BIND 9.6.0, 9.5.1, 9.5.0, 9.4.3, and earlier does not properly check the return value from the OpenSSL DSA_verify function, which allows rem
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 29/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 6.8% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 93.9% of all records.
- Fixed version: bind9 (Debian:12) 1:9.5.1.dfsg.P1-1; bind9 (Debian:4.0) 1:9.3.4-2etch4; bind (Red Hat:enterprise_linux:2.1::as) 0:9.2.1-11.el2.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to bind9 (Debian:12) 1:9.5.1.dfsg.P1-1; bind9 (Debian:4.0) 1:9.3.4-2etch4; bind (Red Hat:enterprise_linux:2.1::as) 0:9.2.1-11.el2 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
BIND 9.6.0, 9.5.1, 9.5.0, 9.4.3, and earlier does not properly check the return value from the OpenSSL DSA_verify function, which allows remote attackers to bypass validation of the certificate chain via a malformed SSL/TLS signature, a similar vulnerability to CVE-2008-5077.
- Published
- Jan 7, 2009
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 6.9% · 94th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-287
Report tools
Action score
29
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 27 / 40 · 6.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 2 / 30 · 6.9%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| isc | bind | cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- isc bind9.0
- isc bind9.0.0
- isc bind9.0.1
- isc bind9.1
- isc bind9.1.0
- isc bind9.1.1
- isc bind9.1.2
- isc bind9.1.3
- isc bind9.2.0
- isc bind9.2.1
- isc bind9.2.2
- isc bind9.2.3
- isc bind9.2.4
- isc bind9.2.5
- isc bind9.2.6
- isc bind9.2.7
- isc bind9.4
- isc bind9.4.0
- isc bind9.4.1
- isc bind9.4.2
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian:12 | bind9 | before 1:9.5.1.dfsg.P1-1 | 1:9.5.1.dfsg.P1-1 |
| Debian:4.0 | bind9 | before 1:9.3.4-2etch4 | 1:9.3.4-2etch4 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:2.1::as | bind | before 0:9.2.1-11.el2 | 0:9.2.1-11.el2 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:2.1::as | bind-devel | before 0:9.2.1-11.el2 | 0:9.2.1-11.el2 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:2.1::as | bind-utils | before 0:9.2.1-11.el2 | 0:9.2.1-11.el2 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | bind | before 20:9.2.4-23.el3 | 20:9.2.4-23.el3 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | bind-chroot | before 20:9.2.4-23.el3 | 20:9.2.4-23.el3 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | bind-debuginfo | before 20:9.2.4-23.el3 | 20:9.2.4-23.el3 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | bind-devel | before 20:9.2.4-23.el3 | 20:9.2.4-23.el3 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | bind-libs | before 20:9.2.4-23.el3 | 20:9.2.4-23.el3 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | bind-utils | before 20:9.2.4-23.el3 | 20:9.2.4-23.el3 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | bind | before 20:9.2.4-30.el4_7.1 | 20:9.2.4-30.el4_7.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | bind-chroot | before 20:9.2.4-30.el4_7.1 | 20:9.2.4-30.el4_7.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | bind-debuginfo | before 20:9.2.4-30.el4_7.1 | 20:9.2.4-30.el4_7.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | bind-devel | before 20:9.2.4-30.el4_7.1 | 20:9.2.4-30.el4_7.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | bind-libs | before 20:9.2.4-30.el4_7.1 | 20:9.2.4-30.el4_7.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | bind-utils | before 20:9.2.4-30.el4_7.1 | 20:9.2.4-30.el4_7.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client | bind-libs | before 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 | 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client | bind-sdb | before 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 | 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client | bind-utils | before 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 | 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | bind | before 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 | 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | bind-chroot | before 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 | 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | bind-debuginfo | before 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 | 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | bind-devel | before 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 | 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 |
+2
Same product
isc: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2015-5477named in ISC BIND 9.x before 9.9.7-P2 and 9.10.x before 9.10.2-P3 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (REQUIRE assertion faKEV90Now
- CVE-2016-2776buffer.c in named in ISC BIND 9 before 9.9.9-P3, 9.10.x before 9.10.4-P3, and 9.11.x before 9.11.0rc3 does not properly construct responses,57Plan
- CVE-2016-1286named in ISC BIND 9.x before 9.9.8-P4 and 9.10.x before 9.10.3-P4 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (assertion failure an53Plan
- CVE-2020-8625A vulnerability in BIND's GSSAPI security policy negotiation can be targeted by a buffer overflow attack51Plan
- CVE-2020-8617A logic error in code which checks TSIG validity can be used to trigger an assertion failure in tsig.c51Plan
- CVE-2001-0010Buffer overflow in transaction signature (TSIG) handling code in BIND 8 allows remote attackers to gain root privileges.49Plan
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| debian:bind9 | 1:9.5.1.dfsg.P1-1 · Debian:12 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:bind | 0:9.2.1-11.el2 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:2.1::as | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:bind-chroot | 20:9.2.4-23.el3 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:bind-debuginfo | 20:9.2.4-23.el3 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:bind-devel | 0:9.2.1-11.el2 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:2.1::as | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:bind-libbind-devel | 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:bind-libs | 20:9.2.4-23.el3 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:bind-sdb | 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:bind-utils | 0:9.2.1-11.el2 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:2.1::as | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:caching-nameserver | 30:9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
If successful
- Confidentiality
- P · data can be read
- Integrity
- P · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- P · the service can be disrupted
- Attack complexity
- M
- Confidentiality impact
- P
- Integrity impact
- P
- Availability impact
- P
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-287 · Improper AuthenticationCVSS vector
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
nvd-primary
Root cause
Authentication is added route by route instead of being enforced in one place. When a route added later bypasses the shared middleware, the session check never runs for it.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-287 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
app.use("/admin", requireSession, adminRouter);
// Route added later skips the middlewareapp.post("/admin-api/config", updateConfig);Fixed
const admin = express.Router();admin.use(requireSession, requireRole("admin"));
admin.post("/config", updateConfig);app.use("/admin", admin);Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Authentication AbuseCAPEC-114Medium
- Authentication BypassCAPEC-115Medium
- Identity SpoofingCAPEC-151likelihood: Medium · Medium
- Fake the Source of DataCAPEC-194Medium
- Exploiting Trust in ClientCAPEC-22likelihood: High · High
- Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive DataCAPEC-57likelihood: Medium · Very High
- Session HijackingCAPEC-593likelihood: High · Very High
- Token ImpersonationCAPEC-633Medium
ATT&CK techniques
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (19 more)Show less
- lists.apple.com/archives/security-announce/2009/May/msg00002.html
- marc.info/?l=bugtraq&m=141879471518471&w=2
- secunia.com/advisories/33494
- secunia.com/advisories/33546
- secunia.com/advisories/33551
- secunia.com/advisories/33559
- secunia.com/advisories/33683
- secunia.com/advisories/33882
- secunia.com/advisories/35074
- security.freebsd.org/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-09:04.bind.asc
- slackware.com/security/viewer.php?l=slackware-security&y=2009&m=slackware-security.540362
- sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-26-250846-1
- support.apple.com/kb/HT3549
- support.avaya.com/elmodocs2/security/ASA-2009-045.htm
- wiki.rpath.com/Advisories:rPSA-2009-0009
- www.ocert.org/advisories/ocert-2008-016.html
- www.openbsd.org/errata44.html#008_bind
- www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/499827/100/0/threaded
- www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/500207/100/0/threaded
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.