我注意到我的安全解析器有一种奇怪的行为。
解析安全域名时,解析器将接收DS RRset和NS RRset。但是,当它处理数据的验证时,它再次请求DS RRset。
它似乎没有缓存它得到的第一个。
我不知道我是否很清楚,让我们看看www.example.com. IN A ?发生了什么。注意,我随机选择了这个域名,并不代表真正的域名,我没有检查这个域名是否是DNSSEC-安全的。
首先,解析器将解析域名:
[...] #Asks NS "." and gets com. NS
Resolver -> NS "com."
Qry: www.example.com. IN A ?
NS "com." -> Resolver
Qry: www.example.com. IN A ?
Auth: example.com. IN NS ns.example.com.
example.com. IN DS
example.com. IN RRSIG (DS)
Add: ns.example.com. IN A IP_NS.EXAMPLE.COM
Resolver -> NS "example.com."
Qry: www.example.com. IN A ?
NS "example.com." -> Resolver
Qry: www.example.com. IN A ?
Ans: www.example.com. IN A IP_WWW.EXAMPLE.COM.
www.example.com. IN RRSIG (A)
Auth: example.com. IN NS ns.example.com.
example.com. IN RRSIG (NS)
Add: ns.example.com. IN A IP_EXAMPLE.COM
ns.example.com. IN RRSIG (A)好了,现在,解析器有答案了,但是需要自动修改。
Resolver -> NS "example.com."
Qry: example.com. IN DNSKEY ?
NS "example.com." -> Resolver
Qry: example.com. IN DNSKEY ?
Ans: example.com. IN DNSKEY (KSK_current)
example.com. IN DNSKEY (ZSK_current)
example.com. IN DNSKEY (ZSK_published)
example.com. IN RRSIG (KSK_current)
example.com. IN RRSIG (ZSK_current)
Resolver -> NS "com."
Qry: example.com. IN DS ?
NS "com." -> Resolver
Qry: example.com. IN DS ?
Auth: example.com. IN NS ns.example.com.
example.com. IN DS
example.com. IN RRSIG (DS)
Add: ns.example.com. IN A IP_EXAMPLE.COM
[...] #Does the same thing with "com. DS ?", but it got it in previous skipped part "[...]"问一些它已经得到的东西有什么意义?(TTL足够大)
发布于 2015-06-05 15:16:36
来自RFC-4035§4.5:
4.5. Response Caching
A security-aware resolver SHOULD cache each response as a single
atomic entry containing the entire answer, including the named RRset
and any associated DNSSEC RRs. The resolver SHOULD discard the
entire atomic entry when any of the RRs contained in it expire. In
most cases the appropriate cache index for the atomic entry will be
the triple <QNAME, QTYPE, QCLASS>, but in cases such as the response
form described in Section 3.1.3.2 the appropriate cache index will be
the double <QNAME,QCLASS>.
The reason for these recommendations is that, between the initial
query and the expiration of the data from the cache, the
authoritative data might have been changed (for example, via dynamic
update).
There are two situations for which this is relevant:
1. By using the RRSIG record, it is possible to deduce that an
answer was synthesized from a wildcard. A security-aware
recursive name server could store this wildcard data and use it
to generate positive responses to queries other than the name for
which the original answer was first received.
2. NSEC RRs received to prove the non-existence of a name could be
reused by a security-aware resolver to prove the non-existence of
any name in the name range it spans.
In theory, a resolver could use wildcards or NSEC RRs to generate
positive and negative responses (respectively) until the TTL or
signatures on the records in question expire. However, it seems
prudent for resolvers to avoid blocking new authoritative data or
synthesizing new data on their own. Resolvers that follow this
recommendation will have a more consistent view of the namespace.https://serverfault.com/questions/696817
复制相似问题