Enterprise Linux DesktopOperating system · Redhat
CVE-2016-8864
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 · uneditednamed in ISC BIND 9.x before 9.9.9-P4, 9.10.x before 9.10.4-P4, and 9.11.x before 9.11.0-P1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (assertion failure and daemon exit) via a DNAME record in the answer section of a response to a recursive query, related to db.c and resolver.c.
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 DNS server before versions 9.9.9-P4, 9.10.4-P4, and 9.11.0-P1 contains an assertion failure vulnerability in db.c and resolver.c when processing a DNAME record in the answer section of a response to a recursive query, allowing remote attackers to cause a denial of service by crashing the daemon.
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
Enterprise Linux DesktopOperating system
= 5.0= 6.0= 7.0
Enterprise Linux EusOperating system
= 6.7= 7.2= 7.3= 7.4= 7.5= 7.6= 7.7
Enterprise Linux ServerOperating system
= 5.0= 6.0= 7.0
Enterprise Linux Server AusOperating system
= 6.2= 6.4= 6.5= 6.6= 7.2= 7.3= 7.4= 7.6= 7.7
Enterprise Linux Server TusOperating system
= 6.5= 6.6= 7.2= 7.3= 7.6= 7.7
Enterprise Linux WorkstationOperating system
= 5.0= 6.0= 7.0
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 8.0>= 9.0.0, < 9.9.9>= 9.10.0, < 9.10.4= 9.9.9= 9.10.4= 9.11.0CVSS 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.
-
Identify BIND installationRun 'named -v' or 'named -V' to get the BIND version, or check the package with 'rpm -q bind' (RHEL) or 'dpkg -l bind9' (Debian)Affected if BIND 9 is installed and version falls within 9.0.0 to 9.9.9, 9.10.0 to 9.10.4, or specifically 9.9.9, 9.10.4, 9.11.0
-
Check recursive query configurationInspect the named.conf file for 'allow-recursion' or 'recursion yes' directives. Run 'named-checkconf -p /etc/named.conf' to parse the configurationAffected if Recursive queries are enabled (recursion yes) and the server is configured to answer recursive queries from network clients
-
Verify DNAME record handling is activeCheck if the server is configured to resolve domains that could receive DNAME records in responses. Review zone configurations and query logs for DNAME record typesAffected if The server processes recursive queries and handles zones that could receive DNAME records in the answer section
The environment is affected if BIND 9 version is within the vulnerable range AND recursive query processing is enabled, allowing the server to process DNAME records in recursive 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 data9.9.99.10.4
Upgrade BIND 9 to version 9.9.9-P4, 9.10.4-P4, 9.11.0-P1 or later. As a compensating control, restrict recursive queries to trusted clients to reduce the attack surface.
Fix this in Enterprise Linux Desktop
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-8864 — 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-2016-8864 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