UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java 4.0.6

We have just released the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java version 4.0.6, available for download from the releases page of our GitHub repository, from the Files page of our SourceForge project, and from the Maven Central Repository. The most significant changes in this release include:

  • We fixed a number of issues in the way that the LDAP SDK handled characters whose UTF-8 representation requires more than two bytes (and therefore requires two Java chars to represent a single character). Issues related to these characters were found in code for matching rules, DNs and RDNs, and search filters.
  • We fixed an issue in the ldapsearch tool that could cause it to use an incorrect scope when constructing search requests from LDAP URLs that were read from a file.
  • We fixed a bug in schema handling that could arise if an object class definition did not explicitly specify an object class type (STRUCTURAL, AUXILIARY, or ABSTRACT). In some cases, the type could be incorrectly inherited from the superclass rather than assuming the default type of STRUCTURAL.
  • We updated the LDAPConnectionPool and LDAPThreadLocalConnectionPool classes to add new setServerSet and setBindRequest methods. These new methods make it possible to update an existing pool to change the logic that it uses for establishing and authenticating new connections.
  • We added a new LDAPRequest.setReferralConnector method that makes it possible to set a custom referral connector on a per-request basis. We also added a new RetainConnectExceptionReferralConnector class that makes it easier to obtain the exception (if any) that was caught on the last attempt to establish a connection for the purpose of following a referral.
  • Updated the in-memory directory server to better handle any java.lang.Errors that occur while interacting with a client connection. These kinds of errors should not happen under normal circumstances but may be generated by third-party code (for example, an InMemoryOperationInterceptor), and it is possible for the JVM to generate them in extraordinary circumstances like running out of memory. In such cases, the thread responsible for interacting with that client would exit without returning a response for the operation being processed and without closing the operation. The LDAP SDK will now attempt to return an error (if appropriate for the type of operation being processed) and close the connection.
  • Updated the manage-certificates tool to fix an incorrect interpretation of the path length element of a basic constraints extension.
  • Updated manage-certificates to add support for importing PEM-encoded RSA private keys that are not wrapped in a PKCS #8 envelope (that is, from a file whose header contains “BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY” instead of “BEGIN PRIVATE KEY”). Previously, it was only possible to import private keys using the PKCS #8 format.
  • Updated manage-certificates to add an --allow-sha-1-signature-for-issuer-certificates argument to the check-certificate-usability subcommand. If this argument is provided, then the tool will continue to call out issuer certificates whose signature is based on the now-considered-weak SHA-1 digest algorithm, but it will no longer cause the tool to exit with an error just because of that issue. This argument has no effect for certificates that use a signature based on the extremely weak MD5 digest, and it also does not have any effect if the certificate at the head of the chain (that is, the server certificate rather than the root certificate) has a SHA-1-based signature.
  • Added client-side support for a new “reload HTTP connection handler certificates” task that may be used in some Ping Identity server products to request that the server dynamically reload the certificate key and trust stores used by all HTTP connection handler instances that provide support for HTTPS.

CVE-2018-1000134 and the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java

On Friday, March 16, 2018, CVE-2018-1000134 was published, describing a vulnerability in the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java. The vulnerability has been fixed in LDAP SDK version 4.0.5, which is available for immediate download from the LDAP.com website, from the releases page of our GitHub repository, from the Files page of our SourceForge project, and from the Maven Central Repository.

This post will explain the issue in detail (see the release notes for information about other changes in LDAP SDK version 4.0.5). However, to quickly determine whether your application is vulnerable, you should check to see if all of the following conditions are true:

  • You are using the LDAP SDK in synchronous mode. Although this mode is recommended for applications that do not require asynchronous functionality, the LDAP SDK does not use this mode by default.
  • You use the LDAP SDK to perform simple bind operations for the purpose of authenticating users to a directory server. This is a very common use case for LDAP-enabled applications.
  • Your application does not attempt to verify whether the user actually provided a password. This is unfortunately all too common for LDAP-enabled applications.
  • The simple bind requests are sent to a directory server that does not follow the RFC 4513 section 5.1.2 recommendation to reject simple bind requests with a non-empty DN and an empty password. Although this recommendation is part of the revised LDAPv3 specification published in 2006, there are apparently some directory servers that still do not follow this recommendation by default.

If your application meets all of these criteria, then you should take action immediately to protect yourself. The simplest way to fix the vulnerability in your application is to update it to use the 4.0.5 release of the LDAP SDK. However, you should also ensure that your applications properly validate all user input, and it may also be a good idea to consider switching to a more modern directory server.

The Vulnerability in LDAPv3

The original LDAPv3 protocol specification was published as RFC 2251 in December 1997. LDAPv3 is a very impressive protocol in most regards, but perhaps the most glaring problem in the specification lies in the following paragraph in section 4.2.2:

If no authentication is to be performed, then the simple authentication option MUST be chosen, and the password be of zero length. (This is often done by LDAPv2 clients.) Typically the DN is also of zero length.

It’s that word “typically” in this last sentence that has been the source of a great many vulnerabilities in LDAP-enabled applications. Usually, when you want to perform an anonymous simple bind, you provide an empty string for both the DN and the password. However, according to the letter of the specification above, you don’t have to provide an empty DN. As long as the password is empty, the server will treat it as an anonymous simple bind.

