Barclays bank domain unresolvable only on some servers

[Sebastian Arcus]

I have discovered Friday that the following domain used by Barclays bank
in UK doesn't resolve properly - but only on some of my servers running
Bind:

federate-secure.glbaa.barclays.com

It works on a server with v9.12.3, but it fails on a server with v9.11.0
and another one with v9.14.2. However, I don't think that the Bind
version has anything to do with it. All servers are recursive servers.

It also resolves fine if I point to Google dns servers.

I've ran tests on the domain above using the MX Toolbox dns checker
(mxtoolbox.com), and it fails with the following errors:

3 ns22.barclays.net 157.83.102.246 TIMED-OUT 518 ms , rcode=NO_DATA
3 ns21.barclays.com 157.83.102.245 TIMED-OUT 509 ms , rcode=NO_DATA
3 ns23.barclays.com 157.83.126.245 TIMED-OUT 504 ms , rcode=NO_DATA
3 ns24.barclays.net 157.83.126.246 TIMED-OUT 517 ms , rcode=NO_DATA

I've had to temporarily disable and bypass the local Bind instance on
this server and point to Google dns, as users couldn't use online
banking from Barclays because of the issue above.

Does anybody have any idea why would it work on some servers and with
Google dns, but not on other servers with Bind? Also, would someone mind
trying to resolve the above domain at their end and see if they get the
same errors please.

Any suggestions appreciated. Thank you.

[Simon Forster]

A very quick check from an iPad showed the host resolving fine from a couple of different recursives. The local one:

Shared from ISC Dig for iOS
; <<>> DiG 9.13.3 <<>> @192.168.0.10 +dnssec +noqr +multiline federate-secure.glbaa.barclays.com
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 11792
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 9, ADDITIONAL: 12

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;federate-secure.glbaa.barclays.com. IN A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
federate-secure.glbaa.barclays.com. 30 IN A 157.83.96.50

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
barclays.com. 440 IN NS ns2.barcap.com.
barclays.com. 440 IN NS a1-71.akam.net.
barclays.com. 440 IN NS a18-65.akam.net.
barclays.com. 440 IN NS ns3.barcap.com.
barclays.com. 440 IN NS a10-66.akam.net.
barclays.com. 440 IN NS a9-66.akam.net.
barclays.com. 440 IN NS ns7.barcap.com.
barclays.com. 440 IN NS a11-67.akam.net.
barclays.com. 440 IN NS a12-64.akam.net.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns2.barcap.com. 300 IN A 141.228.196.129
ns3.barcap.com. 282 IN A 146.127.235.2
ns7.barcap.com. 300 IN A 141.228.129.129
a1-71.akam.net. 440 IN A 193.108.91.71
a1-71.akam.net. 440 IN AAAA 2600:1401:2::47
a9-66.akam.net. 440 IN A 184.85.248.66
a9-66.akam.net. 440 IN AAAA 2a02:26f0:117::42
a10-66.akam.net. 440 IN A 96.7.50.66
a11-67.akam.net. 440 IN A 84.53.139.67
a12-64.akam.net. 440 IN A 184.26.160.64
a18-65.akam.net. 440 IN A 95.101.36.65

;; Query time: 21 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.0.10#53(192.168.0.10)
;; WHEN: Sun Jun 16 09:51:44 BST 2019
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 472

I guess proper troubleshooting would involve checking what each of the authoriatatives say. But it’s Sunday and the dogs need a walk.

:-)

Simon

> _______________________________________________
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list
>
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-...@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

[Sebastian Arcus]

Thank you for taking the time to look into it. It is possible that I
don't understand the DNS protocol sufficiently, but shouldn't every
subdomain level return a valid NS record?

dig @8.8.8.8 in NS glbaa.barclays.com

; <<>> DiG 9.11.2 <<>> @8.8.8.8 in NS glbaa.barclays.com
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 10986
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 512
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;glbaa.barclays.com. IN NS

;; Query time: 26 msec
;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8)
;; WHEN: Sun Jun 16 11:19:30 BST 2019
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 47


And yet Google's DNS does manage to solve the full
federate-secure.glbaa.barclays.com somehow

Is something amiss in the Barclays DNS config, and somehow Google
servers manage to cope with it?

