dbcve.org
FedoraOperating system · Fedoraproject

CVE-2023-5679

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-02-13
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 9.19.19 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
A bad interaction between DNS64 and serve-stale may cause `named` to crash with an assertion failure during recursive resolution, when both of these features are enabled. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.16.12 through 9.16.45, 9.18.0 through 9.18.21, 9.19.0 through 9.19.19, 9.16.12-S1 through 9.16.45-S1, and 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.21-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 confidence

A crash with assertion failure in BIND9's named occurs when both DNS64 (IPv6 address synthesis) and serve-stale (serving stale cache entries) features are enabled, caused by a bad interaction between these features during recursive DNS resolution.

MitigationDisable either the DNS64 or serve-stale feature in named.conf, or upgrade to a patched BIND9 version outside the affected range.

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
FedoraOperating system
Affected:= 38= 39
Active Iq Unified ManagerApplication
Affected:all versions
BindApplication
Affected:>= 9.16.12, <= 9.16.45>= 9.18.0, <= 9.18.21>= 9.19.0, <= 9.19.19= 9.16.12= 9.16.13= 9.16.14= 9.16.21= 9.16.32= 9.16.36= 9.16.43= 9.16.45= 9.18.11

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check BIND9 version
    Run 'named -v' or 'named -V' to get the installed BIND version. Compare against affected ranges: 9.16.12 to 9.16.45, 9.18.0 to 9.18.21, 9.19.0 to 9.19.19, and specific versions 9.16.11, 9.18.11
    Affected if Version falls within any of the affected version ranges
  2. Verify DNS64 is enabled
    Search named.conf (typically in /etc/named.conf or /etc/bind/named.conf) for 'dns64' directive blocks. Also check any included configuration files in /etc/named.conf.d/ or similar directories
    Affected if A 'dns64' block is present and not commented out
  3. Verify serve-stale is enabled
    Search named.conf for 'serve-stale' directive. This may appear as 'serve-stale yes;' within options or view blocks, or as a response policy zone (RPZ) action
    Affected if The 'serve-stale' option is set to 'yes' or 'on' and not disabled or commented out

The environment is affected if BIND version is within the affected ranges AND both DNS64 and serve-stale features are simultaneously enabled in the configuration.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 9.19.19
Interim mitigation

Disable either the DNS64 or serve-stale feature in named.conf, or upgrade to a patched BIND9 version outside the affected range.

Recommended fix High confidence

BIND 9.16.46+ / 9.18.22+ / 9.19.20+ (or latest stable 9.18.x/9.19.x)

  1. Check the current BIND version using: named -v or named -V
  2. If running BIND 9.16.12-9.16.45, upgrade to 9.16.46 or later
  3. If running BIND 9.18.0-9.18.21, upgrade to 9.18.22 or later
  4. If running BIND 9.19.0-9.19.19, upgrade to 9.19.20 or later
  5. On Fedora systems, run: dnf update bind to get the patched version
  6. After upgrade, restart the named service: systemctl restart named
  7. Verify the new version is running: named -v
  8. Test that recursive resolution works correctly with DNS64 and serve-stale enabled
Caveat Verify configuration compatibility with the new BIND version before production deployment; test DNS64 and serve-stale functionality after upgrade

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Fedora Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
7.0 hours of engineering $1,240
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-5679 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-5679 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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