CVE-2020-8621
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 · uneditedIn BIND 9.14.0 -> 9.16.5, 9.17.0 -> 9.17.3, If a server is configured with both QNAME minimization and 'forward first' then an attacker who can send queries to it may be able to trigger the condition that will cause the server to crash. Servers that 'forward only' are not 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 · high confidenceIn BIND 9 versions 9.14.0->9.16.5 and 9.17.0->9.17.3, a denial-of-service vulnerability exists when a server is configured with both QNAME minimization and 'forward first' options enabled. An attacker who can send DNS queries to the affected server can trigger a crash condition. Servers configured with 'forward only' are not vulnerable.
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= 16.04= 18.04= 20.04>= 9.14.0, <= 9.16.5>= 9.17.0, <= 9.17.3= 15.1= 15.2< 2.2.2-5027all 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
- 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 9 versionRun 'named -v' or 'named -V' to obtain the installed BIND version numberAffected if The version falls within 9.14.0 to 9.16.5, or 9.17.0 to 9.17.3
-
Locate BIND configuration fileCheck /etc/named.conf or /etc/bind/named.conf for the named configuration file used by your installationAffected if A configuration file exists and BIND is in use
-
Check if QNAME minimization is enabledSearch the named.conf file for 'qname-minimization' or 'minimize-qname' directives and verify the setting is 'enabled' or 'yes'Affected if QNAME minimization is explicitly enabled in the configuration
-
Check forwarder configurationSearch the named.conf file within any 'options' or 'zone' blocks for 'forward' directive and verify if it is set to 'first'Affected if The forward option is set to 'first' (not 'only' or not present)
A server is affected only if it runs a vulnerable BIND 9 version (9.14.0-9.16.5 or 9.17.0-9.17.3) WITH both QNAME minimization enabled AND forward first configured. If forward is set to 'only' or either condition is absent, the server is not vulnerable to this CVE.
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 data2.2.2-5027
Disable QNAME minimization in the server configuration, change 'forward first' to 'forward only', or upgrade to BIND 9.16.6+, 9.17.4+, or a later stable version.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-8621 — 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-2020-8621 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