CVE-2024-7050
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 · uneditedImproper Authentication vulnerability in OpenText OpenText Directory Services may allow Multi-factor Authentication Bypass in particular scenarios.This issue affects OpenText Directory Services: 24.2.
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 · moderate confidenceImproper authentication vulnerability in OpenText Directory Services version 24.2 allows multi-factor authentication to be bypassed under specific conditions. The flaw stems from insufficient validation or enforcement of MFA requirements during the authentication process, potentially allowing attackers to circumvent the second factor verification.
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
- Authentication
- None
- User interaction
- A
- Scope
- N
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:N/VA:H/SC:H/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:N/AU:N/R:A/V:D/RE:M/U:Amber
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.
-
Identify OpenText Directory Services installationCheck for OpenText Directory Services (OTDS) installation directory, service, or process on the system. Common paths include /opt/opentext/ or C:\Program Files\OpenText\ on Windows. Look for otds service/process running.Affected if OpenText Directory Services is installed and running on the system
-
Check installed version of OpenText Directory ServicesLocate the version file or check the product version through the OTDS admin console, or inspect version files in the installation directory. Compare against the affected version 24.2.Affected if Installed version is exactly 24.2 or falls within the 24.2.x version range
-
Verify if Multi-Factor Authentication is configuredAccess OTDS administration console and check Authentication settings, or inspect configuration files for MFA/2FA enforcement settings. Look for mfaEnabled, secondFactorRequired, or similar configuration parameters.Affected if MFA is enabled or configured for user authentication in OTDS
-
Inspect authentication policy enforcement settingsReview OTDS authentication policies and realm configurations to verify if MFA requirements are properly enforced. Check authentication flow logs or debug settings for MFA validation behavior.Affected if MFA enforcement settings show validation can be bypassed or are not properly enforcing second factor checks
You are affected if OpenText Directory Services version 24.2 is installed with MFA enabled and the authentication policy does not properly enforce second factor validation.
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 vendor-provided patches for OpenText Directory Services 24.2 immediately. Review authentication logs for suspicious activity indicating attempted or successful MFA bypass. Consider implementing additional compensating controls such as IP allowlisting or enhanced monitoring until the patch is applied.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,352.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-7050 — 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-2024-7050 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