VulnerabilityPublished 4 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-19630: bind security update

Affects bindSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-19630· High 7.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 9.18.21-16.oe2403sp1 soon.

Data as of 4 Nov 2026, 16:46 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Patch: Available – fixed in 9.18.21-16.oe2403sp1

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 4 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade bind to 9.18.21-16.oe2403sp1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
openEuler 24.03-LTS-SP1bind`pkg:rpm/openEuler/bind&distro=openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1`Other threats	Affected <9.18.21-16.oe2403sp1	Fixed in 9.18.21-16.oe2403sp1

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) is an implementation of the Domain Name System (DNS) protocols and provides an openly redistributable reference implementation of the major components of the Domain Name System. This package includes the components to operate a DNS server. Security Fix(es): In a BIND resolver, inbound DNS protocol messages with a particular structure will result in additional processing, with no limit imposed by BIND. A DNS message with a maliciously large number of such structures will cause BIND to consume disproportionate amounts of CPU time and memory during processing. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.18.50, 9.20.0 through 9.20.29, 9.21.0 through 9.21.26, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.18.50-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.29-S1.(CVE-2026-19630) Replaying GSS-TSIG signed UDP messages can result in memory corruption in "`named`". An attacker who can capture a previously signed UDP message can replay it while the negotiated TSIG key is still valid. By also sending crafted queries to a zone the attacker controls, the attacker may potentially achieve remote code execution. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.18.50, 9.20.0 through 9.20.29, 9.21.0 through 9.21.26, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.18.50-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.29-S1.(CVE-2026-94300) A BIND resolver that is configured with both a "redirect" zone and "qname-minimization strict" may abort with an assertion failure while processing the redirect. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.16.0 through 9.18.50, 9.20.0 through 9.20.29, 9.21.0 through 9.21.26, 9.16.8-S1 through 9.18.50-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.29-S1.(CVE-2026-96888) A recursive BIND server that receives a query with recursion desired (RD=1) followed by a non-recursive query (RD=0) may exit with an assertion failure, resulting in a denial of service. To be vulnerable, the BIND server must allow recursive queries and have at least two RPZ zones configured: one with the default setting of "recursive-only yes", and the other with "recursive-only no". This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.16.0 through 9.18.50, 9.20.0 through 9.20.29, 9.21.0 through 9.21.26, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.18.50-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.29-S1.(CVE-2026-97313)

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…