CVE-2024-1975: BIND 9 SIG(0) DoS Vulnerability and Mitigation

A quiet but serious vulnerability in BIND 9 — tracked as CVE-2024-1975 — lets a remote attacker use DNS SIG(0) signatures to drive a resolver or server into sustained CPU exhaustion, effectively denying DNS service to legitimate users until the vulnerable process is patched or otherwise recovered. The flaw does not leak secrets or allow code execution, but it does give an unauthenticated remote actor a reliable way to make BIND consume all available CPU cycles by feeding it a stream of SIG(0)-signed requests against zones or cached KEY resource records. The practical impact is straightforward: DNS availability can be removed or severely degraded, and because DNS is fundamental infrastructure, the downstream effects can cascade into widescale service outages and operational chaos.

Background​

What is SIG(0) and why it matters​

SIG(0) is a DNS transaction-signature mechanism that uses DNSSEC-style signatures to authenticate DNS messages in a manner similar to TSIG but using DNSSEC keys and algorithms. Administrators and applications sometimes use SIG(0) to sign dynamic updates, secure zone transfers, or authenticate maintenance operations without relying on shared-secret TSIG keys. A SIG(0) signature is a cryptographically expensive artifact: servers validating SIG(0) records must perform public-key signature validation and related DNSSEC checks, which are orders of magnitude more CPU-intensive than the typical parsing and lookup work done for plain DNS queries.

How CVE-2024-1975 abuses that mechanism​

The vulnerability arises when a BIND server either hosts a zone that contains a KEY resource record or when a resolver validates a KEY record pulled from DNSSEC-signed zones in cache. In those cases, an attacker can send a stream of DNS requests that are SIG(0)-signed. Each incoming signed request forces BIND into signature-processing paths that trigger repeated cryptographic verification and associated validation logic. Under a crafted, high-volume stream of such requests, BIND’s CPU utilization climbs until query processing slows or stops entirely. The result is a denial-of-service (DoS) condition rooted in uncontrolled resource consumption.

---

Technical overview​

A step deeper: the CPU cost of signature validation​

At its core, SIG(0) validation entails public-key signature verification and sometimes ancillary operations such as canonicalization, time checks, and key lookups. These operations, when executed once in a while, are benign. When executed repeatedly at scale — particularly against requests that are intentionally shaped to keep the server in validation-heavy code paths — they become a weaponized cost function: the attacker pays a trivial CPU cost to send a UDP or TCP packet; the server pays the heavy cost of repeated asymmetric cryptographic verification.

How BIND’s KEY RR handling amplifies the problem​

Two server-side conditions make this vulnerability practical:

• If the server is authoritative for a zone containing a KEY resource record, some operations around that RR trigger the SIG(0) validation work.
• If a resolver performing DNSSEC validation caches a KEY RR from a signed zone, subsequent requests that interact with that cached KEY can cause the resolver to repeatedly re-enter SIG(0) handling and validation logic.

This means both authoritative servers and recursive resolvers can be targeted, depending on their configuration and whether KEY RRs exist in zones or cache.

Attack surface and exploit primitives​

The exploit requires only that an attacker can send DNS requests to the target. There is no need for authentication or prior access. The attacker crafts a stream of SIG(0)-signed requests; because SIG(0) uses public-key signatures, the attacker can generate many signed requests (often cheaply, depending on the signing key and environment) that force the server into repeated verification cycles.
Important practical points:

• The vulnerability is remote and unauthenticated.
• It affects BIND 9 series versions in broad classes — older as well as many maintained versions — making it widely relevant to enterprises, ISPs, and public resolvers that run unpatched BIND.
• Exploitation produces an availability impact (CPU exhaustion) rather than confidentiality or integrity compromise.

---

Affected products and patch status​

• BIND 9 versions impacted include a wide range of 9.0.x, 9.16.x, 9.18.x, and 9.19.x releases in common packaging and supported channels.
• Vendor maintainers and BIND upstream have released fixed builds; operators should upgrade to the patched 9.18.28 or to the 9.20.x series release that contains the fix, or to the latest BIND 9 maintenance releases appropriate for their distribution.

What this means in practice:

• If you run BIND 9 as an authoritative nameserver or resolver and your installed version falls within the affected ranges, you are materially at risk until you apply the vendor-supplied patches.
• Many downstream Linux distributions (enterprise distros and community builds) have issued security errata to backport the fix, so operators should check distributor advisories and apply updates as soon as feasible.

---

Real-world risk assessment​

Scope and potential for disruption​

DNS occupies a critical chokepoint in network operations. Even a localized resolver out of service can cause application-layer failures that appear unrelated to DNS until operators trace them back to name-resolution degradation. Because CVE-2024-1975 yields a reliable way to consume CPU, attackers can create long-lived or recurring outages. Public and shared resolvers (those exposed to the internet or provided to many clients) are especially attractive targets because a single exploited resolver outage can impact thousands or millions of clients.

