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
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Why Vulnerable Code Is Shipped Knowingly
Chris Eng, Chief Research Officer, Veracode,  11/30/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-27348
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-04
In some conditions, a snap package built by snapcraft includes the current directory in LD_LIBRARY_PATH, allowing a malicious snap to gain code execution within the context of another snap if both plug the home interface or similar. This issue affects snapcraft versions prior to 4.4.4, prior to 2.43...
CVE-2020-16123
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-04
An Ubuntu-specific patch in PulseAudio created a race condition where the snap policy module would fail to identify a client connection from a snap as coming from a snap if SCM_CREDENTIALS were missing, allowing the snap to connect to PulseAudio without proper confinement. This could be exploited by...
CVE-2018-21270
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-03
Versions less than 0.0.6 of the Node.js stringstream module are vulnerable to an out-of-bounds read because of allocation of uninitialized buffers when a number is passed in the input stream (when using Node.js 4.x).
CVE-2020-26248
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-03
In the PrestaShop module "productcomments" before version 4.2.1, an attacker can use a Blind SQL injection to retrieve data or stop the MySQL service. The problem is fixed in 4.2.1 of the module.
CVE-2020-29529
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-03
HashiCorp go-slug before 0.5.0 does not address attempts at directory traversal involving ../ and symlinks.