Protocol Rolling Over DNSSEC Keys - The Internet Protocol Journal, Volume 13, No.1

by George Michaelson, APNIC, Patrick Wallstrõm, .SE, Roy Arends, Nominet, Geoff Huston, APNIC

As we are constantly reminded, the Internet can be a very hostile place, and public services are placed under constant pressure from a stream of probe traffic, attempting to exploit any one of numerous vulnerabilities that may be present at the server. In addition, there is the threat of Denial of Service (DoS) [1] attacks, where a service is subjected to an abnormally high traffic load that attempts to saturate and take it down. This story starts with the detection of a possible hostile DoS attack on Domain Name System (DNS) servers, and narrates the investigation as to the cause of the incident, and the wider implications of what was found in this investigation.

Detecting the Problem

The traffic signature in Figure 1 is a typical signature of an attempted DoS attack on a server, where the server is subjected to a sudden surge in queries. In this case the traffic log is from a secondary DNS Name Server that is authoritative for a number of subdomains of the zone; the traffic surge shown here commenced on December 16, 2009. The traffic pattern shifted from a steady state of some 12 Mbps to a new steady state of more than 20 Mbps, peaking at 30 Mbps.

Figure 1: Traffic Load for Server
(provided by George Michaelson)

Because the traffic shown in Figure 1 is traffic passed to and from a Name Server, the next step is to examine the DNS traffic on the Name Server, and in particular look at the rate of DNS queries that are being sent to the Name Server (Figure 2). The bulk of the additional query load is for DNSKEY Resource Records (RRs), which are queried as part of the operation of Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [2].

Because this zone is a DNSSEC signed zone, DNSKEY queries will cause the server to respond with a DNSKEY RR and the related RRSIG RR in response to each query. This pair of RRs generates a response that is 1,188 bytes in this case. At a peak query rate of some 3,000 DNS queries per second, a traffic response from the server in excess of 35 Mbps will be generated.

Figure 2: Query Rate for Server
(provided by George Michaelson)

There are many possibilities as to what is going on here:

  • This problem could be caused by a DoS attack directed at the server, with the attacker attempting to saturate the server by flooding it with short queries that generate a large response.
  • This problem could be caused by a DNS reflection DoS attack, where the attacker is placing the address of the intended victim or victims in the source address of the DNS queries and attempting to overwhelm the victim with this DNS response traffic.

Although it is good to be suspicious, it is also useful to remember the old adage that we should be careful not to ascribe to malice what could equally be explained by incompetence, so numerous other explanations should also be considered, including:

  • This problem could be a DNS resolver problem, where the resolver is not correctly caching the response, and some local event is triggering repeated queries.
  • This problem could be a bug in an application where the application has managed to wedge itself in a state of rapid-fire queries for DNSKEY RRs.

The next step is to examine some of these queries more closely, and, in particular, look at the distribution of query source addresses to see if this load can be attributed to a small number of resolvers that are making a large number of queries, or if the load is spread across a much larger set of resolvers. The server in question typically sees on the order of 500,000 to 1,000,000 distinct query sources per day.

Closer inspection of the query logs indicates that the additional load is coming from a relatively small subset of resolvers, on the order of 1,000 distinct source addresses, with around 100 "heavy hitters." In other words, all this DNS traffic is being generated by some 0.01% of the DNS clients. The sequence of queries from one such resolver that is typical of the load being imposed on the server is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: DNS Query Sequence Packet Capture

If this additional query load had appeared at the server over an extended period of time, it would be possible to ascribe this problem to a faulty implementation of a DNS resolver, or a faulty client application. However, the sudden onset of the additional load tends to suggest that something else is happening. The most likely explanation is that some external "trigger" event exacerbated a latent behavioral bug in a set of DNS resolver clients. And the most likely external trigger event is a change of the contents of the zones being served.

So we can now refine our set of possible causes to concentrate consideration on the possibility that:

  • Something changed in the zones being served by this secondary server that triggered a pathological query response from a set of resolvers.

And indeed the contents of the zones did change on the day when the traffic profile changed, with a key change being implemented on that day.

