[SECURITY] [DLA 1891-1] openldap security update
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Package : openldap
Version : 2.4.40+dfsg-1+deb8u5
CVE ID : CVE-2019-13057 CVE-2019-13565
Debian Bug : 932997 932998
Several security vulnerabilities were discovered in openldap, a server
and tools to provide a standalone directory service.
CVE-2019-13057
When the server administrator delegates rootDN (database admin)
privileges for certain databases but wants to maintain isolation
(e.g., for multi-tenant deployments), slapd does not properly stop a
rootDN from requesting authorization as an identity from another
database during a SASL bind or with a proxyAuthz (RFC 4370) control.
(It is not a common configuration to deploy a system where the
server administrator and a DB administrator enjoy different levels
of trust.)
CVE-2019-13565
When using SASL authentication and session encryption, and relying
on the SASL security layers in slapd access controls, it is possible
to obtain access that would otherwise be denied via a simple bind
for any identity covered in those ACLs. After the first SASL bind is
completed, the sasl_ssf value is retained for all new non-SASL
connections. Depending on the ACL configuration, this can affect
different types of operations (searches, modifications, etc.). In
other words, a successful authorization step completed by one user
affects the authorization requirement for a different user.
For Debian 8 "Jessie", these problems have been fixed in version
2.4.40+dfsg-1+deb8u5.
We recommend that you upgrade your openldap packages.
Further information about Debian LTS security advisories, how to apply
these updates to your system and frequently asked questions can be
found at: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=UhxB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: