CVE-2018-5742
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 · uneditedWhile backporting a feature for a newer branch of BIND9, RedHat introduced a path leading to an assertion failure in buffer.c:420. Affects RedHat versions bind-9.9.4-65.el7 -> bind-9.9.4-72.el7. No ISC releases are affected. Other packages from other distributions who made the same error may also be affected.
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 · moderate confidenceA denial of service vulnerability exists in certain RedHat-packaged versions of BIND9 (bind-9.9.4-65.el7 through bind-9.9.4-72.el7) where a RedHat-specific backport introduces a code path leading to an assertion failure in buffer.c:420, causing the DNS server to crash.
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>= 9.9.4-65, <= 9.9.4-72CVSS 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 if BIND9 named service is installedRun 'rpm -qa | grep -i bind' or 'named -v' to identify if BIND9 is installedAffected if BIND9 is not installed on the system, the vulnerability does not apply
-
Identify the installed BIND9 package version and vendorRun 'rpm -qi bind' or 'rpm -qi bind-libs' to get the package version and vendor information (e.g., Red Hat, CentOS)Affected if The installed version comes from a non-RedHat/CentOS source (upstream ISC builds are not affected by this specific vulnerability)
-
Compare the installed version against affected rangeRun 'rpm -q --queryformat '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}' bind' to get the exact version-release (e.g., 9.9.4-72.el7)Affected if The version-release falls within 9.9.4-65.el7 through 9.9.4-72.el7 inclusive (the RedHat-specific backport range)
-
Confirm named daemon is currently runningRun 'systemctl status named' or 'ps aux | grep named' to check if the DNS server is activeAffected if The service is running and the package version is within the affected range, the system is vulnerable to the assertion failure crash
A system is affected only if it runs a RedHat/CentOS-packaged BIND9 version between 9.9.4-65.el7 and 9.9.4-72.el7 inclusive, as upstream ISC builds do not contain the vulnerable RedHat-specific backport code.
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 dataUpdate to a patched RedHat BIND9 package version or replace RedHat packages with upstream ISC BIND9 builds.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,160.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-5742 — 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-2018-5742 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