CVE-2011-1910
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 · uneditedOff-by-one error in named in ISC BIND 9.x before 9.7.3-P1, 9.8.x before 9.8.0-P2, 9.4-ESV before 9.4-ESV-R4-P1, and 9.6-ESV before 9.6-ESV-R4-P1 allows remote DNS servers to cause a denial of service (assertion failure and daemon exit) via a negative response containing large RRSIG RRsets.
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 confidenceAn off-by-one error in ISC BIND 9.x allows remote DNS servers to trigger an assertion failure by sending crafted negative DNS responses containing oversized RRSIG resource record sets, causing the named daemon to exit.
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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
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.
-
Check if BIND is installedRun `named -v` or `named -V` to display the BIND version, or use your package manager (e.g., `rpm -q bind` on RHEL/CentOS, `dpkg -l bind9` on Debian/Ubuntu)Affected if No output or package not found means BIND is not installed and not affected
-
Confirm the installed BIND versionRun `named -v` or `named -V` and compare the version number to the affected range: 9.0 through 9.2.2Affected if The version shown 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
-
Check if the named daemon is runningRun `ps aux | grep named` or `systemctl status named` (or `service named status` on older systems) to verify the DNS server process is activeAffected if named daemon is running and the version is in the affected range from step 2
-
Inspect DNS server configuration for recursive query accessExamine /etc/named.conf (or your named configuration file) and look for `allow-recursion` or `allow-query` directives. Check if they are set to `any` or include untrusted IP rangesAffected if Recursive queries or DNS queries are allowed from any or untrusted sources, and the version is in the affected range
You are affected if the named daemon is running with BIND version 9.0 through 9.2.2 and accepts DNS queries or zone transfers from network sources.
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 versions 9.7.3-P1, 9.8.0-P2, 9.4-ESV-R4-P1, or 9.6-ESV-R4-P1 or later. If immediate patching is not possible, consider restricting zone transfers and query access to trusted sources.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-1910 — 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 sources- secunia.com
- www.isc.org
- lists.apple.com
- lists.fedoraproject.org
- lists.fedoraproject.org
- lists.fedoraproject.org
- marc.info
- osvdb.org
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- security.freebsd.org
- slackware.com
- support.apple.com
- www.debian.org
- www.kb.cert.org
- www.mandriva.com
- www.redhat.com
- www.securityfocus.com
- www.securitytracker.com
- bugzilla.redhat.com
- hermes.opensuse.org
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2011-1910 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