In applications that use an LDAP simple bind to authenticate users, it’s a very common practice to provide two fields on the login form: one for the username (or email address or phone number or some other kind of identifier), and one for the password. The application first performs a search to see if they can map that username to exactly one user in the directory, and if so, then it performs a simple bind with the DN of that user’s entry and the provided password. As long as that the server returns a “success” response to the bind request, then the application considers the user authenticated and will grant them whatever access that user is supposed to have.

However, a problem can arise if the application just blindly takes whatever password was provided in the login form and plugs it into the simple bind request without actually checking to see whether the user provided any password at all. In such cases, if the user provided a valid username but an empty password, then the application will perform a simple bind request with a valid DN but no password. The directory server will interpret that as an anonymous simple bind and will return a success result, and the application will assume that the user is authenticated even though they didn’t actually provide any password at all.

This is such a big problem in LDAP-enabled applications that it was specifically addressed in the updated LDAPv3 specification published in June 2006. RFC 4513 section 5.1.2 states the following:

Unauthenticated Bind operations can have significant security issues (see Section 6.3.1). In particular, users intending to perform Name/Password authentication may inadvertently provide an empty password and thus cause poorly implemented clients to request Unauthenticated access. Clients SHOULD be implemented to require user selection of the Unauthenticated Authentication Mechanism by means other than user input of an empty password. Clients SHOULD disallow an empty password input to a Name/Password Authentication user interface. Additionally, Servers SHOULD by default fail Unauthenticated Bind requests with a resultCode of unwillingToPerform.

Further, section 6.3.1 of the same RFC states:

Operational experience shows that clients can (and frequently do) misuse the unauthenticated access mechanism of the simple Bind method (see Section 5.1.2). For example, a client program might make a decision to grant access to non-directory information on the basis of successfully completing a Bind operation. LDAP server implementations may return a success response to an unauthenticated Bind request. This may erroneously leave the client with the impression that the server has successfully authenticated the identity represented by the distinguished name when in reality, an anonymous authorization state has been established. Clients that use the results from a simple Bind operation to make authorization decisions should actively detect unauthenticated Bind requests (by verifying that the supplied password is not empty) and react appropriately.

In directory servers that follow the recommendation from RFC 4513 section 5.1.2, clients can perform an anonymous simple bind by providing an empty DN and an empty password, but an attempt to bind with a non-empty DN and an empty password will be rejected. This very good recommendation was made over ten years ago, and the code change needed to implement it is probably very simple. However, for some reason, there are directory server implementations out there that haven’t been updated to follow this recommendation, and therefore leave client applications open to this inadvertent vulnerability.

The Vulnerability in the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java

Ever since its initial release, the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java has attempted to protect against simple bind requests that include a non-empty DN with an empty password. The LDAPConnectionOptions class provides a setBindWithDNRequiresPassword(boolean) method that you can use to indicate whether the LDAP SDK will reject a simple bind request that has a non-empty DN with an empty password. If you don’t explicitly use this option, then the LDAP SDK will assume a default value of true. If you try to send a simple bind request that includes a non-empty DN and an empty password, then the LDAP SDK won’t actually send any request to the server but will instead throw an LDAPException with a result code of ResultCode.PARAM_ERROR and a message of “Simple bind operations are not allowed to contain a bind DN without a password.”

Or at least, that’s the intended behavior. And that is the behavior that you’ll get if you send the bind request in the asynchronous mode that the LDAP SDK uses by default. However, Stanis Shkel created GitHub issue #40 (“processSync in SimpleBindRequest allows empty password with set bindDN”), which points out that this check was skipped for connections operating in synchronous mode.

LDAP is an asynchronous protocol. With a few exceptions, it’s possible to have multiple operations in progress simultaneously over the same LDAP connection. To support that asynchronous capability, the LDAP SDK maintains an extra background thread that constantly read data from a connection and makes sure that any data sent from the server gets delivered to whichever thread is waiting for it. This is just fine most of the time, but it does come at the cost of increased resource consumption, and a small performance hit from handing off data from one thread to another. To minimize this impact for applications that don’t take advantage of the asynchronous capabilities that LDAP provides, we added a synchronous mode to the LDAP SDK way back in version 0.9.10 (released in July of 2009). In this mode, the same thread that sends a request to the server is the one that waits for and reads the response. This can provide better performance and lower resource consumption, but you have to explicitly enable it using the LDAPConnectionOptions.setUseSynchronousMode(boolean) method before establishing a connection.

In the course of implementing support for the synchronous mode for a simple bind request, we incorrectly put the check for synchronous mode before the check for an empty password. For a connection operating in synchronous mode, we branched off to another part of the code and skipped the check for an empty password. The fix for the problem was simple: move the check for an empty password above the check for synchronous mode, and it was committed about three and a half hours after the issue was reported, including a unit test to ensure that a simple bind request with a non-empty DN and an empty password is properly rejected when operating in synchronous mode (there was already a test to ensure the correct behavior in the default asynchronous mode).