DNSSEC Key Management

It is considered good operational practice to treat cryptographic keys with a healthy level of respect. As RFC 4641 [3] states: "The longer a key is in use, the greater the probability that it will have been compromised through carelessness, accident, espionage, or cryptanalysis." Even though the risk is considered slight if you have chosen to use a decent key length, RFC 4641 recommends, as good operational practice, that you "roll" your key at regular intervals. Evidently it is a popular view that fresh keys are better keys.

The standard practice for a "staged" key rollover is to generate a new key pair, and then have the two public keys coexist at the publication point for a period of time. This practice allows relying parties, or clients, some period of time to pick up the new public key. Where possible during this period, signing is performed twice, once with each key, so that the validation test can be performed using either key. After an appropriate interval of parallel operation, the old key pair can be deprecated and the new key can be used exclusively for signing.

This key rollover process should be a routine procedure, without any intended side effects. Resolvers that are using DNSSEC should refresh their local cache of zone keys in synchronization with a published schedule of key rollover, and ensure that they load a copy of the new key within the period when the two keys coexist. In this way when the old key is deprecated, responses from the zone servers can be locally validated using the new key.

The question here is why did this particular key rollover for the signed zone cause the traffic load at the server to spike? And why is the elevated query rate sustained for weeks after the key rollover event? The key had changed 6 months earlier and yet the query load prior to this most recent key change was extremely low.

DNSSEC DNS Resolver Behavior with Outdated Trust Keys

It is possible to formulate a theory as to what is going on from this collection of information. It could be that one or more DNS resolver clients has been using a local Trust Anchor that has been manually downloaded from the zone administrator prior to the most recent key rollover, but has not been updated since. When the key rollover occurred in December 2009, these clients could no longer validate the response with their locally stored Trust Anchors.

Upon detecting an invalid signature in the response, the client appears to have reacted as if there were a "man-in-the middle" injection attempt, and immediately repeated the request in an effort to circumvent the supposed attack by rapidly repeating the query. If this instance were really a man-in-the-middle injection attack, this response would be plausible, because there is the hope that the query will still reach the authoritative server and the client will receive a genuine response that can be locally validated.

Why does the client really perform this repeated query pattern? In this case the contributory factor is the use of multiple name servers in the DNS. When the DNS client performs a key validation, it performs a bottom-up search to establish the trust chain from the initial received query to a configured Trust Anchor.

Example DNSSEC Validation

As a hypothetical example, assume a TXT RRset for in a signed zone. The zone resides on two Name Server addresses. The zone has a Key Signing Key (KSK), which is referred to by the DS record in the .com zone. The .com zone is signed, and it resides on 14 addresses (11 IPv4 and 3 IPv6). The .com zone has a KSK, which is referred to by a Trust Anchor in the local configuration of the resolver (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Example Configuration

Assume that the locally held Trust Anchor for .com in the resolver has become stale. That is, the DS record for .com in the root zone validates, but there are no DNSKEYs in .com that match the DS record in the root zone.

When a client is resolving a query relating to, the following search occurs:

  • Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) [9] resolves the RRset. It attempts to validate it. To do so, it needs the DNSKEY RRset.
  • It resolves the DNSKEY RRset for from a Name Server of It attempts to validate it. To do so, it needs the DS RRset.
  • It resolves the DS RRset for from a Name Server of .com. It attempts to validate it. To do so, it needs the .com DNSKEY RRset.
  • It resolves the DNSKEY RRset for .com from a Name Server of .com. It attempts to validate it with the locally configured Trust Anchor.

However, the resolver cannot validate the .com DNSKEY RRset because it does not have the proper Trust Anchor for it. It queries all remaining 13 .com servers for the DNSKEY RRset for .com. Then the resolver still does not have the proper .com DNSKEY, and tracks back one level:

  • It resolves the DS RRset for from the next authoritative Name Server. It attempts to validate it. To do so, it needs the .com DNSKEY RRset. The search goes forward again.
  • It resolves the DNSKEY RRset for .com. It attempts to validate it with the locally configured Trust Anchor.

Because the DNSKEY RRset for .com has not changed, this attempt will fail as well.

