Interesting new dns failures

bmanning at bmanning at
Mon May 21 10:38:56 UTC 2007

On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 10:19:30PM -0700, Roger Marquis wrote:
> >>All the same, it would seem to be an easy and cheap abuse to address,
> >>at the gtlds.  Why are these obvious trojans are being propagated by
> >>the root servers anyhow?
> >
> >the root servers are responsible how exactly for the fast-flux issues?
> >Also, there might be some legittimate business that uses something like
> >the FF techniques... but, uhm... how are the root servers involved again?
> Nobody's saying that the root servers are responsible, only that they
> are the point at which these domains would have to be squelched. In
> theory registrars could do this, but some would have a financial
> incentive not to. Also I don't believe registrars can update the roots
> quickly enough to be effective (correct me if I'm wrong).

	ok... so you suggest that the roots squelch these domains?
	i check the contents of the root zone and find that the closest
	the roots come to being able to squelch these zones is to 
	remove .com from the zone (since these other entries are not in 
	the root but in the com zone).  

	if you can get concensus to remove .com, i'm sure the roots would
	be willing to help out.


> Given the obvious differences between legitimate fast flux and the
> pattern/domains in question it would seem to be a no-brainer,
> technically at least.
> -- 
> Roger Marquis
> Roble Systems Consulting

More information about the NANOG mailing list