CVE-2019-19791
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 · uneditedIn LemonLDAP::NG (aka lemonldap-ng) before 2.0.7, the default Apache HTTP Server configuration does not properly restrict access to SOAP/REST endpoints (when some LemonLDAP::NG setup options are used). For example, an attacker can insert index.fcgi/index.fcgi into a URL to bypass a Require directive.
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 confidenceThe default Apache HTTP Server configuration in LemonLDAP::NG before version 2.0.7 fails to properly restrict access to SOAP/REST endpoints. Attackers can bypass authentication controls by inserting 'index.fcgi/index.fcgi' into the URL path, exploiting how Apache processes the request and matching it against the wrong Require directive.
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< 2.0.7CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Determine installed LemonLDAP::NG versionCheck the installed package version via package manager (e.g., dpkg -l lemonldap-ng-common, apt list lemonldap-ng, or rpm -qa lemonldap-ng) or access the LemonLDAP::NG administration interface and look for the version displayed in the portal or handler settingsAffected if version is less than 2.0.7
-
Locate and inspect Apache configuration for LemonLDAP::NGFind the Apache configuration files specific to LemonLDAP::NG, typically in /etc/apache2/sites-enabled/ or /etc/httpd/conf.d/ (e.g., handler.conf, portal.conf, or related *.conf files). Open these files and search for sections defining SOAP and REST endpoints, such as locations matching /soap/, /rest/, or /index.fcgi/Affected if the configuration lacks proper 'Require' directives (e.g., 'Require valid-user' or 'Require all denied') for these endpoint locations, or the directives are incorrectly applied to allow unauthenticated access
-
Verify the index.fcgi bypass vulnerabilityFrom a test client, send an HTTP request to the LemonLDAP::NG handler or portal appending '/index.fcgi/index.fcgi' to the URL path for SOAP or REST endpoints (e.g., http://example.com/index.fcgi/index.fcgi/soap/...). Check if the request is processed without requiring authenticationAffected if the request is successful and returns expected SOAP/REST data without authentication, indicating the bypass is active
-
Confirm Require directives for affected locationsIn the Apache configuration files, examine the <Location>, <LocationMatch>, or Directory blocks that contain paths to SOAP/REST endpoints or index.fcgi. Ensure they include 'Require valid-user' or 'Require all denied' and are not overridden by broader rules that allow accessAffected if no such restrictive Require directives are present, or they are missing for paths that include index.fcgi, leaving the endpoints unprotected
The environment is affected if the installed LemonLDAP::NG version is below 2.0.7 and the Apache configuration does not enforce authentication on SOAP/REST endpoints, allowing the index.fcgi/index.fcgi bypass to grant unauthenticated access.
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.
dbcve · scoped2.0.7
Upgrade to LemonLDAP::NG 2.0.7 or later to obtain the corrected Apache configuration, or manually harden the Apache config to ensure all SOAP/REST endpoints are protected by appropriate Require directives.
2.0.7
- 1. Backup the current LemonLDAP::NG installation and configuration directory (typically /etc/lemonldap-ng)
- 2. Upgrade LemonLDAP::NG to version 2.0.7 or later using your system's package manager (apt, yum, etc.) or from source
- 3. After upgrade, verify the Apache configuration files (especially /etc/lemonldap-ng/apache2.conf or the relevant Apache config) contain proper Require directives to restrict access to SOAP/REST endpoints
- 4. Ensure the configuration does not rely solely on path-based restrictions that can be bypassed using index.fcgi/index.fcgi injection
- 5. Restart Apache httpd service to apply configuration changes
- 6. Test that SOAP/REST endpoints are properly protected and cannot be accessed without proper authentication/authorization
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $3,168.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-19791 — 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-2019-19791 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