CVE-2013-6230
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 · uneditedThe Winsock WSAIoctl API in Microsoft Windows Server 2008, as used in ISC BIND 9.6-ESV before 9.6-ESV-R10-P1, 9.8 before 9.8.6-P1, 9.9 before 9.9.4-P1, 9.9.3-S1, 9.9.4-S1, and other products, does not properly support the SIO_GET_INTERFACE_LIST command for netmask 255.255.255.255, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended IP address restrictions by leveraging misinterpretation of this netmask as a 0.0.0.0 netmask.
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 confidenceThe Winsock WSAIoctl API in Windows Server 2008 incorrectly handles the SIO_GET_INTERFACE_LIST command when processing netmask 255.255.255.255, misinterpreting it as 0.0.0.0. This flaw in affected BIND versions (9.6-ESV before R10-P1, 9.8 before 9.8.6-P1, 9.9 before 9.9.4-P1) allows remote attackers to bypass IP address access control restrictions.
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= 9.6= 9.8.0= 9.8.1= 9.8.2= 9.8.3= 9.8.4= 9.8.5= 9.8.6= 9.9.0= 9.9.1= 9.9.2= 9.9.3CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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.
-
Identify installed BIND versionRun 'named -v' or 'named -V' to display the BIND version, or check the software inventory/package management systemAffected if Version matches 9.6, 9.8.0-9.8.5, or 9.9.0-9.9.3 (versions before 9.6-ESV-R10-P1, 9.8.6-P1, or 9.9.4-P1)
-
Verify Windows Server 2008 environmentCheck the operating system with 'systeminfo' or 'winmsd' - look for Windows Server 2008 or Windows Server 2008 R2 in the OS nameAffected if The BIND server is running on Windows Server 2008 or Windows Server 2008 R2 (where the Winsock WSAIoctl API flaw exists)
-
Confirm IP access control configurationExamine named.conf for ACL definitions or access control statements such as 'allow-query', 'allow-recursion', 'allow-query-cache', 'blackhole', or 'match-clients' directivesAffected if IP-based ACLs are defined and used (the vulnerability allows these controls to be bypassed)
-
Identify ACLs using specific host/networksReview the ACL definitions in named.conf to identify any entries using the 255.255.255.255 (host) netmaskAffected if Any ACL entries rely on precise /32 host entries that could be misinterpreted as 0.0.0.0/0 due to the Winsock netmask handling bug
A user is affected if they run an affected BIND version (9.6, 9.8.0-9.8.5, or 9.9.0-9.9.3) on Windows Server 2008 and utilize IP-based access control lists, because the Winsock netmask misinterpretation allows bypassing those controls.
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 affected BIND installations to versions 9.6-ESV-R10-P1, 9.8.6-P1, 9.9.4-P1 or later, which contain the proper handling of the 255.255.255.255 netmask for IP access controls.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6230 — 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-2013-6230 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