Conditions Necessary for the Vulnerability

Although there was unquestionably a bug in the LDAP SDK that created the possibility for this bug, there are a number of factors that could have prevented an application from being susceptible to it. Only an application that meets all of the following conditions would have been vulnerable:

  • The application must have explicitly enabled the use of synchronous mode when creating an LDAP connection or connection pool. If the application was using the default asynchronous mode, it would not have been vulnerable.
  • The application must have created simple bind requests from untrusted and unverified user input. If the application did not create simple bind requests (for example, because it did not perform binds at all, or because it used SASL authentication instead of simple), then it would not have been vulnerable. Alternately, if the application validated the user input to ensure that it would not attempt to bind with an empty password, then it would not have been vulnerable.
  • The application must have sent the simple bind request to a server that does not follow the RFC 4513 recommendations. If the server is configured to reject simple bind requests that contain a non-empty DN with an empty password, then an application communicating with that server would not have been vulnerable.

While we strongly recommend updating to LDAP SDK version 4.0.5, which no longer has the bug described in CVE-2018-1000134, we also strongly recommend ensuring that applications properly validate all user input as additional mitigation against problems like this. And if you’re using a directory server that hasn’t been updated to apply a very simple update to avoid a problem that has been well known and clearly documented for well over a decade, then perhaps you should consider updating to a directory server that takes security and standards compliance more seriously.

UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java 4.0.4

We have just released the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java version 4.0.4, available for download from the LDAP.com website, from the releases page of our GitHub repository, from the Files page of our SourceForge project, and from the Maven Central Repository.

There are a few noteworthy changes included in this release. The release notes go into more detail, but the highlights of these changes include:

  • We updated the way that the LDAP SDK generates exception messages to make them more user-friendly. They are now less likely to include stack traces, and they are less likely to include repeated information (like LDAP SDK build information, and information duplicated from an exception’s cause).
  • We fixed an issue that could cause multiple application threads to block in the course of closing a connection pool.
  • We updated the way that the LDAP SDK sends LDAP messages so that it is more resilient to stalls in the TLS negotiation process.
  • We updated the LDAP SDK’s ServerSet implementations so that they can perform authentication and post-connect processing, which can make health checks against newly established connections more reliable.
  • We updated the GetEntryLDAPConnectionPoolHealthCheck class to provide support for invoking the health check after a pooled connection has been authenticated.
  • We fixed a bug in the GetEntryLDAPConnectionPoolHealthCheck class that could cause it to behave incorrectly when checking the validity of a connection after an LDAPException was caught.
  • We updated the Attribute.hasValue method to be more efficient for attributes with multiple values, and especially for attributes with a lot of values or with more complicated matching rules. This will also improve the Filter.matchesEntry method for equality filters that target similar types of attributes.
  • We updated the prompt trust manager to provide better output formatting, and to provide additional warnings about conditions that may make a server certificate chain less trustworthy.
  • We updated the LDAPConnectionOptions class to adjust the initial default connect timeout and operation response timeout, and the default operation response timeout can now be set differently for each type of operation. Most of the default values for options in the LDAPConnectionOptions class can now be set via system properties.

UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java 4.0.3

Shortly after publishing the 4.0.2 release of the LDAP SDK, we found a bug in the way that we generated and validated signatures for X.509 certificates and PKCS #10 certificate signing requests. So we have just released the 4.0.3 version of the LDAP SDK with just the fix for that bug. As usual, you can get it on LDAP.com, from GitHub, from SourceForge, or from the Maven Central Repository.

UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java 4.0.2

Happy 20th birthday, LDAPv3! The core LDAPv3 specifications, RFCs 2251 through 2256, were released on December 4, 1997. To celebrate, we’re releasing the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java version 4.0.2. It is available now for download from the LDAP.com website, from our GitHub repository, from the SourceForge project, or from the Maven Central Repository.

The most significant changes included in this release are:

  • Added a new manage-certificates tool that can be used to interact with JKS and PKCS #12 keystores, generate certificates and certificate signing requests, sign certificates, and perform a number of other certificate-related features. It’s like keytool, but it offers additional functionality, and it’s a lot more user-friendly. The LDAP SDK also provides classes for generating and parsing certificates and certificate signing requests programmatically.
  • Added a new variant of the Entry.diff method that can be used to perform a byte-for-byte comparison of attribute values instead of using the associated attribute syntax. This can help identify changes that result in logically equivalent values, like changing the value of a case-insensitive attribute in a way that only affects capitalization.
  • Added a new PasswordReader.readPasswordChars method that can be used to read a password into a character array. Previously, it was only possible to read a password as a byte array.
  • Added a new LDAPConnection.closeWithoutUnbind method that can be used to close a connection without first sending an LDAP unbind request. While this isn’t usually recommended, it can be useful in cases where the connection is known to be invalid, and especially if there is the potential for sending the unbind request to cause the connection to block.
  • Improved support for validating object identifiers (OIDs). The LDAP SDK now offers a strict validation mode that requires the OID to be comprised of at least two components, that requires the first component to be between zero and two, and that requires the second component to be between zero and thirty-nine if the first component is zero or one. There is also a new OIDArgumentValueValidator class that can be used when requesting command-line arguments whose values are expected to be numeric OIDs.
  • Fixed a bug that could cause the LDAP SDK to leak a connection if it was configured with an SSLSocketVerifier and that verifier rejected the connection for some reason.
  • Fixed a bug that could cause the LDAP SDK to block for twice as long as it should in the event that a failure occurred while trying to send a simple bind request on a connection operating in synchronous mode and the attempt to send the request blocks.
  • Added support for new ASN.1 element types, including bit string, object identifier, generalized time, UTC time, UTF-8 string, IA5 string, printable string, and numeric string. Also added support for a new integer type that is backed by a BigInteger and can support values of any magnitude.
  • Added convenience methods that make it easier to determine the type class and primitive/constructed state of an ASN.1 element.
  • Added support for a new uniqueness request control that can be included in add, modify, and modify DN requests sent to the Ping Identity Directory Server. This control requests that the server identify attribute value conflicts that might arise as a result of the changes performed by the associated operation. The ldapmodify tool has also been updated to support this control.
  • Updated the searchrate tool to make it possible to set the search size limit, time limit, dereference policy, and typesOnly flag.
  • Updated the in-memory directory server to support the UnboundID/Ping-proprietary ignore NO-USER-MODIFICATION request control.
  • Updated the UnboundID/Ping-proprietary password policy state extended operation to make it possible to determine whether the target user has a static password.
  • Updated the argument parser to make it possible to hide subcommand names and argument identifiers so that they can be used but will not appear in generated usage information.
  • Improved the quality of LDAP request debug messages.
  • Updated the set of LDAP-related specifications to include updated versions of existing specifications, and to add a number of certificate-related specifications.

UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java 4.0.1

The UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java version 4.0.1 has been released. It is available for immediate download from the LDAP.com website, from our GitHub repository, from the SourceForge project, or from the Maven Central Repository.

This release fixes a number of issues and adds a few small features. Some of the most significant changes are:

  • Added a new JVMDefaultTrustManager class that can be used to automatically trust any certificate signed by an authority that the JVM considers trusted by default. The command-line tool framework has been updated so that if you don’t explicitly specify a trust behavior, it will now check the JVM-default trust manager before prompting about whether to trust the server certificate.
  • Updated the in-memory directory server to add support for encoding clear-text passwords using a pluggable mechanism. For example, you can automatically have clear-text passwords transformed so that they are stored as the base64-encoded representation of a salted message digest.
  • Updated the in-memory directory server to indicate which attributes will be treated as password attributes. Any password attribute can be used to provide credentials for a bind operation, and the values of password attributes will be encoded with the configured password encoder (if any). The server was formerly hard-coded to use userPassword as the password attribute, and this is still the default configuration, but it is now possible to configure the server to use one or more other attributes instead of or in addition to userPassword.
  • Added support for a new password update behavior request control. This control can be used in an upcoming release of the Ping Identity Directory Server to override the behavior the server would otherwise have used for a number of password-related properties (e.g., whether the password update is a self change or an administrative reset, whether to allow a pre-encoded password, which password storage scheme to use, etc.). The ldapmodify tool has been updated to make it easy to include this control in add and modify requests.
  • Updated the identify-unique-attribute-conflicts example tool to provide support for identifying conflicts between combinations of attributes. For example, you can use this feature to identify cases in which there may be duplicate uid values within the same organization, but ignore duplicate uid values for users in different organizations.
  • Fixed an OSGi problem in the jar file manifest. When the LDAP SDK supported Java 1.5 or later, the correct value for the Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment property was “J2SE-1.5”. When we updated the LDAP SDK to require Java 7 or later, the value of this property was updated to be “J2SE-1.7” instead of the correct new value of “JavaSE-1.7”.
  • Fixed a problem that prevented the complete set of argument validation from being performed when running a tool in interactive mode. In particular, the interactive mode framework did not perform validation related to required, exclusive, and dependent argument sets.
  • Fixed an issue with the way that command-line tools handled trailing arguments in interactive mode. If the tool didn’t require any trailing arguments but allowed any number of them to be provided, then interactive mode did not allow trailing argument values to be provided.
  • Fixed an issue with the way that relative paths were handled in command-line tools run in interactive mode. When a Java File object is created from a relative path rather than an absolute path, the getParentFile() method may return null, and this could cause the LDAP SDK to incorrectly believe that the file’s parent didn’t exist. To avoid this, the LDAP SDK now uses getAbsoluteFile().getParentFile() in order to get the parent for any File that may have been created from a relative path.
  • Fixed an issue with command-line tools that default to interactive mode that could arise if the tool is invoked without any arguments, but if it tries to use a properties file referenced by an environment variable or JVM property. If the properties file contained some but not all of the arguments needed to invoke the tool, the command-line tool framework would still try to invoke the tool with just the arguments from the properties file, which could result in erratic behavior, unexpected errors, or uncaught exceptions. The tool will now launch in interactive mode to allow the missing arguments to be specified.
  • The ldapsearch tool has been updated so that the base DN argument is now optional in all circumstances. Previously, you had to explicitly provide either a base DN or an LDAP URL file, but this created a usability problem if you ran ldapsearch in interactive mode and wanted to search with a null base DN (that is, the DN with the empty string representation). Now, if you don’t provide either a base DN or an LDAP URL file, then ldapsearch will assume a null base DN.
  • Updated the class-level Javadoc documentation for a number of classes that implement controls and extended requests and responses. If it takes an encoded value, the Javadoc documentation now describes the encoding for that value.
  • Fixed a couple of problems with message format strings that had incorrect property references (for example, they referenced “{1}” when they should have referenced “{0}” as the first argument). The LDAP SDK build process has been updated to better catch these kinds of problems.
  • Improved the ByteStringBuffer.append(CharSequence) method so that it will be much more efficient for CharSequence implementations in which iterating through the characters using the charAt(int) method is expensive.

UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java 4.0.0

The UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java version 4.0.0 has been released. It is available for immediate download from the LDAP.com website, from our GitHub repository, from the SourceForge project, or from the Maven Central Repository.

Some of the most significant changes in this release are:

  • The LDAP SDK now requires Java SE 7 or later. Java SE 7 and 8 are officially supported. There are known issues when trying to build the LDAP SDK on Java SE 9 early access builds, but builds of the LDAP SDK should run without issues on Java SE 9. Java SE versions 1.5 and 1.6 are no longer supported.
  • We now provide only a single edition of the LDAP SDK. We used to provide Standard Edition, Commercial Edition, and Minimal Edition versions of the LDAP SDK, but they have been consolidated into a single edition that contains everything that was previously in the Commercial Edition (which was a superset of the Standard Edition, which was itself a superset of the Minimal Edition). That single edition is now called just “UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java” and is still available under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 (GPLv2), the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 (LGPLv2.1), and the UnboundID LDAP SDK Free Use License.
  • The GitHub repository for the LDAP SDK has been moved into the Ping Identity organization. The URL to the repository has changed from https://github.com/unboundid/ldapsdk to https://github.com/pingidentity/ldapsdk, but a redirect is in place to ensure that links to the old URL will be automatically transferred to the new location.
  • All copyright notices have been updated to reference Ping Identity, and the LDAP SDK documentation now uses Ping Identity branding.
  • The open source repositories for the LDAP SDK have been updated to become a complete mirror of the internal repository used to create official builds. The biggest change to come from this is that the full set of LDAP SDK unit tests are now publicly available under the same licenses as the rest of the LDAP SDK.
  • This release fixes a bug in the logic for parsing DNs from a string in which one or more RDN values used a BER encoding by starting the value with the octothorpe (#) character. The LDAP SDK would incorrectly use the entire set of bytes (representing the BER type, length, and value) as the attribute value instead of just the BER element value.
  • This release fixes a bug in the LDAP connection pool’s connection handling. If the connection pool is configured with createIfNecessary set to false and the replaceDefunctConnection method is called but unable to create a new connection, then the defunct connection could be destroyed without allowing for a replacement. If this happened enough times, the pool could run out of connections and would refuse to create new connections.
  • This release fixes a bug in processing multi-stage SASL binds. Each bind request in a multi-stage bind should use a different LDAP message ID, but earlier versions of the LDAP SDK would use the same message ID for the later stages that it used for the first stage.
  • This release fixes a bug in the in-memory directory server’s LDIF import code that prevented it from applying the configured schema to the entries being imported.
  • This release fixes a bug in the in-memory directory server’s handling of LDAP subentries. The server could incorrectly return entries that are not LDAP subentries in response to a search request that included the subentries request control.
  • This release fixes bugs various bugs in the ldapsearch and ldapmodify command-line tools, and in the command-line argument parser.
  • The LDAP SDK documentation now includes a few new LDAP reference documents, including a result code reference guide, an OID reference guide, and an LDAPv3 wire protocol reference guide.
  • The set of LDAP-related specifications has been updated to include some additional RFCs (including 2926, 2985, 4226, and 6238), and updated versions of IETF drafts (including draft-kille-ldap-xmpp-schema, draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9, and draft-wibrown-ldapssotoken).
  • When the LDAP SDK is checked out from a git repository, the build process can now capture information about the state of that repository, including the repository URL and the revision ID. This makes it easier to identify the precise source code revision used to create an LDAP SDK build for troubleshooting purposes. Previously, this information was only available if the LDAP SDK was checked out of a subversion repository.

Important updates about the upcoming 4.0.0 release of the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java

TL;DR: The next release of the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java will have a version number of 4.0.0, will require Java SE 7 or later, and there will be just one edition instead of the three editions that we currently maintain.

Although it’s still at least a month or two away, I wanted to make a couple of announcements about the next release of the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java that might affect some of its users. These are some significant changes, so we’ll bump the version number to 4.0.0.

We’re going to start updating the LDAP SDK to reflect these changes immediately, but there’s still time before the release, so if you do have any concerns or questions about these changes, then now is the time to raise them. The best way to do that is to send us an email at ldapsdk-support@pingidentity.com. or use the SourceForge project discussion forum.

Requiring Java SE 7 or Later

The first change is that we’re going to require Java SE 7 or later to use the LDAP SDK.

All previous LDAP SDK releases have been compatible with Java SE 5.0 or later, but Java SE 5 is really old. According to http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html, Oracle stopped providing public updates for it in 2009, and even extended support for it ended in 2015. There are a few things in the SDK that don’t work as well if you’re using Java SE 5, and for which we currently have to use reflection to access on newer VMs.

