Report information
The Basics
Id:
45482
Status:
rejected
Priority:
Medium/Medium
Queue:

People
Owner:
Nobody in particular
Cc:
AdminCc:

BugTracker
Version Fixed:
n/a
Version Found:
(no value)
Versions Affected:
(no value)
Versions Planned:
(no value)
Priority:
P2 Normal
Severity:
S2 Normal
CVSS Score:
(no value)
CVE ID:
(no value)
Component:
(no value)
Area:
Other

Dates
Created:Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:39:33 -0400
Updated:Fri, 30 Jun 2017 06:24:17 -0400
Closed:Fri, 30 Jun 2017 06:24:17 -0400



This bug tracker is no longer active.

Please go to our Gitlab to submit issues (both feature requests and bug reports) for active projects maintained by Internet Systems Consortium (ISC).

Due to security and confidentiality requirements, full access is limited to the primary maintainers.

To: "bind-bugs@isc.org" <bind-bugs@isc.org>
From: "Jim Yang" <zy33@cornell.edu>
CC: "Mukund Sivaraman" <muks@isc.org>
Subject: BIND bug report
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 19:39:12 +0000
Hi, As per Mukund Sivaraman’s suggestion, I am reporting a bug in BIND. This name “sign.encoding.information.uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp.chinaboca.com” was successfully loaded into a RPZ zone. The label “uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp” is 64 bytes long (> label limit 63 bytes RFC 1035) The sample RPZ zone is listed below. $ORIGIN rpz.example.com. $TTL 1H @ SOA LOCALHOST. named-mgr.example.com (1 1h 15m 30d 2h) NS LOCALHOST. ; QNAME policy records. ; Note: There are no periods (.) after the (relativised) owner names. sign.encoding.information.uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp.chinaboca.com A 10.0.0.1 ; redirect to walled garden AAAA 2001:2::1 named-checkconf does not report any error about this name. I tested the name using 8.8.8.8 on both Centos 7 and Macbook Pro macOS Sierra. The dig version on Centos 7 is 9.9.4-RedHat-9.9.4-38.el7_3.2 and it always gives ‘NXDOMAIN’ no matter how long the label I changes (I tested 64, 65, 80 bytes long). The results from my Macbook Pro are listed below: The length of uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp is 64 bytes. $ dig @8.8.8.8 sign.encoding.information.uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp.chinaboca.com ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> @8.8.8.8 sign.encoding.information.uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp.chinaboca.com ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 59096 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;sign.encoding.information.uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp.chinaboca.com. IN A ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: chinaboca.com. 1799 IN SOA ns9.sinohosting.net. admin.cycomsupport.com. 2017020401 3600 7200 1209600 86400 ;; Query time: 108 msec ;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8) ;; WHEN: Thu Jun 29 15:16:33 2017 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 195 The length of uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp66 is 66 bytes OIT-ZY33-ML2:~ zy33$ dig sign.encoding.information.uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp66.chinaboca.com dig: 'sign.encoding.information.uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp66.chinaboca.com' is not a legal name (label too long) dig should report the name is not a legal name when the label length is 64(>63 bytes), but it reports the issue when the label length is 65. Thanks, Jim On 6/29/17, 2:40 PM, "Mukund Sivaraman" <muks@isc.org> wrote: Hi Jim On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:57:16PM +0000, Jim Yang wrote: > Hi, > > What is the DNS name label length limit? As per RFC 1035, it is 63 > characters. I tested a few DNS names that contains a label that is > longer than 63 characters, and found that these records were > successfully loaded in RPZ zone. I wonder if this is a BIND RPZ > feature or bug (it allows DNS name label that is longer than 63 > characters)? > > When I dig these DNS records using 8.8.8.8, which reports them as > ‘NXDOMAIN’. Can you send us a bug report with a sample RPZ zone that contains such a name? Mukund
From: "Mukund Sivaraman" <muks@isc.org>
Subject: Re: [ISC-Bugs #45482] BIND bug report
To: "Jim Yang via RT" <bind9-confidential@isc.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 01:36:11 +0530
Hi Jim On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 07:39:34PM +0000, Jim Yang via RT wrote: > As per Mukund Sivaraman’s suggestion, I am reporting a bug in BIND. This name “sign.encoding.information.uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp.chinaboca.com” was successfully loaded into a RPZ zone. > The label “uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp” is 64 bytes long (> label limit 63 bytes RFC 1035) > > The sample RPZ zone is listed below. > > $ORIGIN rpz.example.com. > $TTL 1H > @ SOA LOCALHOST. named-mgr.example.com (1 1h 15m 30d 2h) > NS LOCALHOST. > > ; QNAME policy records. > ; Note: There are no periods (.) after the (relativised) owner names. > > sign.encoding.information.uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp.chinaboca.com A 10.0.0.1 ; redirect to walled garden > AAAA 2001:2::1 From the zone above: [muks@jurassic bind9]$ echo -n "uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp" | wc -c 63 [muks@jurassic bind9]$ That label is not 64 octets long, it is 63 octets long. I have verified by adding an extra octet to this long label that it is then rejected by named-checkzone. Mukund
Subject: Re: [ISC-Bugs #45482] BIND bug report
To: "bind9-confidential@isc.org" <bind9-confidential@isc.org>
From: "Jim Yang" <zy33@cornell.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:14:28 +0000
You are correct. I counted the trailing new line in the data file. Sorry for about this confusion. Thanks, Jim On 6/29/17, 4:06 PM, "Mukund Sivaraman via RT" <bind9-confidential@isc.org> wrote: Hi Jim On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 07:39:34PM +0000, Jim Yang via RT wrote: > As per Mukund Sivaraman’s suggestion, I am reporting a bug in BIND. This name “sign.encoding.information.uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp.chinaboca.com” was successfully loaded into a RPZ zone. > The label “uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp” is 64 bytes long (> label limit 63 bytes RFC 1035) > > The sample RPZ zone is listed below. > > $ORIGIN rpz.example.com. > $TTL 1H > @ SOA LOCALHOST. named-mgr.example.com (1 1h 15m 30d 2h) > NS LOCALHOST. > > ; QNAME policy records. > ; Note: There are no periods (.) after the (relativised) owner names. > > sign.encoding.information.uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp.chinaboca.com A 10.0.0.1 ; redirect to walled garden > AAAA 2001:2::1 From the zone above: [muks@jurassic bind9]$ echo -n "uzmzudseodc2fjpyi6mjcxndiymtuzmzufazdseyi6swh58fmodc2fjqxoc2fjp" | wc -c 63 [muks@jurassic bind9]$ That label is not 64 octets long, it is 63 octets long. I have verified by adding an extra octet to this long label that it is then rejected by named-checkzone. Mukund