CVE-2017-3140
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 · uneditedIf named is configured to use Response Policy Zones (RPZ) an error processing some rule types can lead to a condition where BIND will endlessly loop while handling a query. Affects BIND 9.9.10, 9.10.5, 9.11.0->9.11.1, 9.9.10-S1, 9.10.5-S1.
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 confidenceA denial-of-service vulnerability exists in BIND 9 nameserver when configured to use Response Policy Zones (RPZ). An error in processing certain RPZ rule types can cause named to enter an infinite loop while handling DNS queries, leading to service unavailability.
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>= 9.11.0, <= 9.11.1= 9.9.10= 9.10.5all versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/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 if BIND nameserver is runningRun 'named -v' or 'named -V' to check the BIND version, or check for the named process with 'ps aux | grep named'Affected if BIND version matches 9.9.10, 9.10.5, 9.11.0, or 9.11.1
-
Verify if RPZ is configuredCheck BIND configuration files (typically named.conf) for 'response-policy' directive or look for RPZ zone definitionsAffected if RPZ is enabled via 'response-policy { ... };' block in named.conf
-
Inspect RPZ zone files for rule typesExamine RPZ zone files in the configuration for any policy records such as CNAME, MX, or TXT-based RPZ rulesAffected if RPZ contains policy rules that trigger the infinite loop condition in the affected versions
-
Check NetApp product BIND integrationFor NetApp products (Data Ontap Edge, Element Software, Oncommand Balance), determine if the embedded BIND version is in use - check product documentation or run 'named -v' within the product contextAffected if The product uses an affected BIND version (all versions of these products are listed as affected)
-
Review named logs for infinite loop symptomsCheck system logs (/var/log/messages or named.log) for 'infinite loop' or repeated identical query patterns indicating a hang conditionAffected if Logs show named repeatedly processing the same query without completion, indicating the infinite loop condition
A system is affected if it runs BIND version 9.9.10, 9.10.5, 9.11.0, or 9.11.1 with RPZ enabled, or uses any NetApp product version listed, and exhibits or is vulnerable to infinite loop behavior when processing RPZ rules.
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 version 9.9.10-P1, 9.10.5-P1, 9.11.1-P1, or later. Alternatively, if immediate upgrade is not possible, consider disabling RPZ or restricting RPZ rule types if the specific problematic rule type can be identified.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-3140 — 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-2017-3140 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