Mailing List Articles Atom Feed Comments Atom Feed Twitter Reddit Facebook

Tag Cloud


An epic journey awaits: The hows and whys of DNS (and why DNS privacy is important)

The fancy logo! Read on to find out more. (Above: The logo of Cloudflare's new announcement. Read on to find out more! Sourced from here.)

Hello! I hope everyone had a nice restful Easter. Cloudflare made an exciting announcement recently (more on that later), which inspired me to sit down and write about a vital, but invisible, part of the internet we know today.

It's called DNS (Domain Name System), and I'd like to take you on a journey - showing you what DNS is, how it works, how it can be exploited, and what we can do about it. After all, privacy is important! How does relate to DNS you ask? Well, I'll show you - but we're getting a little ahead of ourselves. Let's introduce DNS first. I'll explain what it is, how it works, and why we need it.

Enter Stage Left

DNS is, in many ways, the backbone of the modern internet. While it isn't directly responsible for delivering billions of packets across the internet every day like the Internet Protocol is, its role is still vitally important. DNS is responsible for translating domain names, such as,, or into an IP address that your device can connect to in order to do whatever else it needs to do.

It does this by sending a UDP datagram (comparison with TCP) to a DNS server ask it for a specific type of response - usually the IP address associated with a specific domain name. The following query types are most common:

  • A - Returns the IPv4 address(es) associated with the specified domain name
  • AAAA - Same as A, but returns IPv6 addresses instead
  • CNAME - Acts as an alias to another domain name. Usually immediately followed by either an A or AAAA record in the DNS server's response to save time (a DNS server can return multiple items in a single response)
  • MX - A bit like a CNAME, but returns a prioritised list of domains that handle email for the specified domain.
  • TXT - Contains an arbitrary text string. Usually used for easter eggs or for domain ownership verification by various analytics services (e.g. Google Analytics, Bing Webmaster Tools, etc.)
  • NS - Specifies which DNS servers can be queried about the domain.
  • SOA - Specifies what the primary DNS server is that holds the authoritative copy of the DNS records for the specified domain.

Let's try it out

With that in mind, lets try some queries.

(Can't see the above asciicast? Try viewing it over on, or entering the below commands into a computer with DiG)

dig AAAA
dig MX
dig TXT
dig TXT

DiG is a command-line DNS client for Linux-like operating systems (if you don't have it already, try sudo apt install dnsutils, or equivalent for your distribution. If you're on Windows without access to a Linux-like machine, try following along with nslookup.). In the above asciicast I make a variety of queries for demonstrative purposes. Note the QUESTION SECTION and ANSWER SECTION bits - they tell us what the query was for, and what the response to that query was. For example, here's an extract from the question and answer sections respectively from the lookup in the asciicast:

;         IN  AAAA      300 IN  AAAA    2a04:4e42:600::81

The bit in the question section is quite straightforward - it's asking for an AAAA record for The answer section is a bit more complicated. From left to right:

  • - The domain name the response is for.
  • 300 - The time-to-live. In other words, the number of seconds that the response can be cached for.
  • IN - a legacy component. Stands for INternet - more information here
  • AAAA - The type of response record.
  • 2a04:4e42:600::81 - The IPv6 address that the domain name corresponds to.

Am I being spied on?

DNS works rather well, most of the time. The problems start to occur when you start thinking about privacy. With more websites than ever now serving their websites over https, the data that we transfer between these websites and our devices is now much more secure - and can't be intercepted, analysed, and modified in transit.

DNS, however, is not currently encrypted - which poses a rather serious problem. Anyone able to get a hold of your devices network traffic - such as another device of your network in promiscuous mode, your ISP, or literally anyone in between you and your DNS server - can spy on the DNS lookups your device is doing, and even poison your DNS cache - sending you to an attacker's website when you typed in a legitimate domain name!

DNS Cache Poisoning in Action

(Above: A DNS timing cache poisoning in action. The attacker responds with a spoofed UDP datagram before the original server has a chance to reply!)

Thankfully, after 35 years of DNS, the internet has some solutions to some of these problems. First up: DNSSEC. Often misunderstood, the protocol tries to prevent man-in-the-middle and timing attacks (such as the one shown in the diagram above) by cryptographically verifying the DNS records returned to the client. Though it's actually 20 years old already, it's still overly-complicated - and subsequently hasn't been rolled out by an awful lot of people. It's also rather weighty - requiring the transfer of crytographical keys and other associated information.

Preventing cache poisoning is one thing, but it would be nice to prevent nosy onlookers from peering at the DNS queries we're making - and here's where it gets complicated. As of early 2018, there are currently no less than 3 competing standards to provide proper client-server connection encryption:

  • DNS-over-HTTPS - Basically a protocol for sending DNS requests via a standard HTTPS web server. As you can imagine, this can be rather weighty.
  • DNS-over-TLS - As the name implies - DNS queries over a raw TLS connection - which is, in short, a HTTPS connection without the HTTP bit. Now supported natively in Android.
  • DNSCurve - An augmentation to the existing DNS protocol that adds encryption by way of elliptical curves. The supposed official website appears to be a bit biased and inaccurate, so I'm linking to the Wikipedia article here.

A bit of mess, isn't it? Furthermore, many applications don't yet have support for some (or any) of these protocols. In that regard, it's currently a waiting game. Still, it's interesting to compare the different approaches taken here. Most of these protocols carry significantly more weight that plain-old DNS - with DNS-over-HTTPS being the most weighty, and DNSCurve being the lightest I should imagine.

I find it especially curious that DNS-over-HTTPS is as popular as it is. Surely it's a bit flawed if you've got to look up the domain name of the HTTPS server that you need to contact in order to do a 'secure' lookup? A safe is only as strong as it's weakest point, after all....

But wait, there's more!

Encrypted and verified responses are all very well, but it's no good of the owner of the DNS server themselves are logging all the queries you send to them! Google's service logs a percentage of queries made permanently to disk, and OpenDNS don't appear to have very many details on their website about what data they collect and what they don't!

Furthermore, some DNS servers (especially those controlled by ISPs) tend to have some domain names censored due to agreements with their country's government - preventing you from 'accessing' a website by stopping your device from figuring out where on the internet to talk to.

Clearly, these are serious issues - and the solutions boil down to trust. Who do you trust to send your DNS queries to? If you don't trust any of the aforementioned providers (Google Public DNS or OpenDNS), then you could always run a DNS resolver yourself.

How does it work if you run it yourself? Well, basically instead of your device sending queries to a remote DNS server, they send it to your personal DNS server instead. Your personal DNS server then performs a recursive resolve. Basically, this means that it traverses the requested domain name from right-to-left, analysing and resolving each part in turn. For example, would be resolved like so:

  • com.
  • discord.
  • gateway.

For each successive part of the domain name, the DNS server asks the next one in the the chain that other DNS servers hold the authoritative records about that domain name (using SOA / NS records), and then repeats the cycle with the servers provided in the response.

Quite quickly you can see that there's an issue here - how does it know where to start? That's where root servers come in. They contain the authoritative information on the Internet's top-level domains. These servers can be queried to figure out which servers hold information about the various country codes (or other codes). The servers that these root servers point to can then be queried to ask who holds information about the various domain names you and I are used to typing in our address bars, such as, or for instance.

A simpler alternative

This brings me to the announcement by Cloudflare I mentioned at the beginning of this post. By now, you can probably guess what it is: they've set up a new public DNS server! Apparently, they did a deal with [APNIC]() to let them study the garbage traffic that ends up at in exchange for running a DNS server on it.

Either way, I think it's a brilliant thing for the Internet at large to have another public DNS network to choose from. Especially considering how privacy-conscious they appear to have being in setting it up: They never store client IP addresses, and they delete the anonymised logs after 24 hours. Assuming what they've said is true, I think that it's rather great. For my own personal reference, here are the IP addresses of Cloudflare's new service:

  • 2606:4700:4700::1111
  • 2606:4700:4700::1001


That brings us to the end of our journey through DNS. We've seen what DNS is and how it works. We've also seen how it can be attacked, and what is being done about it. Lastly, we've taken a look at how running your own recursive resolver works, and looked at Cloudflare's new service.

If you'd like to continue on and explore DNS further, I've left some links below.

Found this informative? Still confused about something? Comment below!

