dbcve.org
Incorrect AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-863

CVE-2024-45160

CRITICAL · 9.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-10-09
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Incorrect credential validation in LemonLDAP::NG 2.18.x and 2.19.x before 2.19.2 allows attackers to bypass OAuth2 client authentication via an empty client_password parameter (client secret).

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 confidence

LemonLDAP::NG versions 2.18.x and 2.19.x before 2.19.2 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in its OAuth2 client authentication mechanism. The application incorrectly validates credentials when a client provides an empty client_password (client secret), allowing attackers to bypass the authentication requirement entirely and potentially gain unauthorized access to protected OAuth2 resources.

MitigationUpgrade LemonLDAP::NG to version 2.19.2 or later to patch the credential validation flaw. If immediate upgrade is not possible, review OAuth2 client configurations and monitor for unauthorized access attempts using empty client secrets.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed LemonLDAP::NG version
    Run 'lemonldap-ng-cli --version' or check the installed package version using your system's package manager (dpkg -l or rpm -qa for lemonldap-ng-common or lemonldap-ng packages)
    Affected if Version is 2.18.x or 2.19.x before 2.19.2 (versions 2.18.0 through 2.19.1 are vulnerable)
  2. Determine if OAuth2 client authentication is configured
    Access the LemonLDAP::NG manager interface or review configuration files. Look for OAuth2 relying party (RP) or OAuth2 client definitions in the authentication/configuration section
    Affected if OAuth2 clients relying on client_secret authentication are configured in LemonLDAP::NG
  3. Review OAuth2 client credentials for empty secrets
    Examine each OAuth2 client configuration and inspect the client_password or client_secret field. Check if any client has a blank, empty, or unset password value
    Affected if Any OAuth2 client has an empty or blank client_password (client secret) configured, allowing the bypass to succeed

You are affected if your LemonLDAP::NG version is 2.18.x or 2.19.x before 2.19.2 and you have OAuth2 clients configured with empty client secrets, which would allow attackers to bypass authentication using a blank password.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade LemonLDAP::NG to version 2.19.2 or later to patch the credential validation flaw. If immediate upgrade is not possible, review OAuth2 client configurations and monitor for unauthorized access attempts using empty client secrets.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

2.19.2

  1. Identify current LemonLDAP::NG version installed (e.g., check package manager or /etc/lemonldap-ng/VERSION)
  2. Consult LemonLDAP::NG release notes for version 2.19.2 to understand changes
  3. Back up current LemonLDAP::NG configuration and database
  4. Upgrade LemonLDAP::NG to version 2.19.2 or later using package manager (apt-get update && apt-get install lemonldap-ng for Debian/Ubuntu, or yum/dnf for RHEL/CentOS)
  5. Verify the upgrade completed successfully
  6. Test OAuth2 client authentication to confirm the fix is applied
  7. Review configuration to ensure client_password is properly set for OAuth2 clients
Caveat Review release notes for 2.19.2 - minor version upgrades within 2.19.x typically maintain backward compatibility

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
12.0 hours of engineering $2,130
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,408.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-45160 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-45160 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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