Dropping support for Java SE 5 allows us to simplify that code and potentially take advantage of new Java features that were added in Java SE 6 and 7. We’ll also be able to update some components that we use during the LDAP SDK build process, although this doesn’t have any impact on your ability to use the SDK. And as always, the LDAP SDK does not and will not depend on anything except Java SE, so you won’t need any third-party libraries to use it.

The older releases of the LDAP SDK aren’t going away, so if you really need to run on Java SE 5.0 or 6 for some reason, then you can continue to use one of the existing releases.

Only Releasing a Single Edition

Another notable change is that we’re only going to be providing a single edition of the LDAP SDK moving forward. Right now, we offer three editions:

  • Standard Edition (SE) — A fully-functional LDAP SDK for use with any type of LDAPv3 directory server.
  • Commercial Edition (CE) — Everything in the Standard Edition, plus additional features specifically intended for use in conjunction with the UnboundID/Ping Identity Directory Server, Directory Proxy Server, and other server products.
  • Minimal Edition (ME) — A very stripped-down version of the LDAP SDK that still provides core LDAPv3 support, but with a focus on keeping a very small jar file for space-constrained environments like Android or embedded systems.

Offering a separate Commercial Edition of the LDAP SDK was necessary in the past because it wasn’t open source and we only made it available to customers who had purchased our server software. But since then, we made it open source and publicly available. There were also concerns about a developer accidentally writing code that leveraged proprietary features that would prevent it from working against non-UnboundID/Ping Identity servers, but that’s easy enough to avoid by just staying away from classes in a package below com.unboundid.ldap.sdk.unboundidds.

Similarly, in the earlier days of Android and other Java-based embedded systems, you didn’t have as much room to work with as you do today, so having a Minimal Edition with a significantly smaller footprint was useful, but it did come at the cost of functionality and convenience. And even the Commercial Edition isn’t all that big (the jar file is around 3.5 megabytes, versus 650 kilobytes for the Minimal Edition, and two megabytes for the Standard Edition).

So from now on, we’re just going to have one edition, and we’ll just call it UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java. It’ll have everything in it that the Commercial Edition has, and it’ll continue to be open source under the terms of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 (plus the UnboundID LDAP SDK Free Use License, which isn’t open source but lets you use and redistribute the LDAP SDK for just about any purpose as long as you don’t make any changes to it). The jar file will be named unboundid-ldapsdk.jar , and we’ll continue to publish it to Maven with a GroupId of com.unboundid and an ArtifactId of unboundid-ldapsdk.

A New LDAPv3 Wire Protocol Reference Guide

Have you ever wondered what exactly goes into LDAP requests and responses? Have you ever wanted to know what LDAP messages look like as they’re transferred between clients and servers? Have you had the opportunity to admire just how sleek and elegant the ASN.1 Basic Encoding Rules encoding can be? Then look no further.

I’ve created an LDAPv3 Wire Protocol Reference that provides an in-depth look at the encoding for all types of LDAP messages. It covers the complete encoding for all types of LDAPv3 requests and responses, including annotated examples and all the ASN.1 BER that you should need to understand those encodings.

This reference guide will be included in the documentation for the next release of the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java (and you can get it now in that form by checking out and building the LDAP SDK from the GitHub project), but it’s also available online here.

Understanding and Defending Against LDAP Injection Attacks

Injection attacks are one of the most common sources of security holes because it’s so easy for an unsuspecting developer to leave the door open for them. But it’s also usually very easy to prevent them through some pretty simple means.

An injection attack happens when an application uses externally-obtained data in the course of its processing, but without making sure that data is acceptable and safe. It’s especially predominant in cases where an application plugs user input into some kind of a query or command that it sends to some kind of data repository, and doesn’t protect against the possibility that unexpected or malicious user input could cause the application to issue a different request than the one it expected. You’re probably most likely to hear about injection attacks when dealing with SQL (the structured query language, commonly used to interact with relational databases), but it can also affect interaction with other data repositories, like NoSQL databases and even LDAP directory servers.

LDAP directory servers actually have an inherent advantage over many other types of data stores when it comes to injection attacks because LDAP isn’t a text-based protocol and because LDAP APIs typically don’t make it possible to accidentally turn one type of operation into a different kind of operation. SQL injections are particularly dangerous because it’s possible for an SQL statement intended to just read some data from the database to be inadvertently converted into one that destroys, corrupts, or otherwise wreaks havoc on the data. This can’t happen in an LDAP injection, but there are still some very real threats that you need to protect against.

LDAP Filter Injections

By far, the most common type of LDAP injection attack is a filter injection. This can happen whenever you construct an LDAP search filter from its string representation and include user-provided data in the process.

For example, consider an application that offers an input field that makes it possible to look up a user by their username or their email address. Such an application might have the following code:

String filter = "(|(uid=" + userInput + ")(mail=" + userInput + "))";

If the user input is “jdoe”, then this will end up creating the filter “(|(uid=jdoe)(mail=jdoe))”. That seems safe enough, right? But instead, let’s consider what would happen if the user were to enter an asterisk instead of jdoe. That would cause the resulting filter to be “(|(uid=*)(mail=*))”, and that would match any entry within the scope of the search that has either at least one of the uid and mail attributes. And what if the user were to enter jdoe)(objectClass=*”? In that case, the code would create a filter of “(|(uid=jdoe)(objectClass=*)(mail=jdoe)(objectClass=*))”, and that filter would match any entry within the scope of the search, including those that don’t have either the uid attribute or the mail attribute.