The complete in-depth first search consists of:

  • TXT records on 2 servers, signed by:
  • DNSKEY records on 2 servers, referred to by:
  • DS records on 14 .com servers, signed by:
  • DNSKEY records on 14 .com servers.

When all possible paths are exhausted, the client will have sent the following:

  • 784 (2 × 2 × 14 × 14) .com DNSKEY requests to 14 .com Name Servers
  • 56 (2 × 2 × 14) DS requests to 14 .com Name Servers
  • 4 (2 × 2) DNSKEY requests to 2 Name Servers

In other words, in this example scenario with stale Trust Anchor keys in a local client's resolver, a single attempt to validate a single DNS response will cause the client to send a further 844 queries, and each .com Name Server to receive 56 DNSKEY RR queries and 4 DS RR queries.

The breadth and level of the search is important here, because the longer the validation chain and the more the number of authoritative Name Servers for those zones that lie on the validation chain path, the more queries that will be sent in an effort to validate a single initial response. In this example, the level of search is three deep, and terminates at .com. If the .com zone were signed by the root Name Servers and the client were using a stale root zone key, then the 20 distinct root zone server addresses (13 in IPv4 and 7 IPv6 addresses) would also be queried:

  • 313,600 (2 × 2 × 14 × 14 × 20 × 20) root DNSKEY requests to 20 root Name Servers
  • 15,680 (2 × 2 × 14 × 14 × 20) .com DS requests to 20 root Name Servers

It is worthwhile noting in this context that reverse trees and enum trees in the .arpa zone are longer on average. Though delegations in those subtrees might span several labels, it is not uncommon to delegate per label. Note also that the entire effort is done per incoming query—the entire search is repeated for each query.

Though this example shows an enormous query load, there are a few ceilings. In commonly used validating resolvers, such as BIND 9.7rc2, every search is performed in serial, and each search is halted after 30 seconds.

The Unbound client [4] also appears to have a similar request behavior, although it is not as intense because of the cache management in this implementation. Unbound will "remember" the query outcome for a further 60 seconds, so repeated queries for the same name will revert to the cache. But the DNSSEC key validation failure is per zone, and further queries for other names in the same zone will still exercise this re-query behavior. In effect, for a zone that has sufficient "traffic" of DNS load in subzones or instances inside that zone, the chain of repeated queries is constantly renewed and kept alive.

If one such client failed to update its local trusted key set, then the imposed server load on DNSSEC key rollover would be slight. However, if a larger number of clients were to be caught out in this manner, then the load signature of the server would look a lot like Figure 2. The additional load imposed on the server comes from the size of the DNSKEY and RRSIG responses, which are 1,188 bytes per response in the specific failure case that triggered this investigation.

So far we've been concentrating attention on the zone, where the operational data was originally gathered. However, it appears that this problem could happen to any DNSSEC signed domain where the zone keys are published so as to allow clients to manually load them as trust points, and where the keys are rolled on a regular basis.

It is likely that one possible cause for this situation is in the way in which some DNSSEC distributions are packaged with operating systems. For example, the Fedora [5] Linux distribution has bundled numerous trust keys with its packaging of a DNS resolver client and local Trust Anchor key set. When the keys associated with sub zones of rolled over in December 2009, users of this version of the Fedora Linux distribution would have been caught with stale trust keys.

So there appears to be a combination of three factors that are causing this situation:

  • The use of prepackaged DNSSEC distributions that included preloaded keys in the distribution
  • The use of regular key rollover procedures by the zone administrator
  • Some implementations of DNS resolvers that react aggressively when there is a key validation failure by performing a rapid sequence of repeat queries, with either a very slow, or in some cases no apparent back-off in query load

This combination of circumstances makes the next scheduled key rollover for, scheduled for June 2010, appear to be quite an "interesting" event. If there is the same level of increase in use of DNSSEC with manually managed trust keys over this current 6-month interval as we've seen in the previous 6 months, and if the same proportion of clients fails to perform a manual update prior to the next scheduled key rollover event, then the increase in the query load imposed on servers at the time of key rollover promises to be truly biblical in volume.

