Reachable AssertionWeakness · CWE-617

CVE-2025-40777

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-07-16
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
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
If a `named` caching resolver is configured with `serve-stale-enable` `yes`, and with `stale-answer-client-timeout` set to `0` (the only allowable value other than `disabled`), and if the resolver, in the process of resolving a query, encounters a CNAME chain involving a specific combination of cached or authoritative records, the daemon will abort with an assertion failure. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.20.0 through 9.20.10, 9.21.0 through 9.21.9, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.10-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 denial of service vulnerability in BIND 9 named caching resolver occurs when configured with `serve-stale-enable yes` and `stale-answer-client-timeout` set to `0`. When resolving queries involving CNAME chains with specific combinations of cached or authoritative records, the daemon crashes due to an assertion failure.

MitigationAvoid using `stale-answer-client-timeout 0` with `serve-stale-enable yes` in production until a patched version is available, or upgrade BIND to a version beyond the affected ranges.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

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. Identify BIND 9 version
    Run `named -v` or `named -V` to obtain the installed BIND version
    Affected if Version is within the affected range (prior to patched version)
  2. Locate BIND configuration
    Find the named.conf file (commonly in /etc/, /etc/bind/, or check for -c flag usage)
    Affected if Configuration file exists and contains stale-answer related options
  3. Check serve-stale-enable setting
    Search the configuration for 'serve-stale-enable' directive and confirm its value
    Affected if serve-stale-enable is set to yes
  4. Verify stale-answer-client-timeout value
    Search for 'stale-answer-client-timeout' directive and note its configured value
    Affected if stale-answer-client-timeout is set to 0

Environment is affected if BIND 9 version is vulnerable AND both serve-stale-enable yes AND stale-answer-client-timeout 0 are configured simultaneously

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
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Avoid using `stale-answer-client-timeout 0` with `serve-stale-enable yes` in production until a patched version is available, or upgrade BIND to a version beyond the affected ranges.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

BIND 9.20.11 or later (stable series), or latest 9.22.x/9.24.x stable release

  1. 1. Identify current BIND 9 version using `named -v` or `named -V`
  2. 2. If running 9.20.0-9.20.10, 9.21.0-9.21.9, or 9.20.9-S1-9.20.10-S1, plan for upgrade
  3. 3. Backup current named configuration files (typically in /etc/named.conf, /etc/bind/, or /var/named/)
  4. 4. Download the latest stable BIND 9 release from ISC (https://www.isc.org/download/)
  5. 5. Alternatively, check your distribution's package manager for available bind9 updates
  6. 6. Install the updated package or compile and install from source
  7. 7. Verify the new version with `named -v`
  8. 8. Restart the named service (e.g., `systemctl restart named` or `service named restart`)
Caveat Review ISC release notes for any configuration or feature changes between your current version and the target version; major version jumps may introduce subtle behavior differences

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

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,720
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,752.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-40777 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-40777 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