[Unbound-users] Is It Correct Unbound Config as Validating DNS Server/Resolver ?
wouter at nlnetlabs.nl
Mon May 27 13:10:12 UTC 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
You are using a lot of TCP, you should increase the incoming-num-tcp:
and the outgoing-num-tcp: from the default 10 to more. Because of
windows you may hit a max (try 20), on Linux you can have as much as
you like. CPU resources, you can use multiple threads (on windows)
for more processing capacity (even if you do not have that many
cores), to be able to make more TCP connections (num-threads:).
Unbound does not use advapi or sechost.dll itself, but uses
openssl.dll for security and crypto functions.
Unbound on windows accesses the registry infrequently. It checks for
a root anchor action once in a while, and its install directory on
startup. The registry keys are documented in the windows doc (at the
end) on the unbound web documentation page.
On 05/27/2013 05:37 AM, Bry8 Star wrote:
> I'm having few problems, you may skip below, and please goto
> PROBLEM(s) section in below.
> CORRECTION & MORE INFO:
> I need to correct few information, and add more info:
> (When I copy-pasted config here, from real config, i had to change
> IP, to not disclose actual IP, and removed my own test related
> comments, test-config-lines, etc, so there were some mistakes,
> In my 1st message, i wrote:
>> Windows DNS Client service is set onto "Manual Startup" mode, so
>> it is not running, and, local network adapter/interface is
>> configured to use 127.0.0.1 as it's DNS-Server, in this (Win7)
> Sorry, it was wrong info. This service is kept in "Disabled"
> state/mode in those computers, which are using that Unbound
> DNS-Server (on Win7) computer which has 192.168.0.10 IP-address.
> Adding more info, related to Unbound DNS-Server on Win7 computer:
> Windows Firewall in that Win7 computer was further configured : to
> allow Unbound DNS-Server (192.168.0.10) service software to create
> incoming connections (from any Internet or LAN IP-address) to
> local UDP & TCP port 53 and to 1025-65535 port-range, and incoming
> was allowed toward only "unbound.exe" based service software, and
> outgoing connections (from Unbound service software) was allowed
> toward (TCP & UDP) port 53 of any (internet bound) IP-address (to
> NS / DNS Servers).
> Similar firewall rules (like above) were created for Mozilla
> "firefox.exe" and firefox "Plugin-Container.exe" file, so that
> it's DNSSEC based addons can use local DNS-Server (127.0.0.1)
> In my 1st message, i wrote:
>> And other computer's in LAN, VMs are configured to use
>> 192.168.0.10 as their's DNS-Server.
> But i did not explain HOW other computers were configured to use
> that 192.168.0.10 Unbound DNS-Server, so here it goes:
> Other computers, VMs which were configured to use that Win7 based
> Unbound DNS-Server computer, are "client" of that Win7 based
> DNS-Server computer.
> These "client" computers had/running their own locally installed
> Unbound software/service, and client side's Unbound software was
> configured to work as a local validating DNS-Client or as a local
> validating DNS-Resolver. Running as a service software/program.
> And Unbound was running on local 127.0.0.1 (loopback) IP-Address.
> (Here, "validating" means : doing DNSSEC based verification on
> chain of domains/zones signing codes from DNS RR = Resource
> Records, to obtain very accurate/authentic DNS records).
> Windows, MacOSX's built-in DNS-Client or stub-resolver service
> software was kept into "Disabled" state/mode, as these are not yet
> able to do full DNSSEC based DNS resolving.
> Network adapter/interface in client computers, were configured to
> use local loopback IP-address 127.0.0.1 as their primary
> Those client side Unbound DNS-Resolvers, were configured to
> connect with the Unbound DNS-Server (Win7) computer, which had
> 192.168.0.10 IP-address.
