in IBM Lotus Domino's nLDAP.exe component allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a specially crafted LDAP Bind operation containing an excessively long string.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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.
-
Verify IBM Lotus Domino installationCheck for IBM Lotus Domino installation directory (typically C:\IBM\Lotus\Domino or /opt/ibm/lotus/domino) and locate the nLDAP.exe binary within the Domino program folderAffected if IBM Lotus Domino is installed and nLDAP.exe is present on the system
-
Identify installed Domino versionRun 'domino -version' or 'nserver -version' from the Domino program directory, or check the version via Windows Programs and FeaturesAffected if Any version of IBM Lotus Domino is installed (all versions are affected)
-
Confirm LDAP service is enabledCheck if the LDAP task is loaded by viewing Domino server console output, checking ntask output, or reviewing the server's notes.ini for 'LDAP' in the ServerTasks or ServerTasksAt lineAffected if LDAP task is enabled in the Domino server configuration
-
Verify nLDAP.exe is accessibleConfirm nLDAP.exe exists in the Domino program directory and check if LDAP ports (389, 636) are listening on the server using netstat or equivalentAffected if nLDAP.exe binary exists and LDAP network listener is active
If IBM Lotus Domino is installed with the nLDAP.exe component and LDAP service is enabled, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.
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 IBM security patch for SPR KLYH87LMVX to IBM Lotus Domino servers. If immediate patching is not feasible, restrict network access to LDAP services or disable them if not required.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $3,072.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-0917 — 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-2011-0917 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