CVE-2020-10730
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 · uneditedA NULL pointer dereference, or possible use-after-free flaw was found in Samba AD LDAP server in versions before 4.10.17, before 4.11.11 and before 4.12.4. Although some versions of Samba shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux do not support Samba in AD mode, the affected code is shipped with the libldb package. This flaw allows an authenticated user to possibly trigger a use-after-free or NULL pointer dereference. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to system availability.
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 confidenceA NULL pointer dereference or possible use-after-free vulnerability exists in Samba AD LDAP server's libldb package in versions before 4.10.17, 4.11.11, and 4.12.4. An authenticated user can trigger this flaw, causing a denial of service impact to system availability.
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= 3.0= 31= 9.0= 10.0>= 4.5.0, < 4.10.17>= 4.11.0, < 4.11.11>= 4.12.0, < 4.12.4= 15.1= 15.2CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check Samba versionRun 'samba --version' or 'rpm -q samba' / 'dpkg -l samba' to obtain the installed Samba version.Affected if Version is < 4.10.17, < 4.11.11, or < 4.12.4 while >= 4.5.0.
-
Verify Samba AD mode is enabledInspect /etc/samba/smb.conf and look for 'server role = active directory domain controller' or check if 'samba' process is running as an AD DC.Affected if Samba AD domain controller mode is active, exposing the vulnerable libldb code in the AD LDAP server.
-
Confirm libldb package versionRun 'rpm -q ldb' or 'dpkg -l ldb' to check the libldb version bundled with or used by Samba.Affected if The libldb version corresponds to the vulnerable Samba version ranges.
-
Check if LDAP server for AD is exposedReview network listeners (netstat -tlnp | grep -E 'ldap|samba') to confirm the AD LDAP server port (389/tcp) is open and accepting connections.Affected if The AD LDAP server is listening and accessible to authenticated users, allowing them to trigger the flaw.
The system is affected if Samba version falls within the vulnerable ranges AND Samba AD mode is enabled with the LDAP server exposed to authenticated users.
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 data4.10.174.11.114.12.4
Upgrade Samba to version 4.10.17, 4.11.11, 4.12.4 or later to address the NULL pointer dereference/use-after-free in libldb. If Samba AD mode is not required, ensure the affected libldb code is not exposed to authenticated users.
- 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-2020-10730 — 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-2020-10730 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