In OpenLDAP 2.x before 2.5.12 and 2.6.x before 2.6.2, a SQL injection vulnerability exists in the experimental back-sql backend to slapd, vi
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Plan (action score 58/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 64.4% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 99.2% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: openldap (Alpine:v3.15) 2.6.2-r0; openldap (Debian:10) 2.4.47+dfsg-3+deb10u7; openldap (Debian:11) 2.4.57+dfsg-3+deb11u1.
Add it to your regular patch cycle. Upgrade to openldap (Alpine:v3.15) 2.6.2-r0; openldap (Debian:10) 2.4.47+dfsg-3+deb10u7; openldap (Debian:11) 2.4.57+dfsg-3+deb11u1 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
In OpenLDAP 2.x before 2.5.12 and 2.6.x before 2.6.2, a SQL injection vulnerability exists in the experimental back-sql backend to slapd, via a SQL statement within an LDAP query. This can occur during an LDAP search operation when the search filter is processed, due to a lack of proper escaping.
- Published
- May 4, 2022
- Updated
- Oct 14, 2026
- EPSS
- 64.4% · 99th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-89
Report tools
Action score
58
Plan
Add it to your regular patch cycle.
- CVSS
- 39 / 40 · 9.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 19 / 30 · 64.4%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| openldap | openldap | cpe:2.3:a:openldap:openldap |
| debian | debian linux | cpe:2.3:o:debian:debian_linux |
| netapp | h300s firmware | cpe:2.3:o:netapp:h300s_firmware |
| netapp | h300s | cpe:2.3:h:netapp:h300s |
| netapp | h500s firmware | cpe:2.3:o:netapp:h500s_firmware |
| netapp | h500s | cpe:2.3:h:netapp:h500s |
| netapp | h700s firmware | cpe:2.3:o:netapp:h700s_firmware |
| netapp | h700s | cpe:2.3:h:netapp:h700s |
| netapp | h700e firmware | cpe:2.3:o:netapp:h700e_firmware |
| netapp | h700e | cpe:2.3:h:netapp:h700e |
| netapp | h410s firmware | cpe:2.3:o:netapp:h410s_firmware |
| netapp | h410s | cpe:2.3:h:netapp:h410s |
and 2 more
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- debian debian linux10.0
- debian debian linux11.0
- debian debian linux9.0
- netapp h300s firmwareall versions
- netapp h410c firmwareall versions
- netapp h410s firmwareall versions
- netapp h500s firmwareall versions
- netapp h700e firmwareall versions
- netapp h700s firmwareall versions
- openldap openldap2.6.0 and later · before 2.6.2
- openldap openldap2.0 and later · before 2.5.12
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alpine:v3.15 | openldap | from 2.0 · before 2.6.2-r0 | 2.6.2-r0 |
| Debian:10 | openldap | before 2.4.47+dfsg-3+deb10u7 | 2.4.47+dfsg-3+deb10u7 |
| Debian:11 | openldap | before 2.4.57+dfsg-3+deb11u1 | 2.4.57+dfsg-3+deb11u1 |
| Debian:12 | openldap | before 2.5.12+dfsg-1 | 2.5.12+dfsg-1 |
| Debian:9 | openldap | before 2.4.44+dfsg-5+deb9u9 | 2.4.44+dfsg-5+deb9u9 |
| openSUSE:Leap 15.3 | openldap2 | before 2.4.46-150200.14.8.1 | 2.4.46-150200.14.8.1 |
| SUSE:HPE Helion OpenStack 8 | openldap2 | before 2.4.41-18.89.1 | 2.4.41-18.89.1 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15-ESPOS | openldap2 | before 2.4.46-150000.9.71.1 | 2.4.46-150000.9.71.1 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Basesystem 15 SP3 | openldap2 | before 2.4.46-150200.14.8.1 | 2.4.46-150200.14.8.1 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Legacy 12 | openldap2 | before 2.4.41-42.1 | 2.4.41-42.1 |
| SUSE:OpenStack Cloud 9 | openldap2 | before 2.4.41-22.10.1 | 2.4.41-22.10.1 |
Same product
openldap: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2020-36228An integer underflow was discovered in OpenLDAP before 2.4.57 leading to a slapd crash in the Certificate List Exact Assertion processing, r55Plan
- CVE-2020-36221An integer underflow was discovered in OpenLDAP before 2.4.57 leading to slapd crashes in the Certificate Exact Assertion processing, result55Plan
- CVE-2020-36227A flaw was discovered in OpenLDAP before 2.4.57 leading to an infinite loop in slapd with the cancel_extop Cancel operation, resulting in de53Plan
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-25709May 18, 2021 · A flaw was found in OpenLDAP.31Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-25710May 28, 2021 · A flaw was found in OpenLDAP in versions before 2.4.56.31Monitor
- Later →CVE-2023-2953May 30, 2023 · A vulnerability was found in openldap.31Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| alpine:openldap | 2.6.2-r0 · Alpine:v3.15 | Package registry (OSV) |
| debian:openldap | 2.5.12+dfsg-1 · Debian:12 | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:openldap2 | 2.4.46-150200.14.8.1 · openSUSE:Leap 15.3 | Package registry (OSV) |
| suse:openldap2 | 2.4.46-150200.14.8.1 · SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Basesystem 15 SP3 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-89 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Root cause
The query text is built by concatenating user input. The database cannot tell where the data ends and the command begins.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-89 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
const owner = req.query.owner;
const rows = await db.query(
"SELECT * FROM files WHERE owner = '" + owner + "'"
);Fixed
const owner = req.query.owner;
const rows = await db.query(
"SELECT * FROM files WHERE owner = $1",
[owner]
);Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Command Line Execution through SQL InjectionCAPEC-108likelihood: Low · Very High
- Object Relational Mapping InjectionCAPEC-109likelihood: Low · High
- SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter TamperingCAPEC-110likelihood: High · Very High
- Expanding Control over the Operating System from the DatabaseCAPEC-470Very High
- SQL InjectionCAPEC-66likelihood: High · High
- Blind SQL InjectionCAPEC-7likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (3 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.