Hi Viktor, This is what verbosity 4 tells me: [1503588441] libunbound[20640:0] info: verify rrset pat.dedyn.io. SOA IN [1503588441] libunbound[20640:0] debug: verify sig 16713 8 [1503588441] libunbound[20640:0] debug: verify result: sec_status_secure [1503588441] libunbound[20640:0] info: verify rrset 3645142tqk02bkonalf8lhipr7bs92k2.pat.dedyn.io. NSEC3 IN [1503588441] libunbound[20640:0] debug: verify sig 16713 8 [1503588441] libunbound[20640:0] debug: verify result: sec_status_secure [1503588441] libunbound[20640:0] debug: Validating a nodata response [1503588441] libunbound[20640:0] debug: nsec3: keysize 1024 bits, max iterations 150 [1503588441] libunbound[20640:0] debug: NODATA response is insecure [1503588441] libunbound[20640:0] info: validate(nodata): sec_status_insecure
So I guess the max iterations of 300 is a bit too much. Best regards, Wouter On 24/08/17 16:42, Viktor Dukhovni via Unbound-users wrote: > > I had unbound 1.6.4 listening on the loopback interface with > validation enabled. Unexpectedly, for a DNSSEC signed zone > with no MX records, the NODATA response from unbound has AD=0: > > $ dig +nosplit +dnssec +ad -t mx pat.dedyn.io @127.0.0.1 > > ; <<>> DiG 9.11.1-P3 <<>> +nosplit +dnssec +ad -t mx pat.dedyn.io @127.0.0.1 > ;; global options: +cmd > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 46584 > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 1 > > ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: > ; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 8192 > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;pat.dedyn.io. IN MX > > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: > pat.dedyn.io. 60 IN SOA ns1.desec.io. > hostmaster.desec.io. 2017084887 10800 3600 604800 60 > pat.dedyn.io. 60 IN RRSIG SOA 8 3 60 20170907000000 > 20170817000000 16713 pat.dedyn.io. > ICHfyC1jcmI7hk/qcvs1mHU+DXgiAHp56tHZ0DrBIlg8Qrzj9MI8stHcWT6J7mf4e+3PMN+p34RvFokGAMqeHQ2qN4QSe1yX+Evj5RCI6Gx125ae/S0xCSnUuz4tfcmuorn+Ljk//2a8j2q+w6awrCqdoAMaVAdIMmHmmuHKhpQ= > 3645142tqk02bkonalf8lhipr7bs92k2.pat.dedyn.io. 60 IN NSEC3 1 0 300 > D7E2042737B912B9 4O4UISQPPPTC260I5BQ6R816IC02HFI5 A NS SOA RRSIG DNSKEY > NSEC3PARAM > 3645142tqk02bkonalf8lhipr7bs92k2.pat.dedyn.io. 60 IN RRSIG NSEC3 8 4 60 > 20170907000000 20170817000000 16713 pat.dedyn.io. > ZkcJecwn698jOHCFN+Fn6Z3qGTZuIzVo0W25cLG6NB0DCnMdVhmD2FpWvaIT8OVWIyMSxdbC99T4pvSkdZakZWRfeJNeomwrWvbYGkGNgo/3uoQRfvm5WgTHjmoYP9QopEKpra5L2Dm8l4fQagp+BBos48QNlKeABqTkiufLEts= > > ;; Query time: 46 msec > ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) > ;; WHEN: Thu Aug 24 10:26:18 EDT 2017 > ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 530 > > Both DNSViz and Google's public resolvers report the NODATA as secure (AD=1): > > > http://dnsviz.net/d/pat.dedyn.io/dnssec/?rr=15&a=all&ds=all&doe=on&ta=.&tk= > > $ dig +nosplit +dnssec +ad -t mx pat.dedyn.io @8.8.4.4 > > ; <<>> DiG 9.11.1-P3 <<>> +nosplit +dnssec +ad -t mx pat.dedyn.io @8.8.4.4 > ;; global options: +cmd > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 5148 > ;; flags: qr rd ra ad; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 1 > > ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: > ; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 512 > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;pat.dedyn.io. IN MX > > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: > pat.dedyn.io. 59 IN SOA ns1.desec.io. > hostmaster.desec.io. 2017084887 10800 3600 604800 60 > pat.dedyn.io. 59 IN RRSIG SOA 8 3 60 20170907000000 > 20170817000000 16713 pat.dedyn.io. > ICHfyC1jcmI7hk/qcvs1mHU+DXgiAHp56tHZ0DrBIlg8Qrzj9MI8stHcWT6J7mf4e+3PMN+p34RvFokGAMqeHQ2qN4QSe1yX+Evj5RCI6Gx125ae/S0xCSnUuz4tfcmuorn+Ljk//2a8j2q+w6awrCqdoAMaVAdIMmHmmuHKhpQ= > 3645142tqk02bkonalf8lhipr7bs92k2.pat.dedyn.io. 59 IN NSEC3 1 0 300 > D7E2042737B912B9 4O4UISQPPPTC260I5BQ6R816IC02HFI5 A NS SOA RRSIG DNSKEY > NSEC3PARAM > 3645142tqk02bkonalf8lhipr7bs92k2.pat.dedyn.io. 59 IN RRSIG NSEC3 8 4 60 > 20170907000000 20170817000000 16713 pat.dedyn.io. > ZkcJecwn698jOHCFN+Fn6Z3qGTZuIzVo0W25cLG6NB0DCnMdVhmD2FpWvaIT8OVWIyMSxdbC99T4pvSkdZakZWRfeJNeomwrWvbYGkGNgo/3uoQRfvm5WgTHjmoYP9QopEKpra5L2Dm8l4fQagp+BBos48QNlKeABqTkiufLEts= > > ;; Query time: 212 msec > ;; SERVER: 8.8.4.4#53(8.8.4.4) > ;; WHEN: Thu Aug 24 10:24:59 EDT 2017 > ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 530 > > I just upgraded to 1.6.5 and retried, and get the same results. > I see one interesting thing about this domain: > > * The DS records are published with digests 1, 2, 3 and 4, > which includes GOST(3). I build unbound without GOST > support. (The GOST code in OpenSSL is not well maintained, > and I prefer to avoid it). > > Does anyone know why unbound is returning "AD=0"? Is it a feature or > a bug? Somewhat verbose output from "unbound-host" below... > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
