From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: Unbound configuration switch "ignore-cd-flag"
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:50:58 +0000
Message-ID: <fdd3d911df609d3b0b57601e938391690cc95915.camel@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <ff485f32-0205-e05e-9d29-8d49363faff1@link38.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3077926219482916653=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============3077926219482916653==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey,

sounds like a sensible proposal, but the help text says that Windows Server 2=
008
won't be able to resolve names any more. That is breaking quite a lot.

-Michael

On Tue, 2018-10-30 at 15:51 +0100, Peter M=C3=BCller wrote:
> Hello *,
>=20
> while doing some research about DNS tunnelling, I stumbled across this
> Unbound configuration directive: "ignore-cd-flag"
>=20
> It is set to "no" as a default value, allowing DNSSEC validation bypass:
>=20
> > user(a)machine:~> dig soa +cd dnssec-failed.org
> >=20
> > ; <<>> DiG 9.11.2 <<>> soa +cd dnssec-failed.org
> > ;; global options: +cmd
> > ;; Got answer:
> > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 5844
> > ;; flags: qr rd ra cd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
> >=20
> > ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
> > ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
> > ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> > ;dnssec-failed.org.		IN	SOA
> >=20
> > ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> > dnssec-failed.org.	8092	IN	SOA	dns101.comcast.org.
> > dnsadmin.comcast.net. 2010101935 900 180 604800 7200
> >=20
> > ;; Query time: 1198 msec
> > ;; SERVER: 10.[REDACTED]#53(10.[REDACTED])
> > ;; WHEN: Tue Oct 30 15:49:53 CET 2018
> > ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 117
> >=20
>=20
> I consider this being a security risk and would like to set this
> value to "yes" in IPFire.
>=20
> Thoughts? Opinions?
>=20
> Thanks, and best regards,
> Peter M=C3=BCller


--===============3077926219482916653==--