upvote

points

by Stitch422312 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby traceroute6611 hours ago|
next
[-]
> We found deSEC to be the only affordable DNS supplier in the EU that complies with state of the art secure DNSSEC.

I mean, if your definition of "affordable" is free, then sure.

But for the record there are other affordable EU suppliers who do DNSSEC:

    - Bunny DNS[0] is "free" – i.e. only subject to their minimum $1/month account spend fee.
    - RcodeZero is very affordable[1] plus added bonus it is run by the `.at` registry so the infrastructure is solid – business customers only, no private individuals
    - Netnod (only via resellers[2] unless you are a big company or government) – Netnod host the I Root Servers and their public hosting DNSSEC service will soon feature HSM-bound DNSSEC keys
[0] https://bunny.net/dns/ [1] https://www.rcodezero.at/solutions/enterprise [2] https://www.netnod.se/dns/find-a-partner
reply
upvoteby quicksilver0310 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I happen to run an affordable EU supplier who does DNSSEC, and also AXFR (incoming and outgoing). I offer a free plan from time to time, but not at the moment to preserve resources for paying customer.

https://www.ptrdns.net/

reply
upvoteby andreaso9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Are you aware that the child zone A(AAAA) records for danube.ns.ptrdns.net differs from the parent zone A(AAA) glue records for danube.ns.ptrdns.net?

Looks like it's the glue records that point to the actual server?

reply
upvoteby Stitch42237 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
We have a support ticket at Bunny that has been open for months precisely because they don’t provide state-of-the-art DNSSEC. We had to move to another provider, as we have a deadline to comply with at the end of this month. I don’t know what the issue is off the top of my head.

Netnod.se uses a DNSKEY that is too small on their main domain.

Rcodezero.at might indeed be something. Thanks.

We donate to deSEC, so it’s not free for us.

reply
upvoteby traceroute667 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Netnod.se uses a DNSKEY that is too small on their main domain.

Interesting, could you expand on that ?

I ran netnod.se through the Verisign[1] and internet.nl[2] and it passes DNSSEC tests ?

[1] https://dnssec-analyzer.verisignlabs.com/netnod.se [2] https://internet.nl/site/netnod.se

reply
upvoteby Stitch42233 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sure: zonemaster[1] is the tool we use [2]. It checks for keylengths and other things and allows policies to be defined on them. It comes with a fairly well defined / modern policy but in our Dutch .foundation article you can read that one should be a bit stricter. However, the default policy of zonemaster warns about the keylength of netnod.se [3]

Internet.nl does not look at DNSSEC that extensively, allowing poorer quality configurations to pass. You can see what they check in the explanations of both DNSSEC metrics [4]. See [5] for discussions about keylength.

Verisign does check for key validity but not for key strength / length as seen in your link.

[1] https://zonemaster.se [2] https://internetcleanup.foundation/2026/04/bijgewerkte-dnsse... [3] https://zonemaster.se/en/result/cf3ef2fc83f27eb6/ [4] https://internet.nl/site/internet.nl/4280424/#control-panel-... [5] https://github.com/internetstandards/Internet.nl/issues/1176

reply
upvoteby amaccuish11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
One who doesn't is frustratingly Hetzner.
reply
upvoteby dsl11 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
DNSSEC support is an anti-feature, it is dead/dying and the faster we can unburden ourselves from it the faster we can move on to better solutions.

https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/01/15/against-dnssec/

reply
upvoteby teddyh9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Rebuttal: <https://easydns.com/blog/2015/08/06/for-dnssec/>
reply
upvoteby dsl8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That rebuttal held water 10 years ago, but fortunately we have made a lot of advancements since then.

DNSSEC was a solution trying to solve the problem of DNS security while still maintaining transparency for DNS operators to spy on queries. At the time, passive DNS was one of the tent poles of tracking malware and responding to security incidents.

We have since committed entirely to transport security in the form of DoH and friends. It solves the vast majority of problems we actually have.

reply
upvoteby Stitch42238 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Such as? And do those solve the same thing? The post lists 8 headlines why it should be abolished.
reply
upvoteby apefulsin11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
So DNS should be open to MITM attackers?
reply
upvoteby icedchai7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Even with DNSSEC, it still is. Example: https://blog.cloudflare.com/de-tld-outage-dnssec/
reply
upvoteby digitalPhonix2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Did you read the article? It's saying that DNSSEC as an implementation to prevent MITM is flawed; other solutions that protect against MITM are proposed.
reply