CVE-2016-7426
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 · uneditedNTP before 4.2.8p9 rate limits responses received from the configured sources when rate limiting for all associations is enabled, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (prevent responses from the sources) by sending responses with a spoofed source address.
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 confidenceIn NTP versions before 4.2.8p9, rate limiting when enabled for all associations incorrectly applies to responses received from legitimately configured sources. An attacker can exploit this by spoofing the source address of NTP responses, causing the server to rate-limit and block legitimate time sources, resulting in a denial of service.
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= 12.04= 6.0= 7.0= 6.0= 7.0= 7.3= 7.4= 7.6= 7.7= 7.3= 7.4= 7.5= 7.6= 7.7= 7.3= 7.6= 7.7= 6.0= 7.0>= 4.2.6, < 4.2.8>= 4.3.0, < 4.3.94= 4.2.5= 4.2.8CVSS 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:3.1/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 NTP daemon versionRun 'ntpd --version' or 'ntpdc -version' to determine the installed NTP versionAffected if Version is before 4.2.8p9 and falls within the affected ranges: 4.2.5, 4.2.6 through 4.2.7, 4.2.8, 4.3.0 through 4.3.93
-
Verify rate limiting is enabledInspect /etc/ntp.conf or /etc/ntp/ntp.conf for 'restrict ... limited' directives, or run 'ntpdc -c reslist' to see active restrict linesAffected if Rate limiting with 'limited' modifier is configured, especially without specifying a kiss code (e.g., 'kod' or 'ignore')
-
Check for configured NTP associationsRun 'ntpdc -c peers' or 'ntpq -c peers' to list configured time sourcesAffected if One or more remote NTP servers are configured as associations, as these can be blocked by rate limiting when the flaw triggers
-
Identify OS and versionCheck /etc/lsb-release for Ubuntu or 'cat /etc/redhat-release' for RHELAffected if Running Ubuntu 12.04, RHEL 6.0, RHEL 7.0, or RHEL 7.3-7.7 variants as listed in affected products
Your environment is affected if NTP version is before 4.2.8p9, rate limiting is enabled with the 'limited' directive, and you have configured remote NTP associations that could be blocked by the flawed rate-limiting logic.
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 data4.2.84.3.94
Upgrade NTP to version 4.2.8p9 or later, which contains the fix for this rate-limiting logic flaw. If immediate patching is not possible, review NTP association configurations and monitor for anomalous rate-limiting behavior.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-7426 — 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-2016-7426 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