Data on June 20 :
.COM. :
108,985,894 unique domains + the tld.
-> 234,479 NSEC3/RRSIG records,
-> 2,253,400 nameserver entries on 831,088 unique IP addresses.
.. ish.
-jamie
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> I think we need a better measure than number of domains
I know how we got here, but perhaps we can take corporate parentage and how big
.com is now to -discuss?
What happened with the registry data that caused the outage and what can /
should be done about it / to prevent it happening again still seem to me to be
operational topics.
George Willia
In article <001a01ce6ef9$bf74d4a0$3e5e7de0$@iname.com> you write:
>It's 120M if you add the .COM and the .NET's together, both of which NetSol
>is responsible for.
>http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/domain-name-services/
>registry-products/tld-zone-access/index.xhtml
In late b
nicolai-na...@chocolatine.org]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 11:16 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: This is a coordinated hacking. (Was Re: Need help in flushing
DNS)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:28:17PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> It's relatively small when you consider there's som
The indications and claim are that the root cause was registrar internal
goof, not hostile action against name servers.
The story is not yet detailed enough to add up; getting from point A to
point B requires steps that so far don't really make sense. A more
detailed explanation is hopefully to b
Not sure of some of the underlying details of the mechanics right now.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/LinkedIn-Outage-Caused-by-DDOS-Attack-on-Network-Solutions-362473.shtml
- ferg
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do we know which DNS server started leaking the pois
Hi,
Do we know which DNS server started leaking the poisoned entry?
Being new to this, i still dont understand how could a hacker gain access
to the DNS server and corrupt the entry there? Wouldnt it require special
admin rights, etc. to log in?
Glen
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Paul Ferg
merican Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: This is a coordinated hacking. (Was Re: Need help in flushing DNS)
I think ICANN would have to add a delay in where a request was sent out to make
sure everyone was on the same page and then what happens the couple thousand
(more) times a day that someone i
I think we need a better measure than number of domains (in this case
.COM), particularly vs total domains.
If it was 100 domains it might seem small, unless that list began with
facebook.com, amazon.com, google.com and g*d forbid theworld.com.
--
-Barry Shein
The World |
>"Registrar Primary" and "Registrar Auditor"
There are certainly registrars who are more security oriented than
Netsol. If you haven't followed all of the corporate buying and
selling, Netsol is now part of web.com, so their business is more to
support web hosting than to be a registrar.
I expec
> https://www.networksolutions.com/blog/2013/06/important-update-for-network-solutions-customers-experiencing-website-issues/
Why are they infinitely looping a script on their web server to check
for a cookie?
Are these people insane?
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:28:17PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> It's relatively small when you consider there's something like 140M .com's
Just FWIW, the current size of .com is roughly 109M domains. Someday it
will reach 140M but not today.
Nicolai
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:42:24 -0400, shawn wilson said:
> I think Netsol should be fined. Maybe even a class action suite filed
> against them for lost business. And that's it.
So your contract with NetSol has an SLA guarantee in it, and you can
demonstrate that (a) said SLA has been violated and
PM
To: Richard Golodner
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: This is a coordinated hacking. (Was Re: Need help in flushing DNS)
At 17:12 20/06/2013 -0500, Richard Golodner wrote:
> I think you are reading it the wrong way. Mr.Kletnieks never said it
>was okay. He just stated that the
On 6/20/13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> It's relatively small when you consider there's something like 140M .com's
Yeah... I'm in agreement about that's probably what is going on...
It's relatively small, but absolutely large, and absolute numbers
matter. 5 domains is small, 50k is not,
On 6/20/13, Hal Murray wrote:
> Perhaps we should setup a distributed system for checking things rather than
> another SPOF. That's distributed both geographically and administratively
> and using several code-bases.
[snip]
I would be in favor of being able to pay two "competitive" to be
regis
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:25:24 -0700, Hal Murray said:
> How would you check/verify that the communication path from the monitoring
> agency to the right people in your NOC was working correctly?
Remember to consider the possible impact of a false-positive report over
an unauthenticated channel. Be
I think ICANN would have to add a delay in where a request was sent out to
make sure everyone was on the same page and then what happens the couple
thousand (more) times a day that someone isn't updated or is
misconfigured?
I think Netsol should be fined. Maybe even a class action suite filed
aga
> at what point is the Internet a piece of infrastructure whereby we
> actually need a way to watch this thing holistically as it is one system and
> not just a bunch of inter-jointed systems? Who's job is it to do nothing but
> ensure that the state of DNS and other services is running as it
At 17:12 20/06/2013 -0500, Richard Golodner wrote:
I think you are reading it the wrong way. Mr.Kletnieks never said it
was okay. He just stated that the numbers were trivial when compared to
the rest of potential customers being affected.
