CVE-2010-0382
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedISC BIND 9.0.x through 9.3.x, 9.4 before 9.4.3-P5, 9.5 before 9.5.2-P2, 9.6 before 9.6.1-P3, and 9.7.0 beta handles out-of-bailiwick data accompanying a secure response without re-fetching from the original source, which allows remote attackers to have an unspecified impact via a crafted response, aka Bug 20819. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of a regression during the fix for CVE-2009-4022.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceISC BIND 9.x fails to properly re-fetch out-of-bailiwick data from the original authoritative source when processing secure (DNSSEC-validated) responses. This regression from the CVE-2009-4022 fix allows remote attackers to inject malicious data via crafted DNS responses, potentially enabling cache poisoning attacks.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 9.0= 9.0.0= 9.0.1= 9.1= 9.1.0= 9.1.1= 9.1.2= 9.1.3= 9.2= 9.2.0= 9.2.1= 9.2.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Determine installed BIND versionRun 'named -v' or 'named -V' from the command line, or query the named process with 'named -m version'Affected if The version listed is any of: 9.0, 9.0.0, 9.0.1, 9.1, 9.1.0, 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3, 9.2, 9.2.0, 9.2.1, or 9.2.2
-
Verify DNSSEC validation is enabledInspect the named.conf configuration file for the 'dnssec-validation' directive. Run 'grep -i dnssec-validation /etc/named.conf' or equivalent pathAffected if The setting is 'dnssec-validation yes;' or 'dnssec-validation auto;' and the BIND version falls within the affected range above
-
Confirm server role as validating resolverCheck if the server is configured to perform recursive queries with DNSSEC validation enabled, by reviewing the 'options' or 'view' blocks in named.conf for recursion settingsAffected if The server is configured to validate DNSSEC (dnssec-validation enabled) AND serves as a recursive resolver, and runs an affected BIND version
You are affected only if you run BIND version 9.0 through 9.2.2 AND have DNSSEC validation enabled, as the vulnerability only triggers when processing DNSSEC-validated responses.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade BIND to version 9.4.3-P5 or later for 9.4.x, 9.5.2-P2 or later for 9.5.x, 9.6.1-P3 or later for 9.6.x, or 9.7.0 or later for 9.7.x beta releases.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0382 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2010-0382 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data