VulnerabilityPublished 10 Aug 2026Updated 5 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-19404: Red Hat Directory Server 11 · Missing Authorization

Affects Red Hat Directory Server 11Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 8 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (redhat)	CVSS 3.1	6.5

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 8 Nov 2026.

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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Directory Server 11389-ds-base	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Directory Server 12389-ds-base	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Directory Server 13389-ds-base	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10389-ds-base	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6389-ds-base	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7389-ds-base	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat advises setting the nsslapd-allow-anonymous-access configuration to rootdse or off to block exploitation by unauthenticated clients. However, this does not prevent authenticated low-privilege users from exploiting the flaw. Therefore, restricting replication LDAP ports to trusted networks is recommended as a defense-in-depth measure.

Description

A flaw was found in 389 Directory Server. The CleanAllRUV and Abort CleanAllRUV replication-maintenance extended operations perform no authorization check, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to invoke them when nsslapd-allow-anonymous-access is enabled (the default), or any authenticated low-privilege user to invoke them otherwise. This allows removal of a replica ID from replication metadata, purging of changelog records, and interruption of administrator-initiated cleanup, which can leave replication inconsistent or unavailable.

Impact

An attacker able to reach the LDAP listener can invoke replication-maintenance operations without authorization, allowing removal of replica IDs from replication metadata, purging of changelog records, and interruption of cleanup processes. This can cause replication to become inconsistent or unavailable, impacting the integrity and availability of the directory service. The vulnerability does not impact confidentiality. The flaw affects both unauthenticated attackers (if anonymous access is enabled) and any authenticated user (if anonymous access is disabled).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Aug 2026, 15:27 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats