Welcome Guest. | Log In | Register | Membership Benefits
  • |   Email this page E-mail
  • |  Print Print
  • |   Bookmark and Share

DNSSEC Error Caused NASA Website To Be Blocked

Comcast's new DNSSEC-based service detected improper signing of NASA site

Jan 25, 2012 | 03:30 PM | 

By Kelly Jackson Higgins
Dark Reading
The hazards of early DNSSEC adoption: A misconfiguration in NASA’s Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) implementation on its website caused Comcast’s network to block users from the site last week.

This is a glaring example of the difficulties in today’s mostly manual process of configuring DNS servers to support the new security protocol that prevents attacks that redirect users to malicious websites. The DNSSEC protocol basically ensures DNS entries remain unchanged in transit and are digitally signed to ensure their authenticity.

NASA had incorrectly signed DNSSEC in its implementation of the new security protocol last week, causing Comcast’s newly DNSSEC-enabled service to automatically block access to the site. Comcast earlier this month became one of the first major ISPs in North America to fully run the DNSSEC protocol as part of its services.

By pure coincidence, NASA's website woes occurred the day part of the Web went dark in protest of controversial anti-piracy legislation, leading some users and pundits to inaccurately speculate this was Comcast’s way of protesting the government-based bills. Far from it: Turns out Comcast's newly deployed DNSSEC service did the right thing by detecting an invalid digital signature on NASA’s DNSSEC-signed domain, and then blocking users from accessing what appeared to be a potential security threat.

Jason Livingood, vice president of Internet Systems Engineering for Comcast Cable Communications, says Comcast studied the problem and found it had to do with a domain-signing error. Comcast worked with NASA to quickly remediate it, and it wasn’t the first signing error the ISP has seen: "We’ve seen this same thing a few times before [elsewhere]," he says.

Comcast, with input from NASA, published a detailed report on the issue yesterday (PDF) as a way to help other early DNSSEC adopters.

NASA had failed to conduct a double-signing process. It signed "nasa.gov" with a new key pair, but the upstream chain of the ".gov" domain had an older key pair that the agency didn’t use in the signing process. That was all it took for Comcast’s DNSSEC to detect a problem with the NASA site when its users tried to visit.

Livingood says his company detected other domains in .gov yesterday with the same problem, but it’s unclear so far whether this is related to NASA’s issue or these are new cases. "This happens around key rollover time,” he says. "This is an area we’re focused on, and we will continue to conduct periodic analysis when we observe failures and try to publish them" to help other early DNSSEC adopters, he says.

[Researcher points to fundamental problems in SSL and DNSSEC, and says it's time for users to take control of trust. See Time For A Better Web Of Trust?]

DNSSEC expert Dan Kaminsky says this is an example of the kinds of short-term troubles with the manual processes required in early adoption of the technology. But these manual DNSSEC processes will eventually be fully automated, which will eliminate these types of issues, he says.

Livingood says it’s not surprising that these problems are cropping up as organizations roll out DNSSEC. "DNSSEC is relatively new for a lot of domains," he says. "Maybe they’re doing their first rollover, and it’s probably a process or automation [issue]," he says.

Cricket Liu, vice president of architecture at Infoblox, says it’s telling that a scientific organization could err in its DNSSEC cutover. “If even the rocket scientists can't get it right, what about the rest of us?” Liu quips. “To me, this really reinforces the argument that DNSSEC is so complex that it requires automation.”

But key-signing key (KSK) rollovers are not easy to automate, he notes. “KSK rollovers are difficult to automate completely because one step in the rollover -- submitting your [delegation signer] record to your parent zone -- isn't standardized. But even providing guidance to the administrator as to what to do and when to do it would have been valuable in this case,” Liu says.

As a pioneering adopter of DNSSEC, Comcast basically took the heat here. Liu says that’s unfortunate: “It's too bad that Comcast took the blame for this failure. In my opinion, they should be commended for deploying DNSSEC ahead of most ISPs. This sort of failure will happen occasionally as new zones are signed and administrators learn the ins and outs of managing DNSSEC-signed zones,” Liu says.

NASA had not responded to press inquiries as of this posting.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add Your Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.



Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

Dark Reading encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, Dark Reading moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. Dark Reading further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
Subscribe to RSS



Authentication Reports

report Will Smartcards Live Up to Their Name?
Recent compromises of smartcard data have exacerbated concerns about the technology?s privacy, security and standards (or lack thereof). Yet the promise of smartcards is too compelling to ignore. New technologies and applications prompt us to take a fresh look.

report Get The Best Of Biometrics
As data volume and sensitivity grow, companies cannot rely on password- and token-based authentication. Biometrics can be used to provide strong access control, but you must weigh added complexity and costs against assurance that users are who they say they are.

report Proof of Identity: How to Choose Multifactor Authentication
User names and passwords are no longer sufficient authentication. In a time when so much business depends on the Internet, security requirements and regulatory mandates are putting pressure on business to adopt strong, multifactor authentication methods. In this Tech Center report, we explain how to weigh cost vs. risk to select the Web authentication method for your high-risk applications.

Other reports from the Authentication Tech Center:

Related Content

Effective and Painless Multi-factor Authentication
When the information age was young, authentication was simple-assign the user a password. Today, user populations have expanded and users access numerous distinct systems with each system requiring credentials. That said, it is no surprise that users have reverted to tactics that invalidate the security strength of passwords. Yet, the use of passwords as the only means to certify a user's identity still remains prevalent among SMBs. There is a new, multi-factor authentication approach that strengthens identity authentication and does not introduce extra cost, user inconvenience, and administrative. This white paper describes why multi-factor authentication is rising in importance and reviews the pros and cons of different multi-factor authentication approaches.

Man-in-the-Browser Attacks Explained
Cybercriminals are using more advanced methods to target online users. One of the fastest growing threats today is the man-in-the-browser (MITB) Trojan attack - an attack designed to intercept data as it passes over a secure communication between a user and an online application. Propagation of man-in-the-browser attacks is being helped by spear phishing attacks, the popularity of social networking sites, and the increase in drive-by downloads. In the last year, there has been an exponential increase in the number of these attacks against financial institutions. This white paper introduces the MITB attack, explains the infection rate, features and functionality of the attack and provides advice on how financial institutions can mitigate the threat.

How to: Select the Best Authentication Solution for Your Business
With the number of new and emerging security products being denoted by analysts as the "silver bullet" solution, it is critical to recognize that there are many authentication choices available on the market. The Authentication Decision Tree is a comprehensive tool that helps organizations understand, evaluate and select the most appropriate authentication solution to meet the needs of their users and their business. This white paper provides an overview of the Authentication Decision Tree, examines the five factors critical to selecting an authentication solution, and offers a clear guide to selecting the right solution that effectively balances risk, cost and end user convenience.

Strong Authentication for SMBs
Small and mid-sized businesses authenticate their end-users primarily with passwords, in spite of the fact that passwords are less secure, inconvenient and more expensive then stronger forms of authentication. This white paper reveals recent research conducted by Aberdeen on the drivers, inhibitors and technology adoption trends among SMBs. Find out what authentication solutions are well-designed to address the needs of SMBs.

How to Make the Case for Strong Authentication
With today's threat landscape and the increased value placed on the information created and stored, systems that rely on static passwords for security are left vulnerable and at high risk of being breached. This paper examines the need for strong authentication and explores the return on investment in order to help organizations make an informed decision when contemplating their strategic move toward more effective security.