CVE-2026-14969: 389-ds-base: 389-ds-base: static initialization vector in aes-cbc/3des-cbc attribute encryption
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 17/100)
- 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: 0.10% (FIRST EPSS).
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. Administrator privileges are required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
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
A flaw was found in 389-ds-base where the LDBM backend attribute encryption uses a hardcoded static initialization vector for AES-CBC and 3DES-CBC operations, allowing an attacker with privileged filesystem access to detect plaintext equality across encrypted entries by comparing ciphertext blocks.
- Published
- Jul 7, 2026
- Updated
- Jul 9, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.1% · 1th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-329
Report tools
Action score
17
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 17 / 40 · 4.4 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.1%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 4.4
- CNA · redhat
- 4.4
- agree
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
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 |
|---|---|---|
| redhat | directory server | cpe:2.3:a:redhat:directory_server |
| redhat | 389 directory server | cpe:2.3:o:redhat:389_directory_server |
| redhat | enterprise linux | cpe:2.3:o:redhat:enterprise_linux |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- redhat 389 directory serverall versions
- redhat directory server11.0
- redhat directory server12.0
- redhat directory server13.0
- redhat enterprise linux10.0
- redhat enterprise linux7.0
- redhat enterprise linux8.0
- redhat enterprise linux9.0
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (redhat). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Red Hat Red Hat Directory Server 11
- all versionsaffected
Red Hat Red Hat Directory Server 12
- all versionsaffected
Red Hat Red Hat Directory Server 13
- all versionsaffected
Red Hat Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- all versionsaffected
Red Hat Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
- all versionsunknown
Red Hat Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
- all versionsaffected
Red Hat Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
- all versionsaffected
Red Hat Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9
- all versionsaffected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian:12 | 389-ds-base | from 0 | — |
Same product
redhat: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2008-2928Multiple buffer overflows in the adminutil library in CGI applications in Red Hat Directory Server 7.1 before SP7 allow remote attackers to 42Plan
- CVE-2008-0892The replication monitor CGI script (repl-monitor-cgi.pl) in Red Hat Administration Server, as used by Red Hat Directory Server 8.0 EL4 and E40Plan
- CVE-2008-1677Buffer overflow in the regular expression handler in Red Hat Directory Server 8.0 and 7.1 before SP6 allows remote attackers to cause a deni31Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-11791Jun 18, 2026 · 389-ds-base: 389-ds-base: use-after-free in schema reload via attr_syntax_swap_ht()20Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-14940Jul 7, 2026 · 389-ds-base: 389-ds-base: heap-buffer-overflow in dn normalization via quoted multivalued rdn21Monitor
- Later →CVE-2026-15041Jul 8, 2026 · 389-ds-base: 389-ds-base: non-constant-time comparison in pbkdf2-sha256 password verification14Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
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.
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
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
- Administrator privileges are required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-329 · Generation of Predictable IV with CBC ModeCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
MITRE has no CAPEC/ATT&CK mapping for this CWE.
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.