CVE-2026-11331 — 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 also may lead to an unexpected exit of the BIND 9 software. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.16.0 through 9.18.50, 9.20.0 through 9.20.24, 9.21.0 through 9.21.23, 9.16.8-S1 through 9.18.50-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.24-S1.

Published Jul 22, 2026Updated Jul 22, 2026Sources: cvelistV5, isc

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

isc

bind_9

CVSS base

7.5

HIGH

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

Yes

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

isc

Products (1)

bind 9

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
7.5	CVSS 3.1	HIGH	—	—	cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-790

References

3 on the record

kb.isc.org/docs/cve-2026-11331
vendor-advisory
downloads.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.20.26
patch
downloads.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.21.24
patch

Elsewhere on this site

iscevery CVE for this vendor
CWE-790other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.