Signing the DNS Root

There is an end in sight for this situation for the subzones of, and for all other such subzones that currently have to resort to various forms of distribution of their zone keys. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has announced that on July 1, 2010, a signed root zone for the DNS will be fully deployed [6]. Assuming that the .arpa and zones will be DNSSEC-signed in a similar time frame, the situation of escalating loads being imposed on the servers for delegated subdomains of at each successive key rollover event will be curtailed. It would then be possible to configure the client with a single trust key, the public key signing key for the root zone, and allow the client to perform all signature validation without the need to manually manage other local trust keys.

There are two potential problems with this scenario.

The first is that for those clients that fail to remove the local Trust Anchor key set, these repeated queries may not go away. When there are multiple possible chains of trust, the resolver will attempt to validate using the shortest validation chain. As an example, if a client has configured the DNSKEY for, say, into its local Trust Anchor key set, and it then subsequently adds the DNSKEY for, the resolver client will attempt to validate all queries in and its subzones using the DNSKEY.

A more likely scenario is where an operator has already added local Trust Anchor keys for, say, .org or .se. When the root of the DNS is signed, the operator may also add the keys for the root to the local Trust Anchor set. If the operator fails to remove the local copies of the .org and .se Trust Anchor keys, in the belief that this root key value will override the .org and .se local keys, then the same validation failure behavior will occur. In such a case, when the local keys for these second-level domains become stale, their resolver will exhibit the same re-query behavior, even when they maintain a valid local root Trust Anchor key.

As a side note, the same behavior may occur when DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) is used. If the zone key management procedures fall out of tight synchronization with the DLV repository, it is possible to open a window where the old key remains in the DLV repository, but is no longer in the zone file. This situation can lead to a window of vulnerability where the keys in the DLV repository are unable to validate the signed information in the zone

The second potential problem lies with the phase-in approach of signing the root. The staged rollout of DNSSEC for the root zone envisages a sequenced deployment of DNSSEC across the root server clusters, and through this sequence the root will be signed with a key that has no valid published public part, creating a Deliberately Unvalidatable Root Zone (DURZ). What happens when a client installs this key in its local Trust Anchor set and performs a query into the root zone?

As an experiment, this DURZ key was installed into an instance of BIND 9.7.0rc2, with a single upstream root, pointing at the "L" root, the only instance of the 13 authoritative root servers enabled with DNSSEC signed data in February 2010. On startup the client made 13 consecutive DNSKEY requests, one to each of the root zone server addresses. When the client started its first query in a subzone, the client issued a further 156 DNSKEY queries in a period of 19 seconds, making 12 queries to each of the 13 root zone server addresses.

This scenario should sound familiar, because it is precisely the same query pattern as happened with the servers and the .se servers, although the volume of repeated DNSKEY queries is somewhat alarming. When the client receives a response from a subdomain that needs to be validated against the root, and when the queries to the root are not validatable against the local trust key, the client goes into a sequence of repeated queries that explore each potential validation path. Anchoring the local resolver with a key state that invalidates the signatures of all authoritative servers of the zone—but authoritatively (absent DNSSEC) confirms them as valid servers of the zone—places the client instance in an unresolvable situation: no authoritative Name Server that it can query has a signature that the client can validate, but the root zone informs it that only these Name Servers can be used.

Further tests of this behavior show that the client does not cache the outcome that the DNSKEY cannot be validated for a zone, and the client reinitiates this spray of repeated queries against the zone Name Servers when a subsequent DNSSEC query is made in a subzone. Therefore the behavior is promiscuous in two distinct ways. First it is evident that any Name Server so queried is repeatedly queried. Second, it is evident that all Name Servers of a zone are queried. The other part of the client response is not to cache validation failure for the zone in case this repeated query phase does not provide the client with a locally validated key.

After all, the data is provably false, so caching it would be to retain something that has been "proven" to be wrong.

The emerging picture is that misconfigured local trust keys in a DNS resolver for a zone can cause large increases in the DNS query load to the authoritative Name Servers of that zone, where the responses to these additional queries are themselves large, of the order of 1,000 bytes in every response. This situation can occur for any DNSSEC signed zone.

