Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Cloud

8/16/2016
05:10 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Poorly Configured DNSSEC = Potential DDoS Weapon

New research from Neustar shows how attackers could abuse DNSSEC-secured domains for distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks.

Just because a domain is signed with DNSSEC security doesn’t mean a Domain Name System (DNS) server is immune to abuse, according to new research.

Neustar studied nearly 1,350 domains with DNSSEC deployed and found that 80% of them could be used to amplify distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, at an average factor of 28.9 times. That’s because the domains hadn’t properly deployed DNSSEC-signing of their domains, leaving them vulnerable to DDoS abuse. Neustar ran DNS queries from four different open recursive servers to find name servers that responded to queries via the ANY query feature in DNS.

“On average, they returned [responses] 29 times” a normal response, says Joe Loveless, director of security services product marketing at Neustar. “That’s a lot of payback for an attacker who wants amplification.”

Neustar this year also has spotted a large number of actual attacks that take advantage of poorly deployed DNSSEC, he says.

DNS security expert Dan Kaminsky says the real problem lies within DNS, not DNSSEC. “There's a bug, we need to fix it. It's not in DNSSEC and it's kind of not in DNS. We need to be able to track spoofed floods and automate the rate limiting of them,” Kaminsky says.

Neustar’s Loveless concurs with Kaminsky, and adds that it’s more about the administration and deployment of DNSSEC—not its functionality—that’s at risk. “Attackers are exploiting the amplification factors available to them in poorly managed DNSSEC use to create attacks more quickly and more practically,” Loveless says.

Neustar found in its test that the DNSSEC-protected domains in question could be abused to turn an 80-byte query into a 2,313-byte response, which it says could easily could knock a network offline.

DNSSEC signs a domain to provide authentication and verification. The digital signature and key exchange information, in addition to ANY responses, adds up to a bigger amount of traffic than a non-DNSSEC DNS response, according to Neustar. “The record sizes are larger than simple DNS reflection or proper amplification attacks,” Loveless says.

Kaminsky, meanwhile, says there are plenty of amplification attacks against DNS domains that don’t have DNSSEC. “It's called an ANY request because ANY record can be returned, and ANY record can contain ANY information desired by an attacker,” he says.

The Net needs a way to thwart faked traffic sources, says Kaminsky, who is co-founder and chief scientist of WhiteOps.

DDoS threats to DNS are not new. Kaminsky in 2011 blogged that while it’s easy to blame DNSSEC for these flooding DDoS attacks, it’s more of an underlying IP problem of trust and acceptance, and DNS itself is vulnerable to amplification attacks. 

The best defense from DNS DDoS attacks, according to Loveless, is for DNS providers to filter for abuse or not to respond to “ANY” queries. 

Related Content:

Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
NSA Appoints Rob Joyce as Cyber Director
Dark Reading Staff 1/15/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Hunny, I looked every where for the dorritos. 
Current Issue
2020: The Year in Security
Download this Tech Digest for a look at the biggest security stories that - so far - have shaped a very strange and stressful year.
Flash Poll
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprises
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprises
COVID-19 has created a new IT paradigm in the enterprise -- and a new level of cybersecurity risk. This report offers a look at how enterprises are assessing and managing cyber-risk under the new normal.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-8567
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-21
Kubernetes Secrets Store CSI Driver Vault Plugin prior to v0.0.6, Azure Plugin prior to v0.0.10, and GCP Plugin prior to v0.2.0 allow an attacker who can create specially-crafted SecretProviderClass objects to write to arbitrary file paths on the host filesystem, including /var/lib/kubelet/pods.
CVE-2020-8568
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-21
Kubernetes Secrets Store CSI Driver versions v0.0.15 and v0.0.16 allow an attacker who can modify a SecretProviderClassPodStatus/Status resource the ability to write content to the host filesystem and sync file contents to Kubernetes Secrets. This includes paths under var/lib/kubelet/pods that conta...
CVE-2020-8569
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-21
Kubernetes CSI snapshot-controller prior to v2.1.3 and v3.0.2 could panic when processing a VolumeSnapshot custom resource when: - The VolumeSnapshot referenced a non-existing PersistentVolumeClaim and the VolumeSnapshot did not reference any VolumeSnapshotClass. - The snapshot-controller crashes, ...
CVE-2020-8570
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-21
Kubernetes Java client libraries in version 10.0.0 and versions prior to 9.0.1 allow writes to paths outside of the current directory when copying multiple files from a remote pod which sends a maliciously crafted archive. This can potentially overwrite any files on the system of the process executi...
CVE-2020-8554
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-21
Kubernetes API server in all versions allow an attacker who is able to create a ClusterIP service and set the spec.externalIPs field, to intercept traffic to that IP address. Additionally, an attacker who is able to patch the status (which is considered a privileged operation and should not typicall...