Vulnerabilities > ISC > Bind > 9.16.36
DATE | CVE | VULNERABILITY TITLE | RISK |
---|---|---|---|
2024-02-14 | CVE-2023-50387 | Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in multiple products Certain DNSSEC aspects of the DNS protocol (in RFC 4033, 4034, 4035, 6840, and related RFCs) allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via one or more DNSSEC responses, aka the "KeyTrap" issue. | 7.5 |
2023-01-26 | CVE-2022-3924 | Reachable Assertion vulnerability in ISC Bind This issue can affect BIND 9 resolvers with `stale-answer-enable yes;` that also make use of the option `stale-answer-client-timeout`, configured with a value greater than zero. If the resolver receives many queries that require recursion, there will be a corresponding increase in the number of clients that are waiting for recursion to complete. | 7.5 |
2023-01-26 | CVE-2022-3094 | Use After Free vulnerability in ISC Bind Sending a flood of dynamic DNS updates may cause `named` to allocate large amounts of memory. | 7.5 |
2023-01-26 | CVE-2022-3488 | Reachable Assertion vulnerability in ISC Bind Processing of repeated responses to the same query, where both responses contain ECS pseudo-options, but where the first is broken in some way, can cause BIND to exit with an assertion failure. 'Broken' in this context is anything that would cause the resolver to reject the query response, such as a mismatch between query and answer name. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.4-S1 through 9.11.37-S1 and 9.16.8-S1 through 9.16.36-S1. | 7.5 |
2023-01-26 | CVE-2022-3736 | Unspecified vulnerability in ISC Bind BIND 9 resolver can crash when stale cache and stale answers are enabled, option `stale-answer-client-timeout` is set to a positive integer, and the resolver receives an RRSIG query. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.16.12 through 9.16.36, 9.18.0 through 9.18.10, 9.19.0 through 9.19.8, and 9.16.12-S1 through 9.16.36-S1. | 7.5 |
2019-11-01 | CVE-2019-6470 | There had existed in one of the ISC BIND libraries a bug in a function that was used by dhcpd when operating in DHCPv6 mode. | 7.5 |