Be cool, Richard Golodner
and Netsol
At 07:28 21/06/2013 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
netsol screwed up. they screwed up bigtime. they are shoveling kitty
litter over it as fast as they can, and they have a professional kitty
litter, aka pr, department.
They are too busy adding new revenue:
http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+New
On Jun 20, 2013 7:30 PM, "Rubens Kuhl" wrote:
> In this case of registrar compromise, DS record could have been changed
> alongside NS records, so DNSSEC would only have been a early warning,
> because uncoordinated DS change disrupts service. As soon as previous
> timeouts played out, new DS/NS p
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Timothy Morizot wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2013 5:31 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote:
> > and dnssec did not save us. is there anything which could have?
>
> Hmmm. DNSSEC wouldn't have prevented an outage. But from everything I've
> seen reported, had the zones been signed, val
On 6/20/13, Randy Bush wrote:
> netsol screwed up. they screwed up bigtime. they are shoveling kitty
> litter over it as fast as they can, and they have a professional kitty
> litter, aka pr, department.
> but none of this is surprising.
> and dnssec did not save us. is there anything which cou
On Jun 20, 2013 5:31 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote:
> and dnssec did not save us. is there anything which could have?
Hmmm. DNSSEC wouldn't have prevented an outage. But from everything I've
seen reported, had the zones been signed, validating recursive resolvers
(comcast, google, much of federal gover
I, for one, would not be in favor of an authoritarian rule over DNS, or
any other Internet system, to "ensure that the state of [the] service[s]
is running as it should." I suppose one could view such an authoritarian
rule over (sub) systems to be a good thing, as in there is someone to
complain t
No.
The ztomy nameservers appeared in this morning's master .COM zonefile as
/authoritative/ for the number of domains I mentioned.
It is a clear change from just a couple of days ago, when the listed
nameservers were nowhere to be seen.
I have solid data to back this up, straight from Verisign
at what point is the Internet a piece of infrastructure whereby we
actually need a way to watch this thing holistically as it is one system
and not just a bunch of inter-jointed systems? Who's job is it to do
nothing but ensure that the state of DNS and other services is running as
it should...
At the DNS Servers or service provider level, one can (and I often do) have
redundant providers.
At the registrar level? ...
Not with our current infrastructure, as far as I know how.
The Internet: Discovering new SPOF since 1969!
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 20, 2013,
netsol screwed up. they screwed up bigtime. they are shoveling kitty
litter over it as fast as they can, and they have a professional kitty
litter, aka pr, department.
but none of this is surprising.
and dnssec did not save us. is there anything which could have?
randy
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:42 -0700, RijilV wrote:
> On 20 June 2013 14:28, wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:08:18 -0700, Jeff Shultz said:
> >
> > > "small number of Network Solutions customers"
> > >
> > > They must be staffed with physicists, astronomers, or economists I
> > > don't know
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > So it's okay to screw over "nearly fifty thousand" customer domains
> because
> > there are 140M .com's?
>
> luckily, none of the rest of us make mistakes
>
>
Ages ago I responded on a Cisco list where the topic was biggest screwup
you've mad
I don't think he was saying that at all. Just stating that from a pure numbers
standpoint 50k/140mil is a small percentage.
OTOH, I agree to your point - Network Solutions definitely downplayed this in
their release. Curiously so.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:42 PM, RijilV wrote:
> So it's okay to screw over "nearly fifty thousand" customer domains because
> there are 140M .com's?
luckily, none of the rest of us make mistakes
On 20 June 2013 14:28, wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:08:18 -0700, Jeff Shultz said:
>
> > "small number of Network Solutions customers"
> >
> > They must be staffed with physicists, astronomers, or economists I
> > don't know anyone else that would consider "nearly fifty thousand" (from
> >
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:08:18 -0700, Jeff Shultz said:
> "small number of Network Solutions customers"
>
> They must be staffed with physicists, astronomers, or economists I
> don't know anyone else that would consider "nearly fifty thousand" (from
> a previous post by Phil Fagan) to be a small
e 20, 2013 5:11 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: This is a coordinated hacking. (Was Re: Need help in flushing DNS)
Wild speculation:
netsol says this is a human error incurred during DDOS mitigation.
ztomy.com is a wild-card DNS provider that seems to use prolexic.
Now imagine someone at netsol or i
Wild speculation:
netsol says this is a human error incurred during DDOS mitigation.
ztomy.com is a wild-card DNS provider that seems to use prolexic.