Sources and Further Reading

Deep dive: Email, Trust, DKIM, SPF, and more

Lots of parcels (Above: Lots of parcels. Hopefully you won't get this many through the door at once..... Source)

Now that I'm on holiday, I've got some time to write a few blog posts! As I've promised a few people a post on the email system, that's what I'll look at this this post. I'm going to take you on a deep dive through the email system and trust. We'll be journeying though the fields of DKIM signatures, and climb the SPF mountain. We'll also investigate why the internet needs to take this journey in the first place, and look at some of the challenges one faces when setting up their own mail server.

Hang on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen! If you get to the end, give yourself a virtual cookie :D

Before we start though, I'd like to mention that I'll be coming at this from the perspective of my own email server that I set up myself. Let me introduce to you the cast: Postfix (the SMTP MTA), Dovecot (the IMAP MDA), rspamd (the spam filter), and OpenDKIM (the thing that deals with DKIM signatures).

With that out of the way, let's begin! We'll start of our journey by mapping out the journey a typical email undertakes.

The path a typical email takes. See the explanation below.

Let's say Bob Kerman wants to send Bill an email. Here's what happens:

  1. Bill writes the email and hits send. His email client connects to his email server, logs in, and asks the server to deliver a message for him.
  2. The server takes the email and reads the From header (in this case it's, figures out where the mail server is located, connects to it, and asks it to deliver Bob's message to Bill. takes the email and files it in Bill's inbox.
  3. Bill connects to his mail server and retrieves Bob's message.

Of course, this is simplified in several places. will obviously need to do a few DNS lookups to find's mail server and fiddle with the headers of Bob's message a bit (such as adding a Received header etc.), and won't just accept the message for delivery without checking out the server it came from first. How does it check though? What's preventing pretending to be and sending an imposter?

Until relatively recently, the answer was, well, nothing really. Anyone could send an email to anyone else without having to prove that they could indeed send email in the name of a domain. Try it out for yourself by telnetting to a mail server on port 25 (unencrypted SMTP) and trying in something like this:

MAIL From: <>

Hello! This is a email to remind you.....

Oh, my! Frank at can connect to any mail server and pretend that is sending a message to! Mail servers that allow this are called open relays, and today they usually find themselves on several blacklists within minutes. Ploys like these are easy to foil, thankfully (by only accepting mail for your own domains), but it still leaves the problem of what to do about random people connecting to your mail server delivering spam to your inbox that claims to be from someone they aren't supposed to be sending mail for.

In response, some mail servers demanded things like the IP that connects to send an email must reverse to the domain name that they want to send email from. Clever, but when you remember that anyone can change their own PTR records, you realise that it's just a minor annoyance to the determined spammer, and another hurdle to the legitimate person in setting up their own mail server!

Clearly, a better solution is needed. Time to introduce our first destination: SPF. SPF stands for sender policy framework, and defines a mechanism by which a mail server can determine which IP addresses a domain allows mail to be sent from in it's name. It's a TXT record that sites at the root of a domain. It looks something like this:

v=spf1 a mx ptr ip4: ip6:2001:41d0:e:74b::1 -all

The above is my SPF TXT record for It's quite simple, really - let's break it down.


This just defines the version of the SPF standard. There's only one version so far, so we include this to state that this record is an SPF version 1 record.

a mx ptr

This says that the domain that the sender claims to be from must have an a and an mx record that matches the IP address that's sending the email. It also says that the ptr record associated with the sender's IP must resolve to the domain the sender claims to be sending from, as described above (it does help with dealing with infected machines and such).


This bit says that the IP addresses and 2001:41d0:e:74d::1 are explicitly allowed to send mail in the name of

After all of the above, this bit isn't strictly necessary, but it says that all the IP addresses found in the a records for and are allowed to send mail in the name of


Lastly, this says that if you're not on the list, then your message should be rejected! Other variants on this include ~all (which says "put it in the spam box instead"), and +all (which says "accept it anyway", though I can't see how that's useful :P).

As you can see, SPF allows a mail server to verify if a given client is indeed allowed to send an email in the name of any particular domain name. For a while, this worked a treat - until a new problem arose.

