[Unbound-users] how to filter/reject incoming requests for invalid qdomain?
wouter at nlnetlabs.nl
Mon Sep 17 11:55:55 CEST 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
So, a long email where I want to try to tell you that you are trying
to fix the wrong problem. Because, unbound is doing the 'right
thing', and you are caught 'in the middle' between two places doing
the 'wrong thing'. But, as it may be, you can get away by doing
nothing, and both other ends are suffering because of their own
On 09/17/2012 11:10 AM, Gábor Lénárt wrote:
> Hi All,
> I use unbound as recursive name server. However (it seems) some
> broken clients sends "odd" requests what - IMHO - unbound should
> reject at the first place. But instead it tries to resolve anyway
> and administrators of the given authoritative nameservers
> complaining that I bomb them with invalid requests what I should
> (according to them) stop ASAP. What they say (only two examples
> for now):
These authority server operators are wrong. And they give you the
wrong task. The authority servers are not RFC-compliant, and are the
cause of these problems. They should change the authority server
software, and install RFC-compliant authority DNS server software
(BIND and NSD are RFC compliant on this issue, I believe, and other
new authority software may be as well).
> Received a malformed qdomain from xx.yy.zz.ww,
> 'http://BLAH.SOME.DOMAIN': sending servfail Received a malformed
> qdomain from xx.yy.zz.ww, 'máig.SOME.DOMAIN': sending servfail
The RFC standards say that domain labels are binary-strings with case
unimportant. Thus, those are valid query names. (but not valid
hostnames - names of hosts). The authority server MUST send an
NXDOMAIN for these names (if they indeed do not exist). Such an
NXDOMAIN would have a TTL in it, that would also stop unbound from
querying for this name again (for a long time).
Thus, if the authority server was to send NXDOMAINs, the query traffic
would stop (be magnitudes smaller). The end-client would get a proper
response (that the strange name does not exist).
> This is from an authoritative nameserver which is responsible for
> zone "SOME.DOMAIN". Afaik this is a PowerDNS, but it's not my
> server at all
I hope you have some power to change them, if not, well they are
causing their own problems (no NXDOMAIN, thus no cache, thus lots of
queries). You should not take action then.
> (xx.yy.zz.ww is my unbound). The second example is even more
> interesting as it sends "á" in the request (in the log file I was
> sent to, it's UTF-8 char, I guess this should be sent as puny
> coded, if it's IDN thing). The first example is "funny" as well,
> sending an URL instead of only the name.
Yes it is likely wrong, a mistake from the end-client that should get
a 'name does not exist' error.
> For sure, the best solution would be locating the clients sending
> these abnormal requests however it's a bit hopeless as there are
> hundreds of IPs using my unbound and also I'd like to be sure it
> won't happen again, that's why I'd like to reject them by my
> unbound (also it would help not to try to do a recursive resolving
> process: not wasting my resources on the unbound server).
If an NXDOMAIN was received, not much effort is expended by unbound,
and it can properly cache that result as well.
The servfail that you get now, also is fairly limited effort for your
unbound. You could limit this effort further, if you really wanted
to, by caching the servfail for a longer time.
> What I (and the admins of that server) would like is to reject
> these kind of requests by unbound itself, instead of try to resolve
> with contacting the authoritative nameservers.
The admins of that server must fix their server.
Your must not fix your unbound for this. That makes the problems worse
as the authority server feels vindicated. Some future development
will need people to adhere to standards and be 'future compatible',
also for things that are failures today.
> The issue is serious for me, as administrators of various
> authoritative name servers started to filter out my unbound because
> of getting "too much garbage" from it.
This is counterproductive. Send the 'garbage' queries to your
upstream, they are the problem (nonstandard), and the place to fix it.
If you do fix it in unbound somehow, then this is like putting
restrictive firewall policies in place that stop legitimate but
odd-looking traffic and these rules will then hamper future
development or have false positives and be the cause of other
problems. And this is not actually a 'firewall' security issue, this
is a simple 'my server is nonstandard and using a lot of CPU'.
> This is unbound 1.4.17.
> Please help me: how can I configure this?
> Thanks for any help/advice in advance,
If this turns into a DoS attack, you could block individual names,
unbound will treat these names as valid names, also for blocking them
with local-zone and local-data statements. (because, they are valid
names). You may have to escape some characters when you configure
them, with a backslash.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Unbound-users