The Risks of Filter Injection Attacks

As illustrated above, one of the key risks of a filter injection attack is that it could cause the application to expose more entries, or different kinds of entries, than the application intended to make available. But there are other dangers as well.

Leaking Sensitive Attribute Values

One risk that people don’t often think about is the possibility of using a filter injection attack to leak the values of attributes that contain sensitive information. For example, let’s say that we know that the directory server stores a user’s social security number in the ssn attribute in the user’s entry and that we want to find out what the social security number is for user jdoe. Let’s also assume that there aren’t any users in the directory that have a uid or mail value of noMatches. If the application constructs a search filter using the code listed above, then we might try entering the following into the input field:


This would result in the application generating the following filter:


This filter would match the entry for user jdoe only if that entry has an ssn value whose first digit is one. If that filter doesn’t match, then we could replace the one with a two, then a three, and so on until we get a match, and then we know what the first digit of the social security number is. Then we can use the same technique to find the second digit, then the third, etc. until we know all nine digits.

Denial of Service Attacks

Filter injection attacks also open the door for very simple and very effective denial of service (DoS) attacks, whether against the application that interacts with the directory server, or against the directory server itself. An injection attack could turn what is expected to be a very efficient filter into one that is very time-consuming to process and takes up a lot of server resources. If you’re able to get enough of those going at the same time, it may eat up all of the available processing cycles in either the application or the directory server so that other requests can’t get through.

Further, if the application is designed to hold all of the entries returned from a search in memory at the same time, a search that returns a lot more entries than expected could cause the application to consume all available memory on the system, which could potentially make the application crash or spend all of its time in garbage collection, or could make the system start paging memory out to disk.

Invoking Operations Against Unintended Entries

We’ve already established that a filter injection attack has the potential to cause a search to match entries that the application didn’t expect to match. If the application makes those entries available to the end user in some way, then the application could be tricked into leaking information to the end user. But what if the application doesn’t simply make those entries available to the end user, but instead does something else with them? What if the application applies some update to each entry that matches the search filter? If you can trick the application into searching for the wrong entries, then that could lead to the application updating the wrong entries, which could cause data loss or corruption.

Defending Against Filter Injection Attacks

There are several ways that you can protect your LDAP-enabled application against filter injection attacks. Some of them are probably very easy to implement. Others may take additional effort. And you might want to implement more than one of these safeguards to take a kind of “belt and suspenders” approach.

Don’t Construct Filters by Concatenating Strings

You should never, never, never, never construct an LDAP search filter by concatenating strings, especially when that string contains any user input. Instead, you should leverage the features that your LDAP library offers to create filters programmatically.

For example, if you’re using the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java, rather than:

String filter = "(|(uid=" + userInput + ")(mail=" + userInput + "))";

You should instead use:

Filter filter = Filter.createORFilter(
     Filter.createEqualityFilter("uid", userInput),
     Filter.createEqualityFilter("mail", userInput));

Much like using an SQL prepared statement, constructing an LDAP filter programmatically ensures that it isn’t possible for crafty input to result in a different kind of filter than the one that was intended.

If you’re using an LDAP library that doesn’t provide a way to programmatically generate search filters, then you should strongly consider selecting a new library to use for LDAP communication. If that’s not feasible, and you have to create filters from their string representations, then you absolutely must sanitize any user input included in the generated filter.

Sanitize User Input Included in Search Filters

There are two basic ways to sanitize user input.

The first is to reject any input that doesn’t appear to be valid. For example, if you have an input field in which you expect the user to provide a username or an email address, then you might only want to allow the input to contain letters, digits, periods, dashes, underscores, plus signs, and the at sign.

And if it’s a client-server application, then you should make sure to do the validation in server-side code rather than (or perhaps in addition to) client-side code. For example, if you have a web application, and it uses JavaScript to ensure that the input only contains valid characters, then an attacker might be able to get around that by disabling JavaScript support in their browser, or by not using a browser at all but some other kind of HTTP client that allows them to send exactly the request they want to send. If you have server-side validation, the attacker won’t be able to get around that with any amount of fancy client-side trickery. You can still use client-side validation if you want, since that can make for a better experience for legitimate end users, but just make sure to do the same validation in the server for actual security.

The second way to sanitize user input is by escaping any special characters that it may contain. RFC 4515 states that the following escaping must be applied to the assertion value in the string representation of an LDAP search filter:

  • The null character (U+0000) must be escaped as \00
  • The left parenthesis must be escaped as \28
  • The right parenthesis must be escaped as \29
  • The asterisk must be escaped as \2a
  • The backslash must be escaped as \5c

You can escape any other character by placing a backslash in front of the hexadecimal representation for each byte in the UTF-8 encoding for that character, but the above characters are the ones that absolutely have to be escaped.

The LDAP library you’re using may provide a mechanism to do this for you (for example, if you’re using the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java, then you can use one of the the Filter.encodeValue(String) or Filter.encodeValue(byte[]) methods), but if it has that, then it’s probably got methods to help you programmatically construct the filter, and using that approach is definitely better than trying to perform your own escaping.

