bugtraq - Re: recursive DNS servers DDoS as a growing DDoS problem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <44239BAE.5060105@sigsegv.cx>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:11:42 +0000
From: Anton Ivanov <arivanov@...segv.cx>
To: Chris Thompson <cet1@....cam.ac.uk>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: recursive DNS servers DDoS as a growing DDoS problem


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Chris Thompson wrote:

>Michael Sierchio <kudzu@...ebras.com> writes:
>
>>Robert Story wrote:
>>
>>>VG> In the scenario you describe, I cannot see any actual amplification...
>>>
>>>The amplification isn't in the number of hosts responding, but in
packet size.
>>>A very small DNS request packet results in a huge response packet.
>>
>>Are you talking about rogue authoritative servers? Otherwise, responses
>>will be limited to 512 bytes, possibly with the truncation bit set.
>
>
>Unless it supports EDNS, in which case it may be persuaded to send
>larger replies. BIND does currently have "you cannot be serious"
>cutoff at 4096 bytes.
>
>The reason that it is more awkward to use the method against
>authoritative-only nameservers is that you have to find a large
>RRset in the wild (or one that will come with large authority and/or
>additional sections in the reply) and then use the authoritative
>nameservers for that RRset, not any old open recursive nameserver
>(or many of them). You cannot craft your own RRset for the purpose.
>
That is not a problem. As usually MCI at your service. They have
switched from RFC 3258 DNS design to having a very long list of name
servers each of which is separate. That is at least 345 bytes of
extra/authority section instead of the usual 70-100. All you need is
to find a domain hosted with them. If you are happy with a 5x
amplification you can simply use MCI.com

They are not the only ones.

It is a general trend in large ISPs/Telcos to exterminate with extreme
prejudice any DNS design that requires some networking competence.
Once again - transitions from RFC3258 to long lists are only one
example. Plenty of others.

>But you can still get amplification, certainly.
>
The real solution to this problem is people finally starting to
enforce antispoofing on access networks. It is the same story as with
smurf and broadcast amplification 7 years ago. It is time to put up a
name and shame list out there.

- --

A. R. Ivanov
E-mail:  aivanov@...segv.cx
WWW:     http://www.sigsegv.cx/
pub 1024D/DDE5E715 2002-03-03 Anton R. Ivanov <ai1-n@...segv.cx>
    Fingerprint: C824 CBD7 EE4B D7F8 5331  89D5 FCDA 572E DDE5 E715

        
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEI5uu/NpXLt3l5xURApliAJ9LzA/Cnan74hSvRhOEKH6B0BI1zwCfe3x2
uDzVwvQTQQ5ugwYdtRdKhbM=
=AKsS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----