CVE-2023-5680
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 a resolver cache has a very large number of ECS records stored for the same name, the process of cleaning the cache database node for this name can significantly impair query performance. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.3-S1 through 9.11.37-S1, 9.16.8-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 confidenceThis is a performance DoS vulnerability in BIND 9's resolver cache. When the cache contains a very large number of EDNS Client Subnet (ECS) records for the same domain name, the cache cleanup process for that database node causes significant query performance degradation, effectively slowing DNS resolution during cache maintenance operations.
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= 9.11.3= 9.11.4= 9.11.5= 9.11.6= 9.11.7= 9.11.8= 9.11.12= 9.11.21= 9.11.27= 9.11.29= 9.11.35= 9.11.37all 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
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
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 installed BIND 9 versionRun `named -v` or `bind -v` to retrieve the BIND version, or check via package manager (e.g., `rpm -q bind` or `dpkg -l bind9`). Compare the version number to the affected list: 9.11.3, 9.11.4, 9.11.5, 9.11.6, 9.11.7, 9.11.8, 9.11.12, 9.11.21, 9.11.27, 9.11.29, 9.11.35, 9.11.37.Affected if The installed BIND version matches one of the listed affected versions.
-
Verify if BIND resolver is in useCheck if named.conf contains a 'resolver' or 'recursion yes' statement, or if the server is functioning as a recursive resolver. Look for `recursion yes;` in named.conf or check process flags.Affected if The server is configured as a recursive resolver with caching enabled.
-
Confirm EDNS Client Subnet (ECS) is enabledInspect named.conf for 'edns-client-subnet' directives or check running config via `named-checkconf -z` or `rndc config`. ECS is typically enabled via `edns-client-subnet` in options or view blocks.Affected if ECS support is enabled in the BIND configuration.
-
Check for presence of ECS records in cacheUse `rndc dumpdb -cache` to dump the cache, then search for entries containing 'ECS' or client subnet data. Count the number of distinct ECS entries for any single domain name.Affected if The cache contains a very large number (hundreds or thousands) of ECS records for the same domain name.
-
Check for NetApp Active IQ Unified ManagerIdentify if NetApp Active IQ Unified Manager is installed on the system (check installed packages, services, or product documentation).Affected if NetApp Active IQ Unified Manager is present on the system (all versions are affected).
You are affected if you run an affected BIND 9 version with resolver and ECS enabled and have a cache populated with many ECS records, or if NetApp Active IQ Unified Manager is installed.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade BIND 9 to a patched version (beyond 9.11.37-S1, 9.16.45-S1, or 9.18.21-S1) or apply vendor patches. Monitor resolver performance during cache operations as a temporary indicator.
BIND 9.11.38+ / 9.16.46+ / 9.18.22+; NetApp patch when available
- 1. Identify the current BIND 9 version by running 'named -v' or 'named -V'
- 2. For BIND 9.11.x: Upgrade to version 9.11.38 or later (or 9.11.38-S1 if using supported releases)
- 3. For BIND 9.16.x: Upgrade to version 9.16.46 or later (or 9.16.46-S1 if using supported releases)
- 4. For BIND 9.18.x: Upgrade to version 9.18.22 or later
- 5. After upgrade, restart the named service: 'systemctl restart named' or 'service named restart'
- 6. Verify the new version is running: 'named -v'
- 7. For NetApp Active IQ Unified Manager: Monitor security.netapp.com for available patches as all versions are affected
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-5680 — 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-2023-5680 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