Use an AND Filter To Impose Restrictions on Matching Entries

To prevent a search from matching entries of a different type than you expect, you can wrap the filter inside of an AND that will only match the desired type of entry. For example, if you know that you only want to search for user entries, and you know that all user entries have the person object class, then rather than using a filter like:


You could instead use a filter like:


This will ensure that only user entries will be returned. If you have more specific criteria, then you can include that in the filter as well. Just note that this type of protection on its own isn’t enough to prevent all kinds of injection attacks since it doesn’t protect against wildcards or new components injected inside the OR. So you’ll still need to make use of one of the other types of protection listed above.

Restrict the Search Request in Other Ways

The search filter is just one of the elements of an LDAP search request. There are other elements that you may be able to adjust to reduce the effect of processing a search that isn’t exactly what you expected. Some of those are:

  • Set the base DN and scope to be as specific as possible to the type of search that you’re performing. For example, if you know that you’re searching for a user, and you know that all users are in a particular branch in the directory (for example, beneath “ou=People,dc=example,dc=com”), then base your search at that branch rather than at the root of the tree, so that the search won’t match any entries outside of that branch.
  • Use the size limit to prevent the server from returning more entries than expected. If you’re searching for a single user entry, then use a size limit of one, and the server will return an error result if it finds more than one matching entry.
  • Use the time limit to prevent the server from spending too much time processing the search. If you expect your search to be efficient, then setting the time limit to a second or two should be more than enough time to allow the server to process it under normal circumstances, but small enough to ensure that an unexpectedly inefficient search gets cut off before too long.

Leverage the Server’s Access Control Mechanism

Another great type of protection against attacks of all kinds is to ensure that requests are issued under an account that only has permission to do what it’s supposed to do. For example, if you only want the application to be able to search for entries by targeting the uid and mail attributes, then only give the application’s account permission to issues searches targeting those attributes. Similarly, give the application read access only to the attributes that it legitimately needs to get back in search result entries, and give it write access only to the attributes that it legitimately needs to be able to update.

If an application needs to process operations on behalf of another user, then you may want to use the proxied authorization request control (described in RFC 4370) to ensure that those operations are processed in accordance with that user’s access control rights.

LDAP DN Injections

Although filter injection attacks are by far the most prevalent, it is conceivably possible for an LDAP injection attack to target entry DNs. In particular, if an application constructs an LDAP DN from user input, then it may be possible for a malicious user to provide unexpected input that could end up targeting a different entry than was expected.

For example, let’s say that an application has the following code:

String userDN = "uid=" + userInput + ",ou=People,dc=example,dc=com";

If the user enters “jdoe”, then this would construct the following DN:


But if the user enters “jdoe,ou=Secret Users”, then this would construct a DN that is one level below what the application intended:

uid=jdoe,ou=Secret Users,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com

While theoretically possible, DN injections aren’t all that common or practical. There are two key reasons for this.

First, it’s rare for applications to construct DNs based on user input. Or, at least, it’s rare for well-designed applications to construct DNs based on user input. It’s a very bad thing for an application to assume that DNs have a particular structure or pattern because not all of them do. And even if DNs have a known format when the application is being developed, it’s entirely possible that the format could change later (for example, to eliminate all personally-identifiable information from DNs), and the application would be broken. It’s far better for an application to search for an entry and learn its DN that way than to try to construct it.

Second, the only kind of injection that you can realistically achieve when constructing a DN is to target an entry deeper in the tree than you had initially expected. You can’t use an injection attack to target any arbitrary entry in the DIT. Fortunately, LDAP DNs don’t have any equivalent to the “..” in a filesystem path that allows you traverse up to its parent.

Nevertheless, if you do encounter a scenario in which you need to construct a DN from user input (for example, if you’re adding a new entry), then you should see if the LDAP library you’re using provides a way to safely construct the DN for you. For example, if you’re using the UnboundID LDAP SDK for Java, instead of using the code:

String userDN = "uid=" + userInput + ",ou=People,dc=example,dc=com";

You should use:

DN userDN = new DN(new RDN("uid", userInput), new RDN("ou", "People"),
     new RDN("dc", "example"), new RDN("dc", "com"));

This will ensure that all appropriate escaping is done, and will thwart any injection attempt.

If your LDAP library doesn’t have any kind of method like the above for constructing DNs safely, then you should either get a new LDAP library that does provide this support, or you should perform the escaping yourself. The rules for escaping special characters in DNs are a little different from the rules for escaping special characters in a search filter. All the necessary details for constructing the string representation of a DN is provided in RFC 4514, but the basics are:

  • You should escape the double quote character as \" or \22
  • You should escape the plus sign character as \+ or \2b
  • You should escape the comma character as \, or \2c
  • You should escape the semicolon character as \; or \3b
  • You should escape the less-than character as either \< or \3c
  • You should escape the greater-than character as either \> or \3e
  • You should escape the backslash character as either \\ or \5c
  • If a value has any leading or trailing spaces, then you should escape those spaces by prefixing them with a backslash or as \20. Spaces in the middle of a value don’t need to be escaped.
  • If the value starts with an octothorpe character (#), then you should escape it as either \# or \23. You only need to escape the octothorpe character at the beginning of a value, and not in the middle or at the end of the value.