CVE-2026-50252
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.
Possible cache poisoning attack by mapping source port population per thread
rank 25 = 0 + 23 + 0 + 2 + 0
rank@v1 · scheduled
Someone is already using it
CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS
EPSS 0.00163 · without this subject the record ranks 25
What it costs you if it fires
NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own
CVSS 9.3, from NVD · without this subject the record ranks 2
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 25
How much of the world it touches
NVD CPE configurations
1 product in the CPE ranges · without this subject the record ranks 23
Someone else already set the date
CISA KEV remediation due date
no CISA due date · without this subject the record ranks 25
$4,980 = $4.99M incident cost x 0.6121449559255632 exposure x 0.00163 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 NLnet Labs Unbound? 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: Nothing observed in held sources.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
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
In NLnet Labs Unbound 1.4.22 up to and including 1.25.1, UDP source port is randomized and intended to serve as a secret value that increases the entropy of DNS transactions. When resolver load balancing policies depend on the source port while their outcome is revealed this secrecy is undermined. The vulnerability arises when the load balancing policy is consistent with respect to the incoming source UDP port and IP address while heavily depending on the incoming source UDP port as a randomization source. When the SO_REUSEPORT configuration option is enabled ('so-reuseport: yes') in Unbound (by default), it meets these conditions, making it vulnerable for DNS cache poisoning attacks. receipt
Read the rest of the CNA's description
Upon startup, Unbound randomly partitions the available UDP source port space into disjoint subsets of (almost) equal size, assigning each subset to a specific worker thread. When an incoming DNS query is received, the kernel’s SO_REUSEPORT load balancing mechanism deterministically assigns the query to a socket associated with a particular thread. All outgoing DNS queries generated during the resolution of that request use source ports selected exclusively from the port subset assigned to the corresponding thread. Since these port subsets are disjoint across threads, the source port observed in a resolver’s outgoing query to an authoritative name server serves as a reliable indicator of the worker thread that processed the original client query. A malicious actor can acquire the mapping between incoming UDP source ports (for a given fixed source IP address) and Unbound worker threads and leverage it to conduct DNS cache poisoning attacks by effectively lowering the random port population per thread.
NVD's analysis a second authority
- severity
- 9.3 CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
- weakness
- CWE-349
- affected versions
- nlnetlabs unbound >= 1.4.22 < 1.25.2
- also scored by
- [email protected] 5.7 CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:Amber
The CNA scored it 5.7 and NVD 9.3. Both are shown because both were published; we do not pick one.
check it yourself nlnetlabs.nl receipt
Movement the material steps
Show all 4 observations
4 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
The full biography
The record had been public for 1 month when this index was last written.
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
nlnet labs unbound
Of the 4 records in this family, this is the only one holding a stated fix version: 1.25.2.
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-2026-50252.
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.