CVE-2024-5953VulnerabilityPublished 18 Jun 2024Updated 25 Feb 2026

CVE-2024-5953: Improper Validation of Consistency within Input

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.7 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.7Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 47% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 Jun 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-5953, organizations should: 1) Apply vendor patches or updates as soon as they become available from the 389-ds-base maintainers or Red Hat, as this is the most effective mitigation. 2) Restrict LDAP server access to trusted users and networks to reduce the risk of authenticated attackers exploiting the vulnerability. 3) Monitor LDAP server logs for unusual authentication attempts, especially those involving malformed password hashes or repeated login failures, to detect potential exploitation attempts. 4) Implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the risk of compromised credentials being used to trigger the vulnerability. 5) Consider deploying LDAP service redundancy and failover mechanisms to minimize service disruption in case of a DoS event. 6) Conduct regular security audits and input validation testing on authentication components to identify and remediate similar issues proactively. 7) Educate administrators and users about the risks of malformed credentials and encourage strong password policies to prevent malformed hash scenarios.

Description

A denial of service vulnerability was found in the 389-ds-base LDAP server. This issue may allow an authenticated user to cause a server denial of service while attempting to log in with a user with a malformed hash in their password.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-5953 is on the availability of LDAP services running 389-ds-base. A successful exploitation results in a denial of service, causing the LDAP server to crash or become unresponsive. This can disrupt authentication and directory lookup services critical to enterprise environments, affecting user access, application authentication, and other dependent services. Organizations relying on 389-ds-base for identity management, access control, or centralized authentication may experience service outages, leading to operational disruptions and potential productivity losses. Although the vulnerability does not expose sensitive data or allow privilege escalation, the availability impact can be significant in environments where LDAP is a core infrastructure component. The requirement for authentication limits the attack surface to users with valid credentials, but insider threats or compromised accounts could exploit this to cause disruption. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the need for mitigation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…