FedoraOperating system · Fedoraproject
CVE-2016-3075
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 · uneditedStack-based buffer overflow in the nss_dns implementation of the getnetbyname function in GNU C Library (aka glibc) before 2.24 allows context-dependent attackers to cause a denial of service (stack consumption and application crash) via a long name.
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 confidenceStack-based buffer overflow in glibc's nss_dns module in the getnetbyname function. When a long network name is provided, it overflows a stack-allocated buffer, causing stack consumption and application crash. This affects any application using DNS-based network lookups through glibc.
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
FedoraOperating system
= 23
Ubuntu LinuxOperating system
= 12.04= 14.04= 15.10= 13.2<= 2.23CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 installed glibc versionRun `ldd --version` or `getconf GNU_LIBC_VERSION` to determine the glibc version installed on the systemAffected if The version reported is 2.23 or earlier (e.g., 2.22, 2.21, etc.)
-
Verify distribution and versionRun `cat /etc/os-release` or `lsb_release -a` to identify the Linux distributionAffected if The system is Fedora 23, Ubuntu 12.04, Ubuntu 14.04, Ubuntu 15.10, or openSUSE 13.2
-
Confirm nss_dns module is in useInspect the hosts line in /etc/nsswitch.conf - look for 'dns' listed as a backendAffected if The system uses DNS for name resolution (the 'dns' backend is present in the hosts line) and glibc version is 2.23 or earlier
-
Check for glibc package version directlyFor RHEL/Fedora: `rpm -q glibc`. For Debian/Ubuntu: `dpkg -l | grep libc6`. For SUSE: `rpm -q glibc`Affected if The installed package version matches <= 2.23 (e.g., glibc-2.22-... or glibc-2.21-...)
The system is affected if it runs glibc version 2.23 or earlier AND uses DNS-based network lookups on an affected distribution (Fedora 23, Ubuntu 12.04/14.04/15.10, or openSUSE 13.2).
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 glibc to version 2.24 or later to patch the vulnerability. In the interim, apply network segmentation and input validation where possible to reduce attack surface.
Fix this in Fedora
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-3075 — 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-2016-3075 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