CVE-2026-56444
Nlnetlabs Unbound 1.20.0 – 1.25.2
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-56444 is a medium-severity Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime (CWE-772) vulnerability in Nlnetlabs Unbound. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 15th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-47685
Vulnerability Data
In NLnet Labs Unbound 1.20.0 up to and including 1.25.1, when Unbound is configured with 'serve-expired: yes' and 'serve-expired-client-timeout > discard-timeout > 0' (contrary to the suggested values), the discard-timeout branch during the serve expired logic drops an aged client…
more
reply without performing the correct accounting for the number of reply addresses for the query. Other identical branches outside of serve expired perform the correct decrement. Since the counter is never decremented in such scenario, it can reach the maximum limit and new clients for duplicate in-flight queries are silently dropped resulting in degradation of resolution service. A malicious actor can exploit the vulnerability by querying the resolver for a client-controlled slow-on-demand authoritative zone that can drive the counter past the threshold. Shipped defaults for 'serve-expired-client-timeout: 1800' and 'discard-timeout: 1900' make the branch unreachable.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing resource releases through dynamic analysis or stress testing.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate explicit resource-release patterns in code.
Resource-quota allocation limits the blast radius of an unreleased-resource exhaustion condition.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Lifecycle management explicitly requires handling resources through end-of-life including release.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent missing resource-release defects during development.
Runtime monitoring may surface resource-exhaustion symptoms but does not address release logic.
Capacity monitoring can detect exhaustion caused by unreleased resources but does not prevent the root defect.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Explicit information-deletion requirements directly address timely release of resources after use.
Secure-SDLC practices include resource-management reviews, yet the control covers the entire lifecycle, not just this weakness.
Secure-coding rules can mandate explicit resource-release patterns, but the control is broader than this single weakness.
Change-management processes may catch missing de-allocation during reviews, but the control itself does not target resource lifetime.
Configuration baselines can enforce resource limits or timeouts, indirectly reducing exposure to leaks.