BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-35563High confidence

Apache Directory LDAP API: LDAP client implementation does not verify if the server certificate matches the intended LDAP hostname

Apache Software Foundation · Apache Directory LDAP API

8.8HighCVSS 4.0
Recommended action
Within 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
R
Operational reassessment

Published severity in operational context

Open reassessment dashboard →
Published severityHighOperational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged

Evidence used

  • No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
  • EPSS is 0.26% for the current model date.

Compensating controls

  • Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
  • Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.

Verification

  1. Confirm that the asset runs Apache Software Foundation Apache Directory LDAP API and falls inside the recorded affected range.
  2. Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
  3. Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
  4. Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Mitigation target: Within 30 daysRemediation target: Within 180 days

This automated reassessment organises public evidence. It does not know asset exposure, business impact or control effectiveness and does not replace CVSS or a human risk decision.

Distribution package intelligence

Release-specific package status

Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.

5 package states
Repository candidate not checked

A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.

Distribution releaseSource packageVendor stateFixed versionEvidence
Debian trixietrixie · sourceapache-directory-apiAffected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open.Not published in this feedDebian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Debian bookwormbookworm · sourceapache-directory-apiAffected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open.Not published in this feedDebian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Debian forkyforky · sourceapache-directory-apiAffected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open.Not published in this feedDebian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Debian sidsid · sourceapache-directory-apiAffected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open.Not published in this feedDebian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archiveapache-directory-apiUnder evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing.Not published in this feedCanonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Open-source package ranges1 source-attributed range

These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.

Ecosystem and packageAffected rangeFirst fixed versionEvidence
mavenorg.apache.directory.api:api-ldap-client-api>= 2.0.0, < 2.1.82.1.8GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 7 Jul 2026
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Choose official national sources for this report. Each advisory shows its original language. Your selection is remembered on this device and included in shared links.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2026-33569

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionWithin 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
01

What, why and how

It was identified that the LDAP client implementation in version 2.1.7 does not verify if the server certificate matches the intended LDAP hostname. While the underlying code validates the certificate chain against a trusted authority, the absence of endpoint identification allows a valid certificate issued for an entirely unrelated host to be improperly accepted. This oversight leaves the connection highly vulnerable to server impersonation and complete connection compromise. The root cause of this vulnerability lies in the incomplete TLS server identity verification within the LDAP client implementation. The attacker requires MITM capability on the network to exploit this vulnerability. This attacker must be able to present a certificate trusted by the client's configured trust store. The hostname verification has been enforced in the new version of the LDAP API

What

It was identified that the LDAP client implementation in version 2.1.7 does not verify if the server certificate matches the intended LDAP hostname. While the underlying code validates the certificate chain against a trusted authority, the absence of endpoint identification allows a valid certificate issued for an entirely unrelated host to be improperly accepted. This oversight leaves the connection highly vulnerable to server impersonation and complete connection compromise. The root cause of this vulnerability lies in the incomplete TLS server identity verification within the LDAP client implementation. The attacker requires MITM capability on the network to exploit this vulnerability. This attacker must be able to present a certificate trusted by the client's configured trust store. The hostname verification has been enforced in the new version of the LDAP API

Why

The product communicates with a host that provides a certificate, but the product does not properly ensure that the certificate is actually associated with that host.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

It was identified that the LDAP client implementation in version 2.1.7 does not verify if the server certificate matches the intended LDAP hostname. While the underlying code validates the certificate chain against a trusted authority, the absence of endpoint identification allows a valid certificate issued for an entirely unrelated host to be improperly accepted. This oversight leaves the connection highly vulnerable to server impersonation and complete connection compromise. The root cause of this vulnerability lies in the incomplete TLS server identity verification within the LDAP client implementation. The attacker requires MITM capability on the network to exploit this vulnerability. This attacker must be able to present a certificate trusted by the client's configured trust store. The hostname verification has been enforced in the new version of the LDAP API

Why

The product communicates with a host that provides a certificate, but the product does not properly ensure that the certificate is actually associated with that host.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.

Likely attack path
a network path → Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Network
Privileges required
Low: a basic authenticated account is required
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
Security boundary
Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-297 ↗

CWE-297: Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch. The product communicates with a host that provides a certificate, but the product does not properly ensure that the certificate is actually associated with that host.

CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/SA:L

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.ATPresentAttack requirements: A particular deployment or execution condition must be present.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCHighSubsequent-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SILowSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SALowSubsequent-system availability: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
NetworkCWE-297
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

Cyber Security Agency of Singapore · English · CSA-SB-20260603Security Bulletin 3 Jun 2026

The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore included this CVE in its official Security Bulletin 3 Jun 2026, published on 3 June 2026. Open the linked bulletin for the product, severity and reference information published in that issue.

Official advisory ↗
JVN iPedia · Japanese · JVNDB-2026-017879Apache Software FoundationのApache Directory LDAP APIにおけるホストの不一致による証明書の検証に関する脆弱性

バージョン2.1.7のLDAPクライアントの実装において、サーバー証明書が意図されたLDAPホスト名と一致するかどうかの検証が行われていないことが判明しました。基盤となるコードは信頼された認証局に対して証明書チェーンを検証していますが、エンドポイント識別が欠如しているため、全く関係のないホストに発行された有効な証明書が誤って受け入れられる可能性があります。この見落としにより、接続はサーバーのなりすましや完全な接続の侵害に対して非常に脆弱な状態になります。この脆弱性の根本原因は、LDAPクライアント実装内でのTLSサーバーの身元検証が不完全であることにあります。攻撃者はネットワーク上でMITM(中間者攻撃)能力を持っている必要があり、この攻撃者はクライアントの構成された信頼ストアにより信頼される証明書を提示できなければなりません。ホスト名の検証は新しいバージョンのLDAP APIで強制されています。

Official advisory ↗
03

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status
?Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Fix not verified
Affected
Apache Directory LDAP API: 2.0.0 ≤ 2.1.7
Fixed
No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
Action
No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Workaround
No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 1 Jun 2026 · Last source change 1 Jun 2026, 13:09 UTC · CWE-297 · Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-33569
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates ↗

No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.

Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
CVE
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS
Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS
Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE
Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA
CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD
National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT
A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC
Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF
Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL
Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2026-35563 · cve.blacktree.nl