Partner Perspectives  Connecting marketers to our tech communities.
SPONSORED BY
3/1/2017
11:05 AM
Pieter Arntz
Pieter Arntz
Partner Perspectives
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
50%
50%

DNSSEC: Why Do We Need It?

The number of signed domain names has grown considerably over the past two and a half years but some sectors are heavily lagging behind.

DNSSEC is short for Domain Name System Security Extensions. It is a set of extensions that add extra security to the DNS protocol. This is done by enabling the validation of DNS requests, which is specifically effective against DNS spoofing attacks. DNSSEC provides the DNS records with a digital signature, so the resolver can check if the content is authentic.

My reason for writing this post was a recent SIDN report that concluded that the DNSSEC security status in the Netherlands left a lot to be desired.  The banking sector, ISPs, and others were lagging behind, according to the report. That’s especially true in comparison to the government sector, which has to be fully compliant by the end of 2017 and is now at a level of 59% of all domain names required to be cryptographically secured and signed.

The investigation only looked at .nl domains, so companies of a more international nature, that might be using other Top Level Domains (TLDs), were not included in the research. Let’s hope that companies of this nature are more advanced in this regard. On a grand total of approximately 5.7 million domains, 46% were signed.

Additional security
Not only is DNSSEC a security feature by itself, it also provides a platform for additional features like:

  • DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail)
  • SPF (Sender Policy Framework)
  • DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting and Conformance)
  • DANE (DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities)

DANE is a protocol that allows Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates to be bound to Domain Name System (DNS) names. It is considered a major step forward in security, notably after the breach of some Certificate Authorities (CA) providers, which meant any CA could issue a certificate for any domain name. This is why we say that the green padlock is required, but not enough. Going forward it’s important to know that all the popular browsers support DNSSEC, and most of them support DANE (for some browsers you may need a plug-in), so implementation of this extra security should put a major dent in the possibilities for DNS spoofing.

Image Source: Malwarebytes
Image Source: Malwarebytes

Conclusions
Personally I was surprised, almost shocked, to find out that only 6% of the banking sites had their domains signed, the worst of all the investigated groups of domains. This is especially worrying because of the recent progression from physical to on-line banking. The percentage for all financial corporations was at 16%. Other sectors where we would expect better figures:

  • Internet Service Providers, 22%
  • Stock exchange listed companies, 12%
  • Internet shops, 30%
  • Telecom providers 33% and - worst of all - of the 4 biggest providers with an .nl domain, none contributed to that score.

The only group scoring somewhat satisfactory results were government sites at 59%, pushed by regulations that require compliance by the end of this year (2017).

Even though the number of signed domain names has grown considerably over the past two and a half years (the previous report on this subject), some sectors are heavily lagging behind - in particular some sectors where we would hope and expect otherwise.

If you have any similar figures about these numbers in your country, comment in the original post on Malwarebytes Labs. I would like to make some comparisons.

Check out additional posts from Pieter Antz here!

 

Was a Microsoft MVP in consumer security for 12 years running. Can speak four languages. Smells of rich mahogany and leather-bound books. View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Shantaram
50%
50%
Shantaram,
User Rank: Ninja
3/12/2017 | 3:05:54 PM
Re: 192.168.0.1
Thanks for informative and detailed post!
Want Your Daughter to Succeed in Cyber? Call Her John
John De Santis, CEO, HyTrust,  5/16/2018
New Mexico Man Sentenced on DDoS, Gun Charges
Dark Reading Staff 5/18/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
Malwarebytes protects businesses against malicious threats that escape detection by traditional antivirus solutions. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, the companys flagship product, has a highly advanced heuristic detection engine that has removed more than five billion malicious threats from computers worldwide. SMBs and enterprise businesses worldwide trust Malwarebytes to protect their data. Founded in 2008, the company is headquartered in California with offices in Europe, and a global team of researchers and experts. For more information, please visit us at www.malwarebytes.com/business.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-11354
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the IEEE 1905.1a dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-ieee1905.c by making a certain correction to string handling.
CVE-2018-11355
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the RTCP dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-rtcp.c by avoiding a buffer overflow for packet status chunks.
CVE-2018-11356
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the DNS dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-dns.c by avoiding a NULL pointer dereference for an empty name in an SRV record.
CVE-2018-11357
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the LTP dissector and other dissectors could consume excessive memory. This was addressed in epan/tvbuff.c by rejecting negative lengths.
CVE-2018-11358
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the Q.931 dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-q931.c by avoiding a use-after-free after a malformed packet prevented certain cleanup.