The conditions for the client to revert to a rapid re-query behavior follow:

  • The DNSSEC OK (DO) bit is honoured by the server.
  • The DNS data appears to be signed.
  • The signature check fails.
  • The client does not cache the validation failure for this zone.

The conditions being set up for the DURZ approach for signing the root follow:

  • The DO bit is honoured by the server.
  • The DNS data appears to be signed.
  • The signature check fails.
  • The client does not cache the validation failure for this zone.

What is to stop the DNS root servers from being subjected to the same spike in the query load?

The appropriate client behavior for this period of DNSSEC deployment at the root is not to enable DNSSEC validation in the resolver. Although this advice is sound, it is also true that many resolvers have already enabled validation in their resolvers, and are probably not going to turn off for the next 6 months while the root servers gradually deploy DNSSEC using DURZ.

But what load will appear at the root servers if a subset of the client resolvers starts to believe that these unvalidatable root keys should be validated?

What If…?

The problem with key rollover and local management of trust keys appears to be found in around 1 in every 1,500 resolvers in the zones. With a current client population of some 1.5 million distinct resolver client addresses each day for these zones, there are some 1,000 resolvers who have lapsed into this repeated query mode following the most recent key rollover of December 2009. Each subzone of has six Name Server records, and all servers see this pathological re-query behavior following key rollover.

The root servers see a set of some 5 million distinct resolver addresses each day, and a comparable population of nonupdated resolvers would be on the order of some 3,000 resolvers querying 13 zone servers, where each zone server would see an incremental load of some 75 Mbps.

Because the re-query behavior is caused by the client's being forced to reject the supposedly authoritative response because of an invalid key, and because DURZ is by definition an invalid key, the risk window for this increased load is the period during which DURZ is enabled, which for the current state of the root signing deployment is from the present date until July 2010. Because not all root servers have DNSSEC content or respond to the DO bit—and therefore do not return the unvalidatable signatures—the risk is limited to the set of DNSSEC-enabled roots, which is increasing on a planned, staged rollout. It has been reported that a decision to delay deployment of the DNSSEC/DURZ sign state to the "A" root server instance was made because this root server receives a noted higher query load for the so-called "priming" queries, made when a resolver is reinitialized and uses the offline root "hints" file to bootstrap more current knowledge. It is therefore likely that the "A" root server would also see increased instances of this particular query model, if the priming query is implicated in this form of traffic.

Arguably, this situation is unlikely. For most patterns of DNS query, failure to validate is immediately apparent. After all, where previously you receive an answer, you now see your DNS queries time out and fail.

However, because the typical situation for a client host (including Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCP] initialized hosts in the customer network space, the back office, etc.) is to have more than one listed resolver, there is the possibility of a misconfiguration being unnoticed during the period of a rolling deployment of DNSSEC-enabled services. In this situation if only one of the resolver's "nserver" entries is DNSSEC-enabled, either it is not queried or it is queried, but then passed over by the resolver timeout setting. Users see slower DNS resolution, but can attribute it to network delay or other local problems.

A second argument is that installation of hand-trust material is not normal, so the servers in question will be immediately known because a nonstandard process has to be invoked. Unfortunately, this situation is demonstrably not true. For example, the Fedora [5] release of Linux has included a simple DNSSEC-enabling process including a preconfigured trust file covering the reverse-DNS ranges. Because a previous release of this software included now stale keys (which have since been withdrawn in subsequent releases), any instance of Fedora for this release state being enabled will not only be unable to process reverse-DNS, it may also invoke this re-query mode of operation that places the server under repeated load of DNSKEY requests.

Because reverse-DNS is the "infrastructure" DNS query that is typically logged, but not otherwise used, unless the server in question is configured to block service on failing reverse (unlikely, given than more than 40 percent of reverse-DNS delegations are not made for the currently allocated IP address ranges), the end user simply might never notice this behavior. The use of so-called "Live CDs" can exacerbate this problem of pre-primed software releases that include key material that falls out-of-date. Even when the primary release is patched, the continued use of older releases in the field is inevitable. So perhaps this second argument is not quite as robust as originally thought.