Many of the mail servers on the internet don't (and probably still don't!) support encryption when connecting to and delivering mail, as certificates were expensive and difficult to get hold of (nowadays we've got LetsEncrypt who give out certificates for free!). The encryption used when mail servers connect to one another is practically identical to that used in HTTPS - so if done correctly, the identity of the remote server can be verified and the emails exchanged encrypted, if the world's certification authorities aren't corrupted, of course.

Since most emails weren't encrypted when in transit, a new problem arose: man-in-the-middle attacks, whereby an email is altered by one or more servers in the delivery chain. Thinking about it - this could still happen today even with encryption, if any one server along an email's route is compromised. To this end, another mechanism was desperately needed - one that would allow the receiving mail server to verify that an email's content / headers hadn't been surreptitiously altered since it left the origin mail server - potentially preventing awkward misunderstandings.

Enter stage left: DKIM! DKIM stands for Domain Keys Identified Mail - which, in short, means that it provides a method by which a receiving mail server can cryptographically prove that a message hasn't been altered during transit.

It works by having a public-private keypair, in which the public key can only decrypt things, but the private key is capable of encrypting things. A hash of the email's headers / content is computed and encrypted with the private key. Then the encrypted hash is attached to the email in the DKIM-Signature header.

The receiving mail server does a DNS lookup to find the public key, and decrypts the hash. It then computes it's own hash of the email headers / content, and compares it against the decrypted hash. If it matches, then the email hasn't been fiddled with along the way!

Of course, not all the headers in the email are hashed - only a specific subset are included in the hash, since some headers (like Received and X-Spam-Result) are added and altered during transit. If you're interested in implementing DKIM yourself - DigitalOcean have a smashing tutorial on the subject, which should adapt easily to whatever system you're running yourself.

With both of those in place,'s mail server can now verify that is allowed to send the email on behalf of, and that the message content hasn't been tampered with since it left can also catch in the act of trying to deliver spam from!

There is, however, one last piece of the puzzle left to reveal. With all this in place, how do you know if your mail was actually delivered? Is it possible to roll SPF and DKIM out gradually so that you can be sure you've done it correctly? This can be a particular issue for businesses and larger email server setups.

This is where DMARC comes in. It's a standard that lets you specify an email address you'd like to receive DMARC reports at, which contain statistics as to how many messages receiving mail servers got that claimed to be from you, and what they did with them. It also lets you specify what percentage of messages should be subject to DMARC filtering, so you can roll everything out slowly. Finally, it lets you specify what should happen to messages that fail either SPF, DKIM, or both - whether they should be allowed anyway (for testing purposes), quarantined, or rejected.

DMARC policies get specified (yep, you guessed it!) in a DNS record. unlike SPF though, they go in as a TXT record, substituting for your domain name. Here's an example:

v=DMARC1; p=none;

This is just a simple example - you can get much more complex ones than this! Let's go through it step by step.


Nothing to see here - just a version number as in SPF.


This is the policy of what should happen to messages that fail. In this example we've used none, so messages that fail will still pass right on through. You can set it to quarantine or even reject as you gain confidence in your setup.

This specifies where you want DMARC reports to be sent. Each mail server that receives mail from your mail server will bundle up statistics and send them once a day to this address. The format is in XML (which won't be particularly easy to read), but there are free DMARC record parsers out there on the internet that you can use to decode the reports, like dmarcian.

That completes the puzzle. If you're still reading, then congratulations! Post in the comments and say hi :D We've climbed the SPF mountain and discovered how email servers validate who is allowed to send mail in the name of another domain. We've visited the DKIM signature fields and seen how the content of email can be checked to see if it's been altered during transit. Lastly, we took a stroll down DMARC lane to see how it's possible to be sure what other servers are doing with your mail, and how a large email server setup can implement DMARC, DKIM, and SPF more easily.

Of course, I'm not perfect - if there's something I've missed or got wrong, please let me know! I'll try to correct it as soon as possible.

Lastly, this is, as always, a starting point - not an ending point. An introduction if you will - it's up to you to research each technology more thoroughly - especially if you're thinking of implementing them yourself. I'll leave my sources at the bottom of this post if you'd like somewhere to start looking :-)

Sources and Further Reading

Art by Mythdael