CVE-2020-8617
No source can show you its own past. This one can.
Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.
A logic error in code which checks TSIG validity can be used to trigger an assertion failure in tsig.c
rank 54 = 29 + 15 + 0 + 10 + 0
rank@v1 · this cycle
Someone is already using it
CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS
EPSS 0.93422 · without this subject the record ranks 25
What it costs you if it fires
NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own
CVSS 5.9, from NVD · without this subject the record ranks 39
It is getting worse, not staying still
FIRST EPSS series, rescorings and bad loads removed
no persisting rise in 365 days · without this subject the record ranks 54
How much of the world it touches
NVD CPE configurations
20 products in the CPE ranges · without this subject the record ranks 44
Someone else already set the date
CISA KEV remediation due date
no CISA due date · without this subject the record ranks 54
$2.85M = $4.99M incident cost x 0.6121449559255632 exposure x 0.93422 likelihood
udv@v1 · unaudited · wrong for you until you say what you run
$4.99M is the cost of a breach that happened, from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, global average. It is not the value of any asset of yours. That average already covers breaches of every severity, so scaling it by exposure understates a partial-impact record. That is an assumption, not a measurement. Your own asset value goes in the decision record.
Hindsight · the state
Foresight · where to check next
No weakness class or product neighbourhood is held for this record, so this index cannot name anywhere to check next. That is an absence in the record, not a finding about the software.
Sources disagree here.
Both shown, dated. We don't pick winners. disagreement-rules@v1
Running ISC BIND9? Check your version
A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.
Watch this record
Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.
Set up a watchlist (needs a Practitioner account)
Record your call
Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.
AcceptDeferPatch by…Not affectedMitigatedChoose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.
Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.
Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness
Written for the ticket you're about to file.
CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA
The fix, and how long it's been waiting.
Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score
Current rung: Proof-of-concept published · 2 public repositories, 2020-05-20.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published · 2 public repositories2020-05-20receipt
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
Affected & Fixed Versions as published
Show all 20 published ranges
A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.
What it is stated by the CNA
Using a specially-crafted message, an attacker may potentially cause a BIND server to reach an inconsistent state if the attacker knows (or successfully guesses) the name of a TSIG key used by the server. Since BIND, by default, configures a local session key even on servers whose configuration does not otherwise make use of it, almost all current BIND servers are vulnerable. In releases of BIND dating from March 2018 and after, an assertion check in tsig.c detects this inconsistent state and deliberately exits. Prior to the introduction of the check the server would continue operating in an inconsistent state, with potentially harmful results. receipt
NVD's analysis a second authority
- severity
- 5.9 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- weakness
- CWE-617
- affected versions
- isc bind >= 9.0.0 <= 9.11.18; isc bind >= 9.12.0 <= 9.12.4; isc bind >= 9.13.0 <= 9.13.7; and 17 more, listed in full below
- also scored by
- [email protected] 7.5 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
The CNA scored it 7.5 and NVD 5.9. Both are shown because both were published; we do not pick one.
check it yourself kb.isc.org openwall.com debian.org security.netapp.com packetstormsecurity.com usn.ubuntu.com +6 morereceipt
Dated events
Movement the material steps
Show all 58 observations
58 observations held. A highlighted step crossed a promotion threshold. A step marked with a scoring model moved because the instrument was replaced, not because the vulnerability changed. receipt
Siblings and hubs
Records related to this one
No record cites this identifier and it carries no alias. Its defect family is below.
Its defect family
isc bind9
Of the 10 records in this family that state one, this holds the highest EPSS percentile: 0.99833.
Grouped by shared product and weakness, not by shared vulnerability. Each record's own state is on its own page.
Family membership: held values
This record is one of a group, and the group's page describes all of them. This page is kept and dated, and the defect family's own page is the one we offer for indexing: the whole group.
Browse the index from here
These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2020-8617.
What usually comes next
Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.