Lastly, distinct from hand-installed local trust is the use of DNSSEC look-aside validation, which is known as DLV. This DNS namespace is privately managed and has been using the ICANN-maintained Interim Trust Anchor Repository, or ITAR. The DLV service is configured to permit resolvers to query it, in place of the root, to establish trust over subzones that exist in a signed state, but cannot be seen as signed from the root downward before the deployment of a signed root. There is now evidence that part of this query space exists, covering zones of interest to this situation. The .se zone key, for instance, is in the ITAR, as are the spaces signed by the RIPE NCC. Evidence suggests that if the DLV chain is being used and a key rollover takes place, some variants of BIND resolver clients fail to reestablish trust over the new keys until the client is rebooted with a clean cache state. This theory is difficult to confirm because as each resolver is restarted, the stale trust state is wiped out and the local failure is immediately resolved.


Of course this phase is transitory, and even if there are concerns in terms of DURZ and queries to the root servers, all will be resolved when the root key is rolled to a validatable key on July 1, 2010.

Yes? Maybe not.

The current plan is to roll the root zone Key Signing Key every 2 to 5 years. The implication is that sometime every 2 to 5 years all DNS resolvers will need to ensure that they have fetched a new root trust key and loaded it into their resolver's local trust key cache.

If this local update of the root trust key does not occur, then the priming query for such DNSSEC-enabled resolvers will encounter this problem of an invalid DNSKEY when attempting to validate the priming response from the root servers. The fail-safe option here for the resolver client is to enter a failure mode and shut down, but there is a strong likelihood that the resolver client will try as hard as it can to fetch a validatable DNSKEY for the root before taking the last resort of a shutdown, and in so doing will subject the root servers to this intense repeated query load that we are seeing on the zone.

A reasonable question to ask follows: "Are there any procedural methods to help prevent stale keys from being retained during key rollover?" Reassuringly, the answer is "Yes." There is a relatively recent RFC, "Automated Updates of DNS Security (DNSSEC) Trust Anchors," RFC 5011 [7], which addresses this problem.

RFC 5011 provides a mechanism for both signaling that a key rollover needs to take place and forward declaring the use of keys to sign over the new trust set to permit in-band distribution of the new keys. Resolvers are required to be configured with additional keying, and a level of trust is placed on this mechanism to deal with normal key rollover. RFC 5011 does not solve initial key distribution problems, which of course must be made out of band, nor does it attempt to address multiple key failures. Cold standby equipment, or decisions to return to significantly older releases of systems (for example, if a major security compromise to an operating system release demands a rollback) could still potentially deploy resolvers with invalid, outdated keys. However, RFC 5011 will prevent the more usual process failures, and it provides an elegant in-band rekeying method that obviates a manual process of key management that all too often fails through neglect or ignorance of the appropriate maintenance procedures to follow.

It is unfortunate that RFC 5011-compliant systems are not widely deployed during the lifetime of the DURZ deployment of the root, because we are definitely going to see at least one key rollover at the end of the DURZ deployment, and we can expect a follow-up key rollover within a normal operations window. The alternative is that no significant testing of root trust rollover takes place until we are committed to validation as a normal operational activity—a situation that invites the prospect of production deployment across the entire root set while many production operational processes associated with key rollover remain untested. The evidence from past concerns in resolver behavior is that older deployments have a very long lifetime for any feature under consideration, and because BIND 9.5 and older prerelease BIND 9.7 systems can be expected to persist in the field in significant numbers for some years to come, it is likely a significant level of pathological resolver behavior in re-querying the root services by active resolvers will have to be tolerated for some time.

It is also concerning that aspects of the packet traces for the zone suggest that for all key rollovers, albeit at very low levels of query load, some of the resolvers have simply failed to account for the new keys—and may never do so. Therefore, with increasing deployment of key validation, it is possible that a substantial new traffic class that grows, peaks, and then declines, but always declines to a slightly higher value than before, has to be borne, and factored into deployment scaling and planning.

Because this traffic is large—generating a kilobyte of response per query and potentially generally prevalent—it has the capability to exceed the normal response requirements for "normal" DNS query loads by at least one, if not two orders of magnitude. This multiplication factor of load is defined by the size of the resolver space and the number of listed Name Servers for the affected zone.

