CVE-2026-9064: 389-ds-base: 389-ds-base: unbounded ldap controls count in get_ldapmessage_controls_ext() causes cpu and heap amplification (remote dos)
A flaw was found in 389-ds-base. The get_ldapmessage_controls_ext() function in the LDAP server does not enforce an upper bound on the number of controls per LDAP message. A remote, unauthenticated attacker can send a specially crafted LDAP request containing hundreds of thousands of minimal controls within the default maximum BER message size (2 MB), causing excessive CPU consumption and heap allocation on the server. Under concurrent exploitation, this leads to significant latency degradation, worker thread starvation, or out-of-memory termination, resulting in a denial of service.
Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
A remote attacker can overwhelm affected 389 Directory Server systems without logging in. Malicious LDAP requests can consume disproportionate CPU and memory, slowing directory services, exhausting worker threads, or crashing the server. This threatens availability, including authentication and other services that depend on the directory, but the supplied evidence does not indicate data theft or modification.
Executive priority
Treat as high priority for internet-facing, broadly reachable, or identity-critical directory servers. An outage could disrupt authentication and dependent business services. Prioritize exposure reduction and vendor updates, while investigating recent unexplained resource exhaustion. Systems isolated to tightly trusted networks have lower immediate likelihood, but remain vulnerable if an internal host is compromised.
Technical view
get_ldapmessage_controls_ext() does not limit the number of LDAP controls in a message. A request within the default 2 MB BER limit can contain hundreds of thousands of minimal controls, amplifying CPU and heap use. Concurrent requests may cause latency, thread starvation, or out-of-memory termination. CVSS 3.1 is 7.5: network-accessible, low complexity, unauthenticated, availability-only impact.
Likely exposure
Exposure exists where an affected 389-ds-base or listed Red Hat Directory Server deployment accepts LDAP connections from untrusted or compromised networks. The supplied affected inventory includes specified builds across Red Hat Directory Server 11 and 12 and RHEL 7 ELS, 8, 9, and 10 channels. Exact package and advisory applicability must be verified per system.
Exploitation context
The flaw is remotely reachable, requires no authentication or user interaction, and has low attack complexity. Concurrent abuse increases denial-of-service impact. The supplied data marks the CVE as absent from KEV and provides no cited evidence of active exploitation; this does not prove exploitation has never occurred.
Researcher notes
This is CWE-770 resource allocation without limits. The key amplification boundary is control count rather than total message size: many minimal controls fit inside the default 2 MB BER limit. Impact is confined by the supplied CVSS assessment to availability. The bundle does not provide a safe control-count threshold, detection signature, or complete cross-vendor version boundary.
Mitigation direction
Identify affected 389-ds-base and Red Hat Directory Server installations, including their exact package builds and support channels.
Review the applicable Red Hat CVE page and RHSA advisory for vendor-approved remediation.
Apply the vendor-provided update appropriate to each product and support channel after normal validation.
Until updated, restrict LDAP reachability to trusted networks and clients where operationally feasible.
Monitor directory servers for abnormal CPU, memory, latency, worker exhaustion, and unexpected restarts.
Validation and detection
Inventory installed 389-ds-base or redhat-ds packages and compare exact builds with applicable Red Hat advisories.
Confirm whether LDAP listeners are reachable from internet, partner, user, container, or other untrusted network segments.
Verify updated package versions against the advisory matching each RHEL or Directory Server support channel.
Review monitoring and system logs for resource spikes, thread starvation, out-of-memory events, and unexplained directory-service interruptions.
Perform controlled availability and dependency checks after remediation without reproducing malicious traffic.
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Potential ATT&CK relevance
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
cwe · low confidence lookup
CWE-770: Exact CWE lookup
Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
The affected technology mentions containers, so container-specific ATT&CK technique review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
CWE-770 · source CWE mapping
Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.