Attack scenarios to prioritize​

• Targeting recursive resolvers that perform DNSSEC validation and cache KEY RRs. These devices are easy to reach (often listen on UDP/53) and may accept requests from the open Internet.
• Targeting authoritative servers that host zones with KEY records (some operational setups use KEY RRs as part of key management). Attackers can shape requests to maximize validation loops on authoritative infrastructure.
• Coordinated, distributed campaigns: SOCs should treat this as a vector that lends itself to DDoS-style distributed exploitation by multiple low-effort clients or botnets.

Collateral effects​

• Client-facing services that rely on affected resolvers will see slow/broken name resolution, translated into failed web requests, email delivery issues, service discovery problems, and flaky application behavior.
• Short-lived crashes or process restarts create operational overhead and potential service-level violations for critical infrastructure.

---

Mitigation and remediation guidance​

Immediate actions (minutes to hours)​

• Inventory: Determine all hosts and appliances running BIND 9 (authoritative, recursive, and stub resolvers). Prioritize public-facing and high-traffic resolvers.
• Apply vendor security updates immediately to BIND packages on all affected systems. Use your distribution’s security errata channels or BIND upstream packages where appropriate.
• If you cannot patch right away, apply network-level mitigations:
• Rate-limit DNS queries per source IP at edge routers or load balancers.
• Apply response-rate limiting (RRL) on authoritative servers where supported.
• Block or filter SIG(0)-bearing messages at perimeter devices if your environment does not rely on SIG(0) for legitimate operations (see caveats below).
• Restrict recursion: Force resolvers to permit recursion only for trusted clients. Open recursive resolvers are a high-risk exposure for this class of exhaustion attacks.

Medium-term measures (hours to days)​

• Plan and execute a full upgrade to patched BIND releases (9.18.28, 9.20.0, or later maintenance versions).
• Reconfigure network ACLs to limit which external IP ranges can query internal resolvers.
• For managed or cloud DNS providers: confirm they have applied the updates, and ask for timelines if they have not. Managed providers often have more aggressive patch cycles, but confirmation is necessary.

Longer-term operational hardening (days to weeks)​

• Audit use of SIG(0) and KEY RRs across your zones. If you do not use SIG(0) for legitimate operational workflows, consider prohibiting its use or clearly documenting the requirement and tightening access control.
• Deploy DNS request filtering rules at the edge to identify and throttle traffic patterns consistent with signature-validation exhaustion attacks.
• Harden monitoring: add CPU- and latency-based alerts on resolvers and authoritative boxes to detect rapid increases in cryptographic validation workloads.
• Where possible, segregate validation workloads onto dedicated resolver nodes so the failure of a validation-capable resolver does not take down client-facing service resolution entirely.

Caveats and trade-offs​

• Disabling DNSSEC validation or blocking SIG(0) can break legitimate workflows that rely on cryptographic transaction signatures; this must be weighed against the risk of ongoing exploitation. For many organizations, temporarily blocking SIG(0) on Internet-facing resolvers that do not rely on it is an acceptable stopgap, but do not make this a blind default.
• Rate-limiting strategies must be tuned carefully: overly aggressive limits can disrupt legitimate high-volume clients (CDNs, backup systems, monitoring solutions).

---

Detection — what to look for​

• Unusual spikes in DNS server CPU usage coincident with large numbers of incoming SIG(0)-signed queries.
• Query logs showing repeated queries with SIG(0) RRs, particularly when they arrive from few distinct IP addresses or when they show high packet-per-second rates.
• Resolver debug logs that reveal repeated signature-verification activity or timeouts in the DNSSEC validation code paths.
• Network captures showing high-volume UDP/TCP 53 traffic with SIG RRs; SIG(0) signatures tend to appear in the additional or signature sections of DNS messages.

Detection primitives to implement:

• Instrument BIND’s query logging and increase observability of validation-related events.
• Use sampling or logging filters to capture representative SIG(0) messages for analysis.
• Track trends in CPU usage and correlate with query logs to distinguish benign load from validation-driven exhaustion.

---

Why this class of vulnerability is recurring and what it teaches operators​

Resource-exhaustion vulnerabilities keep appearing across software that performs expensive per-request work (parsing, validation, crypto) because attackers can trade low-cost request generation for high-cost server processing. The common pattern is:

• An expensive validation or canonicalization step exists to provide security guarantees.
• The server executes that step on untrusted input without adequate amortization, caching safeguards, or per-client throttling.
• Attackers craft repeated inputs that force the server to repeat the expensive work, multiplying the stress on CPU, memory, or I/O resources.