> Client-side Unbound DNS-Resolvers had sightly different config
> (1) Root Zone forwarding section was enabled/activated. To goto
> this section, find the line which has these "." <-- three exact
> characters, aka root-zone. And DNS query were forwarded toward the
> 192.168.0.10 IP address. In clients, this section looked like
> below 3 lines now:
> forward-zone: name: "." forward-addr: 192.168.0.10
> (2) Config line "interface: 192.168.0.10" was
> disabled/de-activated. (When a # hash symbol is placed in front a
> sentence or command (in left-most side) in unbound/service config
> file, then it is disabled/de-activated).
> (3) Config line "outgoing-interface: 192.168.0.10" was disabled /
> (4) Config line "access-control: 192.168.0.0/24 allow" was
> disabled / de-activated.
> (5) There were also difference in insecure domain/zone related
> configurations, and, stub-zone / forwarding zone related
> configurations, in client side config file, than what was used in
> server side config file. (Since stub & forwarding zones were
> already placed in DNS-Server side config file, which was also using
> other dns-resolver and tools for those stub & forwarding zones, ...
> so client-side unbound was using simpler forwarding zones. May be
> i will explain such config in latter post, if anyone interested.
> So in client side software (which had option to specify
> DNS-Servers) and client-side network interface, ... all were
> configured to resolve DNS via only 127.0.0.1, nothing else. And
> that 127.0.0.1 based DNS-Resolver was actually connecting with
> 192.168.0.10 based DNS-Server.
> (Instead of allowing entire range to connect with DNS-Server, i
> actually specified fixed IP of actual computers, using multiple
> "access-control:" config command lines, but, for this discussion
> sake, i will use entire subnet ip 192.168.0.0/24).
> Firewall in client-side computers were configured further : to
> allow Unbound DNS-Resolver (127.0.0.1) service software to create
> incoming connections (from DNS-Server 192.168.0.10 IP-address) to
> local UDP & TCP port 53 and 1025-65535 port-range, and incoming was
> allowed toward only "unbound.exe" based service software (when
> firewall supported such options), and outgoing connections (from
> Unbound service software) was allowed toward (TCP & UDP) port 53
> of DNS-Server (192.168.0.10) IP-address. Similar firewall rules
> were created for Mozilla Firefox's binary and firefox
> Plugin-Container binary file, so that it's DNSSEC based addons can
> use DNS-Server properly.
> Since, the config is now right for various stub/forwarding zones,
> i'm planning to move it onto a Linux/Unix based computer, and then
> place it in a chroot/jail environment, and tweak it further with
> linux/unix specific configurations. (For initial tests purpose,
> Win7 was a good candidate).
> I hope all these info will clear up related questions and
> configuration related understanding on these matters.
> - - - - - - - - - -
> On client-side computer, I tried to visit and do "dig" on
> such(below) sites/zones/domains, i observed these:
> (These example sites which have .tld at-end actually does not
> exist, i'm using such names, so its easier to explain problems).
> signed.tld , s.tld (s = signed (DNSSEC signed), tld = top level
> unsigned.tld , u.tld (u = unsigned).
> (unbound.net domain/zone is DNSSEC signed).
> dig @127.0.0.1 ANY unbound.net. dig @127.0.0.1 ANY unbound.net.
> +tcp dig @127.0.0.1 ANY unbound.net. +dnssec
> When i tried to "dig" for signed.tld type of sites/domains (from
> client-side computer), using it's local dns-resolver 127.0.0.1,
> (which actually obtains it's answer over TCP connection from LAN
> DNS-Server 192.168.0.10), i observed, when a query's answer/result
> had smaller amount of data, then local-side UDP (+tcp option was
> not added) query, or, TCP (+tcp option was added) query, both
> When UDP or TCP based DNS queries (using "dig") for unsigned.tld
> type of sites/zones/domains, then most (but not all), worked.
> When UDP (+tcp option is not used) based "dig" DNS query for
> unsigned.tld type of sites/domains are done, and if DNS query's
> answer suppose to have large (amount of) answer/result data, then
> such UDP query did not work some unsigned.tld. But most of the
> "+tcp" option based DNS queries for unsigned.tld type of
> sites/domains, worked.
