3 ms·
Thanks for this really interesting feedback – especially that the subdomain method could create more opportunities for cache poisoning. Interested to explore h
by elliottinvent 3y ago
Thanks for this really interesting feedback – especially that the subdomain method could create more opportunities for cache poisoning.
Interested to explore how a cache poisoning attack might be easier on a Domain Verification protocol TXT record compared to a DNS-01 TXT record.
Given the scenario: an attacker is attempting to claim a domain (example.com) with service provider (SP1) who uses a DNS revolver (DR1) I don’t immediately see how the subdomain approach makes a cache poisoning attack easier.
Couldn’t the attacker similarly keep asking DR1 for <rand>._acme-challenge.example.com and spam back NS delegation answers for _acme-challenge.example.com, with the goal that upon cache poisoning success, they could fraudulently claim example.com with SP1?
I may have overlooked something here, if so please explain.
With either method, DNSSEC would definitely seem the solution as you’ve suggested.
- silisili 3y agoI'm not well versed in ACME but in DNS, unfortunately. Yes, it would have the same issue if it works as described. I've read a whitepaper on the subject I described and the time to poison cache goes way, way down. Basically, anyone could pull it off. I think a solution here in the validation space is just avoiding the caching server altogether. If the validating server does something like dig +trace, it avoids this problem, especially if it prefers TCP.