Author Archives: Fernando Gont
Author Archives: Fernando Gont
We previously posted about how the DNS does not inherently employ any mechanisms to provide confidentiality for DNS transactions, and mentioned some of the protocols that have been recently developed to improve user privacy.
To complement this, we are publishing our DNS Privacy Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). This highlights and provides answers to the most important aspects of DNS privacy.
Please also check our DNS Privacy page for more information!
Further Information
The post DNS Privacy Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) appeared first on Internet Society.
Almost every time we use an Internet application, it starts with a DNS (Domain Name System) transaction to map a human-friendly domain name to a set of IP addresses that can be used to deliver packets over the Internet. DNS transactions can therefore be correlated to the applications we use, the websites we visit, and sometimes even the people we communicate with.
While the domain name information itself is public, the transactions performed by the hosts are not. Unfortunately, the DNS does not inherently employ any mechanisms to provide confidentiality for these transactions, and the corresponding information can therefore easily be logged by the operators of DNS resolvers and name servers, as well as be eavesdropped by others.
So we are publishing our Introduction to DNS Privacy to raise awareness of the privacy implications of the DNS, and the mechanisms that have been recently developed to improve user privacy.
Please also check our DNS Privacy page for more information!
Further Information
The post Introduction to DNS Privacy appeared first on Internet Society.
It is often argued that IPv4 practices should be forgotten when deploying IPv6, as after all IPv6 is a different protocol! But we think years of IPv4 operational experience should be leveraged as much as possible.
So we are publishing IPv6 Security for IPv4 Engineers as a roadmap to IPv6 security that is specifically aimed at IPv4 engineers and operators.
Rather than describing IPv6 in an isolated manner, it aims to re-use as much of the existing IPv4 knowledge and experience as possible, by highlighting the security issues that affect both protocols in the same manner, and those that are new or different for the IPv6 protocol suite. Additionally, it discusses the security implications arising from the co-existence of the IPv6 and IPv4 protocols.
Be sure also to check our IPv6 Security page as well!
Further Information
The post IPv6 Security for IPv4 Engineers appeared first on Internet Society.
The Internet Society recognises that global deployment of the IPv6 protocol is paramount to accommodating the growth of the Internet. Given the scale at which IPv6 must be deployed, it is also important that the possible security implications of IPv6 are well understood and considered during the design and deployment of IPv6 networks, rather than as an afterthought.
We are therefore publishing our IPv6 Security Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), which highlights and provides answers to the most important aspects of IPv6 security.
Be sure also to check our IPv6 Security page as well!
Further Information
The post IPv6 Security Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) appeared first on Internet Society.
If you follow the IPv6 Maintenance (6man) Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), you may have noticed the 300+ message email thread on an Internet Draft that was recently published on the “Reaction of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Renumbering Events”. This was prompted by the experiences of developing Best Current Operational Practice on IPv6 prefix assignment for end-users, an activity led by ISOC’s Jan Žorž and published as ripe-690.
SLAAC is used to automatically assign an IPv6 address to a host, but there are a number of scenario where hosts may end up using stale configuration information and thereby leading to interoperability problems.
For example, a typical IPv6 deployment scenario is when a CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) router requests an IPv6 prefix to an ISP via DHCPv6-PD, and advertises a sub-prefix of the leased prefix on the LAN-side via SLAAC.
In such scenarios, if the CPE router crashes and reboots, it may lose all information about the previously leased prefix. Upon reboot, the CPE router may be leased a new prefix that will result in a new sub-prefix being advertised on the LAN-side of the CPE router. As a result, hosts will normally configure addresses for the newly-advertised prefix, Continue reading
Whilst we were putting together some content about DNS privacy recently, we learned that recent distributions of Linux ship with support or this. We therefore decided to give Ubuntu 18.10 a try on a laptop.
More recent versions of Ubuntu employ a special service for name resolution called ‘system-resolved.service(8)’. The configuration file ‘resolved.conf(5)’ specifies most of the details for name resolution, including which protocols and resolvers should be employed, whilst the ‘/etc/systemd/network/*.network’ configuration files (see ‘systemd.network(5)’ for details) of the ‘systemd-networkd.service(8)’ specify any per-link specific settings.
The default configuration of ‘systemd-resolved’ is selected at compile time, and ‘/etc/systemd/resolved.conf’ normally contains commented-out lines describing such defaults. For example, the contents of the aforementioned file on a fresh Ubuntu 18.10 installation are:
As may be inferred from the file, DNS-over-TLS (DoT) is supported, but disabled by default. At the time of writing, only opportunistic DoT is supported according to the manual, which means that the resolver will first try resolution using DoT before falling back to traditional DNS in the event of failure – thus allowing for downgrade attacks where an attacker intentionally causes a DoT failure in order to cause name resolution to downgrade Continue reading
Recent releases of Firefox have introduced the concept of DNS privacy under the name “Trusted Recursive Resolver”. Although Firefox ships with DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) disabled by default, there has been some discussion within the Mozilla developer community about changing the default to “enabled”.
Although DoH is somewhat controversial because it moves control plane (signalling) messages to the data plane (data forwarding), and can thereby bypass local network policies, DoH advocates argue that it makes it harder to block or monitor DNS queries which is a commonly used method for restricting access to the Internet and/or monitoring user behaviour.
But putting these arguments aside, if you want to try out DoH then the DNS privacy (or “TRR” in Firefox speak) configuration in Firefox can be accessed as follows:
A sample output of DNS privacy configuration in Mozilla Firefox is as follows:
Firefox offers its technical users quite a few settings to play with, but the most important options (along with their recommended settings) for TRR are:
“network.trr.bootstrapAddress” specifies the IP address of a recursive resolver that should Continue reading