Lessons for operators and developers:

• Consider cost asymmetry: public-key validation and other cryptographic ops are expensive; protect servers by adding adaptive throttles, caching, and early-rejection heuristics.
• Add explicit limits and graceful degradation strategies: per-client/request rate limits, limits on re-validation frequency for cached objects, and prioritized handling of known-good clients.
• Provide visibility: without meaningful metrics and logging tied to validation operations, teams cannot detect or respond to this class of attack quickly.

---

Practical checklist for remediation (actionable steps)​

• Inventory BIND:
• Identify all hosts running BIND 9 and their exact package versions.
• Patch:
• Apply the upstream or vendor-supplied security update that contains the fix for CVE-2024-1975.
• Harden:
• Restrict recursion to known clients.
• Apply RRL on authoritative servers where appropriate.
• If SIG(0) is not required, consider rejecting SIG(0) requests at a perimeter firewall or on the resolver.
• Monitor:
• Add CPU, latency, and query-type alerts for DNS servers.
• Log and sample SIG(0) traffic for baselining and detection.
• Communicate:
• Notify stakeholders (help desk, platform teams, cloud providers) that DNS availability could be impacted if resolvers are exploited, and coordinate patch windows.
• Test:
• After patching, validate service continuity under load and ensure legitimate SIG(0)-dependent workflows still function (if you use SIG(0)).
• Document:
• Record the vulnerability, affected versions, mitigation steps taken, and lessons learned in your incident repository.

---

Critical analysis — strengths and limitations of the fix and ecosystem response​

Strengths​

• Vendor and upstream maintainers produced fixes and distribution vendors shipped errata. The patch path for affected BIND versions is straightforward: operators should upgrade to the specified fixed maintenance releases.
• The vulnerability is narrowly focused on availability (no known code execution or privilege escalation), which constrains the attacker's goals to resource exhaustion rather than remote compromise.

Limitations and operational risk​

• The fix addresses the correctness of BIND’s handling of SIG(0), but the fundamental asymmetry — expensive cryptographic validation on untrusted input — remains an architectural risk unless operators adopt additional throttling or reject unneeded SIG(0) traffic.
• There is no universal short-term workaround that is both safe and non-disruptive; some recommendations (disable SIG(0) or DNSSEC validation) carry operational consequences and must be evaluated case-by-case.
• Many organizations run multiple resolver implementations or rely on managed DNS services; ensuring full ecosystem coverage requires coordination with cloud and DNS providers who may have different timelines for deployment.

Residual risks​

• Older or out-of-support BIND installations that do not or cannot receive updates remain exposed.
• Devices or appliances that embed old BIND libraries but do not expose easy update paths (network appliances, legacy devices) can provide persistent exploitable surface.
• The attack is trivial to scale: low-cost botnets or distributed scripts can create high-impact DDoS-like campaigns against DNS infrastructure.

---

Practical scenarios and recommended operator decisions​

• If you run public resolvers (open or ISP-facing): prioritize patching immediately and implement rate-limiting at your network edge. Public resolvers are high value and likely to be targeted quickly after public disclosure.
• If you run internal resolvers only: patch within your change window, but consider temporarily restricting which networks can query those resolvers from outside your perimeter.
• If your environment relies on SIG(0) for operations: test the vendor patch in staging first and plan a careful rollout; avoid disabling SIG(0) wholesale unless you can accept operational loss.
• If you use managed DNS providers: confirm they have patched and query them for any recommended mitigations on your account.

---

Final recommendations — survive and harden​

• Patch immediately: bring all BIND 9 instances to fixed maintenance releases as a first and urgent priority.
• Add network protections: use per-client rate limits, RRL, and perimeter filtering to limit the blast radius of any future resource-exhaustion attempts.
• Reduce attack surface: close open recursion where possible; prohibit SIG(0) unless explicitly required.
• Improve observability: instrument DNS servers for signature-processing metrics and alert on abnormal CPU/validation trends.
• Plan for resilience: architect resolver fleets with redundancy and segregation so that a validation-heavy attack on one cluster does not collapse name resolution broadly.

CVE-2024-1975 is a potent reminder that cryptographic protections, while essential, introduce asymmetric costs that attackers can exploit. The right immediate response is decisive patching; the right long-term response is architectural — policies and controls that limit the server’s exposure to untrusted, expensive validation work while preserving legitimate cryptographic DNS functionality for those who need it. Confronted with this vulnerability, organizations that act quickly to patch, limit exposure, and add defensive throttles will preserve DNS availability and avoid the ripple effects a resolver outage would cause across services and customers.

---

Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center