> I do not know what problems are exactly causing such (as above).
> If anyone can shed more light, that would be great.
> By using Firefox, which had "Extended DNSSEC Validator"
> (www.os3sec.org), and, "DNSSEC Validator"
> (www.dnssec-validator.cz) addons, and both were configured to use
> 127.0.0.1 as their DNS-Server, ... i was able to visit almost all
> signed.tld type of sites/zones/domains. But i could not visit or
> view webpages or web-contents coming from some of the unsigned.tld
> type of sites/domains. For example: oracle.com , etc. But other
> unsigned.tld type of sites/domains were working properly.
> I do not know exactly, why only some unsigned.tld type of domains
> are not working on Firefox. ( I have been using older Unbound and a
> config file without any stub or forwarding zones, in local computer
> as local DNS-Resolver, and firefox had older addons, ... then i
> could visit these sites and contents from such sites worked. But,
> once i added stub & forwarding zones in Unbound and updated to
> newer Unbound, and firefox addons were also updated, then these
> problems are exhibited. It could be the addons' internal codings,
> or, newer Unbound, or, new unbound-config file.)
> Are NS / DNS Servers related to resolving those domains/zones were
> not allowing TCP ? (as my-side Unbounds are configured to do TCP
> based queries). Some type of timeout happening ? where ?
> CPU usage of Unbound service software in (Win7) DNS-Server
> computer goes very high, (when configured to work as a DNS server
> for LAN).
> By using "Process Hacker" or "Process Explorer" type of tool, i
> can see a windows thread having these info :
> "sechost.dll!I_ScIsSecurityProcess+0x248" ... using massive amount
> of CPU resources.
> When Unbound was working as a DNS-Resolver only, and only for the
> local computer itself (and using root NS / DNS servers for DNS
> query resolving), in such role, Unbound was not causing high CPU
> usage in Win7.
> In Win-XP computer, when Unbound was used as DNS-Resolver for
> local computer only, or, when used as DNS-Server for other
> computers in LAN, for both cases CPU usage went very high, but
> when, at-least one (or multiple) remote or LAN based DNS-Server
> is/are specified in Unbound config (under Win-XP), then CPU usage
> was reasonable.
> A thread with such info :
> "advapi32.dll!CryptVerifySignatureW+0x17" using massive CPU
> Can unbound source codes be changed further ? not to use/access
> too much Windows Registry ? if it is doing so now.
> I will also remove all other stub & forwarding zones (other than
> 'root') and test again, to eliminate if it is factor or not.
> - - - - - - - - - -
> When UDP "dig" DNS queries are done for any signed.tld (DNSSEC
> signed) type of sites/zones/domains, then answer/result have "AD"
> flag and "NOERROR" status, so they are very accurate data, ...
> even when "+dnssec" option is not used in "dig" query.
> Since, client side local Unbound software is using a (LAN/remote
> based) DNS-Server, at-least in Win-XP computers, CPU usage is not
> jumping up, so it is now using reasonable level of CPU resources.
> And also observed specific config related, other benefits, (as DNS
> server assisting in resolving those).
> - - - - - - - - - -
> IF/WHEN YOU ARE REPLYING, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO PLACE ONLY ONE/BELOW
> EMAIL ADDRESS IN THE "TO:" FIELD/Text-Box:
> unbound-users at unbound.net
> Please do not send any email directly to me, Thanks.
> -- Bright Star (Bry8Star).
> Received from Bry8 Star, on 2013-05-23 5:32 PM:
>> Hi staticsafe,
>> THANK YOU. :)
>> Config is updated, and Unbound service is restarted.
>> IF/WHEN YOU ARE REPLYING, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO PLACE ONLY
>> ONE/BELOW EMAIL ADDRESS IN THE "TO:" FIELD/Text-Box:
>> unbound-users at unbound.net
>> Please do not send any email directly to me, Thanks.
