CVE-2024-52946
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in LemonLDAP::NG before 2.20.1. An Improper Check during session refresh allows an authenticated user to raise their authentication level if the admin configured an "Adaptative authentication rule" with an increment instead of an absolute value.
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 confidenceLemonLDAP::NG before 2.20.1 has an improper check during session refresh that allows authenticated users to escalate their privileges. When an administrator configures an 'Adaptive authentication rule' using an increment value rather than an absolute value, the session refresh mechanism fails to properly validate the authentication level change, permitting a user to raise their own authentication level.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Check LemonLDAP::NG versionReview the installed package version or check the manager interface (System Overview > About) for the version numberAffected if Version is earlier than 2.20.1
-
Identify adaptive authentication configurationIn the manager interface, navigate to Authentication > Adaptive Authentication or check the configuration file for 'adaptive' rulesAffected if Adaptive authentication rules are defined in the configuration
-
Verify if adaptive rules use incremental valuesExamine the adaptive authentication rule parameters - look for settings that specify incremental increases to authentication level (e.g., '+' prefix or 'increment' type values rather than absolute numeric levels)Affected if Any adaptive rule specifies an incremental increase to authentication level (e.g., level+1 rather than level=5)
-
Confirm session refresh is activeCheck if session refresh is enabled in the session handler configuration or in the handler settingsAffected if Session refresh functionality is enabled and sessions can be refreshed
User is affected if running LemonLDAP::NG version below 2.20.1 with adaptive authentication configured using incremental level increases and session refresh is active
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 · scopedUpgrade to LemonLDAP::NG version 2.20.1 or later. Until then, avoid using increment-based values in Adaptive authentication rules; use absolute values instead.
LemonLDAP::NG 2.20.1
- 1. Check current installed version of LemonLDAP::NG (e.g., using package manager or application status)
- 2. Upgrade to LemonLDAP::NG version 2.20.1 or later
- 3. Review any 'Adaptative authentication rule' configurations to ensure they use absolute values rather than increments if applicable
- 4. Verify the upgrade was successful and test authentication functionality
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2024-52946 — 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-2024-52946 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