CVE-2026-55708
Privacy/configuration issue when adding local data in views through 'unbound-control'
- Published
- Last modified
- Where the record stands: published, rejected by its publisher, or superseded by another id.What do these mean? →
- published
- Whether CISA lists it in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog: proof that attackers are using it.What do these mean? →
- Not listed in CISA KEV
- Fix
- Fixed in 1.25.2
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
CISA's decision points: whether it is exploited, whether attacks can be automated, and how much control an attacker gets. Assessed (SSVC 2.0.3).What do these mean? →
- Exploitation: none
- Automatable: no
- Technical impact: partial
Summary
In NLnet Labs Unbound 1.6.0 up to and including 1.25.1, the 'view_local_data' and 'view_local_datas' commands of 'unbound-control' create a bare local zones tree for an already configured named view when the view is configured with no local data to begin with. However, the creation through the control interface omits adding the default-protected zones (e.g., RFC 1918 reverse, AS112 zones, .onion, .localhost). Once the local zone tree exists without the defaults, every query for a default-protected name from a client mapped to that view escapes to the public DNS via the iterator instead of being answered locally, bypassing local policy expectations.
Timeline
- CVE published
- CISA SSVC assessment
Exploitation: none · Automatable: no · Technical impact: partial
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- NLnet Labs Unbound
From 1.6.0 · fixed in 1.25.2