[Mark Andrews]

The servers for this zone are broken, they do not respond to queries with DNS
COOKIE options present. You can add server options to named.conf to work around
this while Barclays fix their servers / firewalls. Modern recursive servers are
no longer working around broken servers that do not respond to queries. See
DNS flag day. It looks like Barclays ignored the messages.

e.g. server 157.83.102.245 { send-cookie false; };

% dig federate-secure.glbaa.barclays.com @ns21.barclays.com +nocookie

; <<>> DiG 9.15.0 <<>> federate-secure.glbaa.barclays.com @ns21.barclays.com +nocookie

;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:

;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 47102
;; flags: qr aa rd ad; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;federate-secure.glbaa.barclays.com. IN A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
federate-secure.glbaa.barclays.com. 30 IN A 157.83.96.50

;; Query time: 491 msec
;; SERVER: 157.83.102.245#53()
;; WHEN: Sun Jun 16 21:03:48 AEST 2019
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 79

% dig federate-secure.glbaa.barclays.com @ns21.barclays.com

; <<>> DiG 9.15.0 <<>> federate-secure.glbaa.barclays.com @ns21.barclays.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
%

> On 16 Jun 2019, at 6:43 pm, Sebastian Arcus <s.a...@open-t.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I have discovered Friday that the following domain used by Barclays bank in UK doesn't resolve properly - but only on some of my servers running Bind:
>
> federate-secure.glbaa.barclays.com
>
> It works on a server with v9.12.3, but it fails on a server with v9.11.0 and another one with v9.14.2. However, I don't think that the Bind version has anything to do with it. All servers are recursive servers.
>
> It also resolves fine if I point to Google dns servers.
>
> I've ran tests on the domain above using the MX Toolbox dns checker (mxtoolbox.com), and it fails with the following errors:
>
> 3 ns22.barclays.net 157.83.102.246 TIMED-OUT 518 ms , rcode=NO_DATA
> 3 ns21.barclays.com 157.83.102.245 TIMED-OUT 509 ms , rcode=NO_DATA
> 3 ns23.barclays.com 157.83.126.245 TIMED-OUT 504 ms , rcode=NO_DATA
> 3 ns24.barclays.net 157.83.126.246 TIMED-OUT 517 ms , rcode=NO_DATA
>
> I've had to temporarily disable and bypass the local Bind instance on this server and point to Google dns, as users couldn't use online banking from Barclays because of the issue above.
>
> Does anybody have any idea why would it work on some servers and with Google dns, but not on other servers with Bind? Also, would someone mind trying to resolve the above domain at their end and see if they get the same errors please.
>
> Any suggestions appreciated. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list
>
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-...@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

[G.W. Haywood]

Hi there,

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019, Mark Andrews wrote:

> The servers for this zone are broken, they do not respond to queries with DNS
> COOKIE options present. You can add server options to named.conf to work around
> this while Barclays fix their servers / firewalls. Modern recursive servers are
> no longer working around broken servers that do not respond to queries. See
> DNS flag day. It looks like Barclays ignored the messages.

They have some history of ignoring messages:

$ whois barclays.com | grep DNSSEC
DNSSEC: unsigned

--

73,
Ged.

[Sebastian Arcus]

On 16/06/19 12:37, Mark Andrews wrote:
> The servers for this zone are broken, they do not respond to queries with DNS
> COOKIE options present. You can add server options to named.conf to work around
> this while Barclays fix their servers / firewalls. Modern recursive servers are
> no longer working around broken servers that do not respond to queries. See
> DNS flag day. It looks like Barclays ignored the messages.
>

> e.g. server 157.83.102.245 { send-cookie false; };

Thank you for that - that is very helpful. Is there a named.conf option
to leave the cookie support turned on, but for Bind to retry a query
without cookies if it fails with cookies attached?

[Mark Andrews]

No. Treating no response as anything other than packet loss leads to lookups failing when it is packet loss.

Mark

--
Mark Andrews

[Sebastian Arcus]

On 16/06/19 14:31, Mark Andrews wrote:
> No. Treating no response as anything other than packet loss leads to lookups failing when it is packet loss.

That makes sense - thank you

>>>> Please visithttps://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

>>>>
>>>> bind-users mailing list
>>>> bind-...@lists.isc.org
>>>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>> _______________________________________________

>> Please visithttps://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

>>
>> bind-users mailing list
>> bind-...@lists.isc.org
>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
> _______________________________________________

> Please visithttps://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

[Paul Kosinski]

A *bank* not using DNSSEC?? Glad I don't have any money there.

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 14:00:36 +0100 (BST)
"G.W. Haywood via bind-users" <bind-...@lists.isc.org> wrote:

> Hi there,
>

> On Sun, 16 Jun 2019, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > The servers for this zone are broken, they do not respond to
> > queries with DNS COOKIE options present. You can add server
> > options to named.conf to work around this while Barclays fix their
> > servers / firewalls. Modern recursive servers are no longer
> > working around broken servers that do not respond to queries. See
> > DNS flag day. It looks like Barclays ignored the messages.
>

[John Levine]

In article <mailman.762.156069...@lists.isc.org> you write:
>A *bank* not using DNSSEC?? Glad I don't have any money there.

Sure they do.

>> They have some history of ignoring messages:
>>
>> $ whois barclays.com | grep DNSSEC
>> DNSSEC: unsigned

That domain is so 20th century.

They have their own vanity domain which is quite definitely signed:

$ whois home.barclays | grep DNSSEC
DNSSEC: signedDelegation