Mitigation at the server side is possible if this problem becomes a major one. The pattern of re-query here (the sequence of repeated queries for DNSKEY RRs) appears a potential signature for this kind of problem. Given that for any individual server the client times its repeat queries on the reception of the response from the previous query, delaying the response of the server to the repeated query will further delay the client's making its repeated query to this server. If the server were in a position to delay such repeated responses, using a form of exponential increase in the delay timer or similar form of time penalty, then the worst effects of this form of client behavior in terms of threats to the integrity of the ability of the server to service the "legitimate" client load could be mitigated.


It is an inherent quality of the DNSSEC deployment that in seeking to prevent lies, an aspect of the stability of the DNS has been weakened. When a client falls out of synchronization with the current key state of DNSSEC, it will mistake the current truth for an attempt to insert a lie. The subsequent efforts of the client to perform a rapid search for what it believes to be a truthful response could reasonably be construed as a legitimate response, if indeed this instance was an attack on that particular client. Indeed, to do otherwise would be to permit the DNS to remain an untrustable source of information. However, in this situation of slippage of synchronized key state between client and server, the effect is both local failure and the generation of excess load on external servers—and if this situation is allowed to become a common state, it has the potential to broaden the failure state to a more general DNS service failure through load saturation of critical DNS servers.

This aspect of a qualitative change of the DNS is unavoidable, and it places a strong imperative on DNS operations and the community of the 5 million current and uncountable future DNS resolvers to understand that "set and forget" is not the intended mode of operation of DNSSEC-equipped clients.

For Further Reading

[0] A longer version of this article can be found in our online companion publication, The Internet Protocol Forum,

[1] Charalampos Patrikakis, Michalis Masikos, and Olga Zouraraki, "Distributed Denial of Service Attacks," The Internet Protocol Journal, Volume 7, No. 4, December 2004.

[2] Miek Gieben, "DNSSEC: The Protocol, Deployment, and a Bit of Development," The Internet Protocol Journal, Volume 7, No. 2, June 2004.

[3] O. Kolkman and R. Gieben, "DNSSEC Operational Practices," RFC 4641, September 2006.




[7] M. St. Johns, "Automated Updates of DNS Security (DNSSEC) Trust Anchors," RFC 5011, September 2007.

[8] Geoff Huston, "Resource Certification," The Internet Protocol Journal, Volume 12, No. 1, March 2009.


GEORGE MICHAELSON has a B.Sc. from the University of York and is a research scientist at the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), the Regional Internet Registry serving the Asia Pacific region. George explores problems in Internet Number Resource management, Internet standards, and network measurement by collaborative research. George has more than 28 years experience in computer science, networking, ICT administration, and research conducted in Australia and the UK. He participates in standards development in the IETF and has been a working group chair as well as an RFC author. He is a member of the British Computer Society. E-Mail: ggm@apnic

PATRIK WALLSTRÓM is a senior researcher at .SE, the Internet registry for SE domain names, and has been with the registry for eight years developing registry systems and working with the deployment of DNSSEC. Patrik is currently working on the OpenDNSSEC project, producing tools for a wider deployment of the technology. At .SE he is also managing the Healthcheck project, a new open source platform for measuring the quality of DNS, E-mail, Web and IP within Sweden. Patrik is also a board member of the Swedish Network Users' Society (SNUS). E-mail:

ROY ARENDS is a senior researcher at Nominet UK, the Internet registry for UK domain names. He co-authored several IETF standards on DNSSEC, resides on the board of DNS-OARC, is a member of ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee, and is part of IETF's DNS-Directorate. As an expert on DNS and DNSSEC, Roy has co-initiated several DNS-related open source projects, such as Unbound and OpenDNSSEC. In the past, Roy was a member of, and chaired, CERT-NL. E-mail:

GEOFF HUSTON holds a B.Sc. and a M.Sc. from the Australian National University. He has been closely involved with the development of the Internet for many years, particularly within Australia, where he was responsible for the initial build of the Internet within the Australian academic and research sector. The author of numerous Internet-related books, he is currently the Chief Scientist at APNIC. He was a member of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) from 1999 until 2005, and served on the Board of the Internet Society from 1992 until 2001. E-mail: