Service interruption and memory disclosure via malformed packets
Published Aug 14, 2026 · Updated Aug 14, 2026
Improper packet validation in Samba CTDB on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 allows attackers to crash CTDB or disclose adjacent memory. CTDB unmarshalling and protocol handlers accept field lengths beyond packet bounds, edge-case NUL termination, and inconsistent overall packet sizes. Most paths require access to the unauthenticated, isolated CTDB private network; event-protocol paths require local Unix-socket access, and oversized packets can exhaust memory.
Summary
What happened
Improper packet validation in Samba CTDB on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 allows attackers to crash CTDB or disclose adjacent memory. CTDB unmarshalling and protocol handlers accept field lengths beyond packet bounds, edge-case NUL termination, and inconsistent overall packet sizes. Most paths require access to the unauthenticated, isolated CTDB private network; event-protocol paths require local Unix-socket access, and oversized packets can exhaust memory.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2026-58224
- Published
- Aug 14, 2026
- Updated
- Aug 14, 2026
- Vendor
- 389 Directory Server
- Product
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
- Classifications
- CWE-353, T1499.004
- Attack vector
- adjacent
- Privileges
- unauthenticated
Timeline
How it unfolded
- Aug 14, 2026CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- Aug 14, 2026Record updatedLatest update available in the CVE record.
Exploitability
Present is not the same as exploitable
Compare your product and version with the public record. A matching version still requires validation against your environment.
Is a vulnerable build present?
Affected versions are unavailable in this record. Check the vendor advisory for version and patch details.
What conditions does exploitation require?
What is affected?
Published CVSS scores
CVSS describes severity. EPSS estimates exploitation probability.
Attacks
What attackers are doing with it
Daily unique IPs observed by Shadowserver honeypots for known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs). Missing observations do not establish an absence of attacks.
Weakness, pattern, technique
Public exploit references
No public exploit references are available in this record.
Labels summarize the accepted research assessment. They do not indicate a test against your environment.
Technologies
Your stack
See the directory against your own environment.
Your stack
Check the software in your environment
Book a demo to see how Hinoki identifies affected software and validates exploitability in your environment.
Book a demo