Skip to content
OpenAdvisories
High RHSA-2026:55441 8 CVEs

Red Hat Security Advisory: bind security update

Published Aug 17, 2026 · Updated Oct 17, 2026

Fixed packages 5

ReleasePackageFixed in
Red Hat · RHEL 9.6 EUS rhel_eus:9.6::appstream bind 32:9.16.23-31.el9_6.4
Red Hat · RHEL 9.6 EUS rhel_eus:9.6::appstream bind-dnssec-utils 32:9.16.23-31.el9_6.4
Red Hat · RHEL 9.6 EUS rhel_eus:9.6::appstream bind-libs 32:9.16.23-31.el9_6.4
Red Hat · RHEL 9.6 EUS rhel_eus:9.6::appstream bind-utils 32:9.16.23-31.el9_6.4
Red Hat · RHEL 9.6 EUS rhel_eus:9.6::crb bind-libs 32:9.16.23-31.el9_6.4

Vulnerabilities 8

  • High 8.6

    DNSSEC Validation Bypass via Out-of-Zone NSEC Next Field

    The BIND resolver accepts validly-signed NSEC records where the "Next Domain Name" field points outside the signer's zone. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.18.50, 9.20.0 through 9.20.24, 9.21.0 through 9.21.23, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.18.50-S1,…

  • High 7.5

    Potential wildcard CNAME RPZ policy bypass

    An attacker who knows (or guesses) that a resolver uses RPZ with wildcard CNAME policies can craft query names long enough to trigger a NAMETOOLONG error condition during RPZ processing. This is not handled correctly and may lead to defeating the RPZ rule. It…

  • High 7.5

    Potential memory usage beyond configured limits

    A DNSSEC validating resolver that is under a random subdomain attack against a DNSSEC-signed zone can suffer from runaway memory usage. The attacker needs to be able to send queries faster than the resolver can perform validation. The increased memory usage c…

  • High 7.5

    Cache poisoning possible with label count discrepancy, RRSIG, and wildcards

    It is possible for an attacker's zone to respond to a query with an RRSIG that has a smaller number of labels than the zone in which the RRSIG is contained. This causes `named` to produce a wildcard name for a zone that is shorter than the attacker's zone, wh…

  • High 7.5

    Unexpected exit in certain situations with NSEC and NSEC3 both present

    If a provably insecure domain is covered by both an NSEC and NSEC3 record at the parent, and there exist an RRSIG for only one of these types, then BIND may exit unexpectedly with an assertion while validating this proof. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.…

  • High 7.5

    BIND 9 server memory exhaustion during GSS-API TKEY negotiation

    BIND servers that are configured to use TKEY-based authentication via GSS-API tokens are vulnerable to excessive memory consumption when receiving and processing maliciously-constructed packets. Typically these servers will be found in Active Directory integr…

  • High 7.5

    Invalid handling of CLASS != IN

    Multiple flaws have been identified in `named` related to the handling of DNS messages whose CLASS is not Internet (`IN`) — for example, `CHAOS` or `HESIOD`, or DNS messages that specify meta-classes (`ANY` or `NONE`) in the question section. Specially crafte…

  • Medium 6.8

    Incorrect acceptance of NSEC3 records

    BIND may accept incorrect child-zone NSEC3 records as valid, which could allow an attacker to forge authenticated NXDOMAIN responses. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.18.0 through 9.18.50, 9.20.0 through 9.20.24, 9.21.0 through 9.21.23, 9.11.3-S1 through …

References

  • article
    https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/#important
  • report
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2479767
  • report
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2479771
  • report
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2503721
  • report
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2504166
  • report
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2504298
  • report
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2504338
  • report
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2504447
  • report
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2504560
  • advisory
    https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_55441.json
  • report
    https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-3039
  • advisory
    https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-3039
  • advisory
    https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3039
  • report
    https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-5946
  • advisory
    https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-5946
  • advisory
    https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-5946
  • report
    https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-10723
  • advisory
    https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-10723
  • advisory
    https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-10723
  • report
    https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-11331
  • advisory
    https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11331
  • advisory
    https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-11331
  • report
    https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-11622
  • advisory
    https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11622
  • advisory
    https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-11622
  • report
    https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-11721
  • advisory
    https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11721
  • advisory
    https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-11721
  • report
    https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-13204
  • advisory
    https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13204
  • advisory
    https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-13204
  • report
    https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-13321
  • advisory
    https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13321
  • advisory
    https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-13321