[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipfire-development
Subject:    Re: Reachability of DNS root servers for zone transfers
From:       Michael Tremer <michael.tremer () ipfire ! org>
Date:       2018-10-30 15:57:19
Message-ID: 5e70c19ba98bce9af8757b38cd85ccc74dcbb822.camel () ipfire ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Hey,

On Tue, 2018-10-30 at 15:47 +0100, Peter Müller wrote:
> Hello Michael,
> 
> > Hi,
> > [...]
> > > 
> > > (a) If DNS servers are set an known to work, they are used to
> > > fetch mentioned DNS root zones. In case of failures, Unbound
> > > falls back to current behaviour. As DNS resolvers usually do not
> > > allow zone transfers, I expect this to fail in most cases.
> > 
> > The fallback is essential. This cannot render DNS unusable.
> 
> True. However, Unbound falls back to simply querying the upstream
> DNS servers if zone transfer failed. I do not expect any setup to
> break if AXFR is not allowed.
> > 
> > > (b) In case no DNSSEC-validating or -aware resolvers are available,
> > > Unbound falls back into recursor mode, assuming reachability of
> > > at least one of these servers. In this case, fetching the zones
> > > is easy.
> > 
> > In hindsight, this was a bad design decision. We assumed here that this will
> > always work and that is not true. However, the amount of users is still
> > relatively small.
> 
> True, but I do not see any usable alternative. We could simply stop
> resolving DNS entries, but this is probably even worse.
> > 
> > > (c) In case of permissive operation (no DNSSEC available), root
> > > zones are not fetched.
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> Because we cannot validate them. I consider querying upstream name
> servers better than having a ton of probably faked DNS zone data
> around.

We cannot do that either when we request only one TLD after the other.

> > > It turned out Unbound bumps into validation errors sometime, which
> > > needs some further investigation.
> 
> Things work fine so far, except for a really nasty bug: After rebooting
> a machine with local root zone mirroring enabled, Unbound falls back
> to DNSSEC permissive mode for an unknown reason.
> 
> After restarting the daemon manually, everything is fine again. :-\
> > > 
> > > Can/should we always assume DNS root servers are reachable?
> > > Any opinions on this?
> > 
> > Not always, but for the vast majority of users, they should be available.
> 
> I suspect this depends on
> (a) how many users are located behind some moron ISP which breaks DNSSEC.

Not too many.

> (b) how many users restrict outgoing DNS traffic to the two nameservers
> they configured (I do so) - since information leaks and bypassing DNSSEC
> validation is a threat, I consider this restriction as being useful.

Usually people open port 53 to everything. It is considered to be a low-risk
protocol.

> Further, creating firewall groups with _all_ of the root servers IPv4
> addresses is error-prone and time-consuming.

I have never seen anyone doing that.

> (c) how many users are located behind upstream DNS servers which do not
> allow AXFR.

I could not find a single recursor that allows AXFR. There is no point in doing
that.

> > 
> > If not, what are the downsides? Also what are the upsides of this?
> 
> As far as I am concerned, there is no downside: In case mirroring the
> root zones fails, anything (should) just behave as usual.
> 
> The upsides of this feature are as follows:
> (a) less load on the DNS root servers

Not that that makes a huge difference...

> (b) faster replies to DNS queries for an invalid TLD (some poorly written
> software is doing so)
> (c) no disclosure to upstream servers which TLD is queried (paranoia, but hey)
> (d) less queries to upstream servers for TLD nameservers

All these points make me think of people who use a funny domain for their local
network that they should not be using.

So would you extend the patch and add comments on why there are only a couple of
root servers on there, etc.? Would you also draft a blog post that highlights
the benefits of this?

Is there any contingency option we should offer?

> Besides some very minor privacy benefit, this aims to reduce load
> and DNS queries. Needless to say, if a TLDs nameserver is already cached
> by an upstream nameserver, no information is disclosed to the root servers.
> > 
> > > [...]
> > > P.P.S.: See 
> > > https://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/unbound-users/2018-May/005268.html
> > > for upstream mailinglist thread.
> > 
> > Just for the fun of it, I have added all zones to
> > ns{1,2,3}.lightningwirelabs.com and allow AXFR for everyone.
> 
> Cool, thank you. Let's hope some more resolvers will implement this.

These are not the resolvers. Those are my authoritative name servers.

Best,
-Michael

> > 
> > -Michael
> > 
> 
> Thanks, and best regards,
> Peter Müller

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]