Now imagine someone at netsol or its DDOS service providers
fat-fingered their DDOS-averting routing in such a way that netsol
DNS traffic arrived
On 6/20/2013 1:46 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On 6/20/13, jamie rishaw wrote:
It's not poisoning. They somehow were able to modify the NS records; one
would presume, at the registrar/s.
https://www.networksolutions.com/blog/2013/06/important-update-for-network-solutions-customers-experiencing-webs
On 6/20/13, jamie rishaw wrote:
> It's not poisoning. They somehow were able to modify the NS records; one
> would presume, at the registrar/s.
https://www.networksolutions.com/blog/2013/06/important-update-for-network-solutions-customers-experiencing-website-issues/
--
-JH
vered' to other nameservers) that show no "updates" in `whois`
records.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Paul?
-- Forwarded message --
From: jamie rishaw
Date: Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: This is a coordinated hacking. (Was Re: Need help in flushing
DNS)
To:
Not so easy and straightforward to do. You'll find that a lot of the
big names out there frequently tweak DNS, which will result in a
non-stop stream of "alerts".
Andy
Andrew Fried
andrew.fr...@gmail.com
On 6/20/13 3:57 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> It seems there may be a need for some sort of 'dns
It's not poisoning. They somehow were able to modify the NS records; one
would presume, at the registrar/s.
As far as the logic of the DNS, it is functioning as designed (What's up,
Vix!) - There's another aspect of this that caused this situation.
Any Alexa or similar people on this list (Goog
Poisoning a domain's NS records with localhost will most certainly DOS the
domain, yes.
I have not yet seen the source of this; if anyone has a clue where the
updates are coming from please post the info.
Is there anything about ztomy.com that has been seen that's supicious as in
they might be th
I'm rechecking realtime ns1620/2620 DNS right now and, looking at the
output, I see an odd number of domains (that have changed) with a listed
nameserver of "localhost.".
Is this some sort of tactic I'm unaware of?
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> It seems there may be a n
It seems there may be a need for some sort of 'dns-health' check out there that
can be done in semi-realtime.
I ran a report for someone earlier today on a domain doing an xref against open
resolver data searching for valid responses vs invalid ones.
Is this of value? Does it need to be automa
This is most definitely a coordinated and planned attack.
And by 'attack' I mean hijacking of domain names.
I show as of this morning nearly fifty thousand domain names that appear
suspicious.
I'm tempted to call uscentcom and/or related agencies (which agencies, who
the hell knows, as ICE seems
Agree'd in these "smaller" scenario's I just wonder if in a larger scale
scenario, whatever that might look like, if its necessary. Whereby many
organizations who provide "services" are effected. Perhaps the result of a
State led campaign topic for another day.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:25
I am betting that Netsol doesn't need any more "coordination" at the
moment -- their phones are probably ringing off-the-hook. There are
still ~400 domains still pointing to the ztomy NS:
; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> @foohost parsonstech.com NS
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answe
I should caveat.coordinate the "recovery" of.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Brandon Butterworth
wrote:
> > Is there an organization that coordinates outages like this amongst the
> > industry?
>
> No, usually they are surprise outages though Anonymous have tried
> coordinating a few
>
>
> Is there an organization that coordinates outages like this amongst the
> industry?
No, usually they are surprise outages though Anonymous have tried
coordinating a few
brandon
http://www.networksolutions.com/blog/2013/06/important-update-for-network-solutions-customers-experiencing-website-issues/
- Jared
On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:42 PM, Zaid Ali Kahn wrote:
> Reaching out to DNS operators around the globe. Linkedin.com has had some
> issues with DNS and would like DNS
* philfa...@gmail.com (Phil Fagan) [Thu 20 Jun 2013, 17:50 CEST]:
Is there an organization that coordinates outages like this amongst
the industry?
No; all outages on the Internet happen independently from each other
and are not coordinated to (not) coincide in any way.
-- Niels.
-
-to-possible-dns-hijacking/
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Frank
>> >>
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
>> >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:23 AM
>> >> To: Paul Fergu
> >> ng/<
> http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/19/linkedin-outage-due-to-possible-dns-hijacking/
> >
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> -Original Message-----
> >> From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:23
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:23 AM
> >> To: Paul Ferguson
> >> Cc: NANOG list
> >> Subject: Re: Need he
e-due-to-possible-dns-hijacki
>> ng/<http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/19/linkedin-outage-due-to-possible-dns-hijacking/>
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:23 AM
>> To: P
gt; ng/<http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/19/linkedin-outage-due-to-possible-dns-hijacking/>
>
> Frank
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:23 AM
> To: Paul Ferguson
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: N
Subject: Re: Need help in flushing DNS
On 6/20/13, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Tom Paseka wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
I think "ztomy.com" smells really bad for some reason, looks like
100% advertising;
sure doesn
I am not speaking officially, but the evidence so far is that this was not
DNS poisoning, but domain name hijacking. My colleagues will have more to
say later today.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:19 AM, John Levine wrote:
> >Reaching out to DNS operators around the globe. Linkedin.com has had some
Smileyface aside, I'm disappointed to see operators simply flushing caches
and not performing at the least a dumpdb for possible future forensic
analysis.
This is what I call the "Windows solution," - 'Oh, just reboot, and it'll
work'.
We're better than that.
(Aren't we?)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013
I have domains that are *not* expired, which are being affected by this.
Domains are hosted via Dynect, and are resolving into this 204.11.56.0/24 range
across the globe.
Dynect management portal was down until minutes ago as well.
- Charles
On Jun 20, 2013, at 12:45 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
.-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 2013-06-20 12:38 AM Paul
Ferguson wrote:
> I have no knowledge of any DDoS -related activity involving Yelp! and
> Prolexic. Even if there is one, the fact that their DNS records have
> been poisoned has not direct relationship to any current DDo
.-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 2013-06-20 12:31 AM
Andree Toonk wrote:
> .-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 2013-06-19 10:34 PM Paul
> Ferguson wrote:
>
>> ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> @localhost yelp.com A
>
>> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
>> yelp.com. 300 IN A 204.11.56.20
>
> I
I have no knowledge of any DDoS -related activity involving Yelp! and
Prolexic. Even if there is one, the fact that their DNS records have
been poisoned has not direct relationship to any current DDoS (there
isn't one that I am aware of).
- ferg
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Andree Toonk wr
.-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 2013-06-19 10:34 PM Paul
Ferguson wrote:
> ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> @localhost yelp.com A
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> yelp.com. 300 IN A 204.11.56.20
Interesting to see that traffic to this IP addresses is going through
prolexic...
I guess they're consi
On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:23 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 6/20/13, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Tom Paseka wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
> I think "ztomy.com" smells really bad for some reason, looks like
> 100% advertising;
IIRC, Conf
On 6/20/13, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Tom Paseka wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
I think "ztomy.com" smells really bad for some reason, looks like
100% advertising;
sure doesn't "appear" to be a DNS hosting provider, I sure can't
i
Hanlon's razor? Misconfiguration. Perhaps not done in malice, but I
have no idea where the poison leaked in, or why. :-)
- ferg
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Alex Buie wrote:
> Anyone have news/explanation about what's happening/happened?
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Paul Ferguso
The only apparent link is registration thru network solutions
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Alex Buie wrote:
> Anyone have news/explanation about what's happening/happened?
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Paul Ferguson >wrote:
>
> > Sure enough:
> >
> >
> >
> > ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>>
Anyone have news/explanation about what's happening/happened?
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> Sure enough:
>
>
>
> ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> @localhost yelp.com A
> ; (1 server found)
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NO
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Tom Paseka wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 01:30 , Grant Ridder wrote:
>>
>> > Yelp is evidently also affected
>>
>> Not from here.
>>
>
> Patrick:
>
> $ dig NS yelp.com @8.8.8.8 +short
> ns1620.ztomy
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 01:30 , Grant Ridder wrote:
>
> > Yelp is evidently also affected
>
> Not from here.
>
Patrick:
$ dig NS yelp.com @8.8.8.8 +short
ns1620.ztomy.com.
ns2620.ztomy.com.
Some DNS servers have the bad records - TLD fo
Sure enough:
; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> @localhost yelp.com A
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 53267
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;yelp.com. IN A
;; ANS
On Jun 20, 2013, at 01:30 , Grant Ridder wrote:
> Yelp is evidently also affected
Not from here.
If the NS or www points to 204.11.56.0/24 for a production domain/hostname,
that's "bad". Yelp seems to be resolving normally for me.
--
TTFN,
patrick
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:19 PM, John L
Yelp is evidently also affected
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:19 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >Reaching out to DNS operators around the globe. Linkedin.com has had some
> issues with DNS
> >and would like DNS operators to flush their DNS. If you see
> www.linkedin.com resolving NS to
> >ns1617.ztomy.co
>Reaching out to DNS operators around the globe. Linkedin.com has had some
>issues with DNS
>and would like DNS operators to flush their DNS. If you see www.linkedin.com
>resolving NS to
>ns1617.ztomy.com or ns2617.ztomy.com then please flush your DNS.
>
>Any other info please reach out to me off
77 matches
Mail list logo