>> -- Bright Star.
>> Received from staticsafe, on 2013-05-23 4:27 PM:
>>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:21:13PM -0700, Bright Star wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
>>>> Hello, Unbound Mailing List users & experts,
>>>> Please check this below configuration, and let me know, IF
>>>> this is fit and CORRECTLY CONFIGURED to work as a complete
>>>> Validating DNS-Server / DNS-Resolver / DNS-Client for a
>>>> Windows (7) OS based computer (which has 2GB RAM, 1 CPU
>>>> Core), where it is currently installed and will run, and it
>>>> will also have to serve, as a DNS-Server, for other computers
>>>> and VMs (with different OSes) in local LAN.
>>>> (Amount of free RAM memory size is large, so not a factor).
>>>> Windows DNS Client service is set onto "Manual Startup" mode,
>>>> so it is not running, and, local network adapter/interface is
>>>> configured to use 127.0.0.1 as it's DNS-Server, in this
>>>> (Win7) computer.
>>>> And LAN network adapter/interface of this (Win7) computer is
>>>> also using fixed/static IP address 192.168.0.10.
>>>> And other computer's in LAN, VMs are configured to use
>>>> 192.168.0.10 as their's DNS-Server.
>>>> Most websites/domains/zones are not yet signed with DNSSEC. I
>>>> want this DNS-Server, still be able to send DNS query results
>>>> for such unsigned websites to its users/clients. (DNS query
>>>> answer will not have "AD" flag).
>>>> I do NOT want this DNS-Server to completely block (or stop
>>>> sending) DNS query results for ANY sites/zones which are not
>>>> yet DNSSEC signed.
>>>> Firefox will have DNSSEC Validation based addons which will
>>>> be configured to use this DNS-Server. Firefox addons will
>>>> display colored icon or message, when a website is visited,
>>>> and icon will indicate if a website is signed or secured with
>>>> DNSSEC yet or not. (DNS query answer will have "AD" flag and
>>>> "NOERROR" status for DNSSEC signed sites/zones).
>>>> There are other software which we are using, they do not
>>>> have built-in support for doing any DNSSEC based query and
>>>> cannot understand DNSSEC based answer, those software still
>>>> need to be able to function (that is: sending regular DNS
>>>> query, and receiving regular response via this DNS-Server).
>>>> So IF CORRECTION is NEEDED to be done on this config, please
>>>> provide correct + practical + real config line that can be
>>>> used, please do not give examples, or confusing
>>>> comments/response. I'm looking for practical configuration
>>>> that will serve my purpose and work right now. PLEASE
>>>> describe ACCURATELY for what reason why a specific real
>>>> config line is better or should be used what you are
>>>> suggesting, and PLEASE describe what else need to be changed,
>>>> Please do not assume, i will do or i'm suppose to do
>>>> something automatically, so pls describe & explain.
>>>> WHEN YOU ARE REPLYING, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO PLACE ONLY
>>>> ONE/BELOW EMAIL ADDRESS IN THE "TO:" FIELD/Text-Box:
>>>> unbound-users at unbound.net
>>>> Please do not send any email directly to me, Thanks.
>>>> PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY EMAIL DIRECTLY TO ME, THANKS.
>>>> Thanks (again) in advance, - -- Bright Star (Bry8Star).
>>> Only one thing stood out to me as an obvious error.
>>> access-control: 192.168.0.10 allow
>>> As you said, other computers in your LAN are supposed to use
>>> this DNS resolver.
>>> The access-control statement should be as follows:
>>> access-control: 192.168.0.0/24 allow
>>> Assuming /24 as your LAN subnet mask.
>> _______________________________________________ Unbound-users
>> mailing list Unbound-users at unbound.net
> _______________________________________________ Unbound-users
> mailing list Unbound-users at unbound.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Unbound-users