CVE-2026-18355
Description
A heap buffer overflow flaw was found in the SASL I/O layer of 389 Directory Server (389-ds-base). In sasl_io_start_packet(), the wrapped-record length read from the wire is validated only against an upper bound. A small wire length (0, 1, or 2) produces an encrypted_buffer_count below the already-consumed encrypted_buffer_offset, causing an unsigned subtraction underflow in sasl_io_read_packet(). PR_Recv is then requested to read approximately 4 GiB into a 1024-byte heap buffer, resulting in a heap buffer overflow with attacker-controlled content. After a successful SASL bind with integrity protection (SSF > 0), a remote authenticated attacker can cause a denial of service or potentially achieve remote code execution. This flaw is distinct from CVE-2026-11774, whose fix only guards against upper-bound overflow.
Statement
Red Hat rates this issue as Important. After a successful SASL bind with integrity protection (SSF > 0), an authenticated attacker can send a SASL wrapped record whose length prefix is unusually small. The SASL I/O layer validates that length only against an upper size limit, so when it computes how many more bytes to read it can underflow and write past the end of its receive buffer with attacker-controlled data. This flaw is independent of CVE-2026-11774, which only rejected near-maximum length values; that fix does not cover the lower-bound case. Deployments that do not negotiate a SASL security layer after bind are not exposed on this path.
Mitigation
Red Hat has investigated whether a possible mitigation exists for this issue, and has not been able to identify a practical example. Please update the affected package as soon as possible.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 7.5 | N/A | 7.5 |
| Attack Vector | Network | N/A | Network |
| Attack Complexity | High | N/A | High |
| Privileges Required | Low | N/A | Low |
| User Interaction | None | N/A | None |
| Scope | Unchanged | N/A | Unchanged |
| Confidentiality | High | N/A | High |
| Integrity Impact | High | N/A | High |
| Availability Impact | High | N/A | High |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cve.org: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Availability
Technical Impact: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU); DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory); DoS: Instability
This weakness will generally lead to undefined behavior and therefore crashes. In the case of overflows involving loop index variables, the likelihood of infinite loops is also high.
Integrity
Technical Impact: Modify Memory
If the value in question is important to data (as opposed to flow), simple data corruption has occurred. Also, if the wrap around results in other conditions such as buffer overflows, further memory corruption may occur.
Confidentiality,Availability,Access Control
Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Bypass Protection Mechanism
This weakness can sometimes trigger buffer overflows which can be used to execute arbitrary code. This is usually outside the scope of a program's implicit security policy.
Acknowledgements
Red Hat would like to thank Adam Korczynski (Ada Logics), Arthur Chan (Ada Logics), David Korczynski (Ada Logics), and Team (Anthropic) for reporting this issue.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
