Bind 8.4.1 patch for blocking Verisign's new wildcard DNS record

[Clayton Braun]

gnews at stereo.lu (Guillaume Rischard) wrote in message news:<bk7hdt$1m8q$1 at sf1.isc.org>...
> Hello,
> 
> Andrew Church has published an untested patch at 
> http://achurch.org/bind-verisign-patch.html . Here is what he writes:
> 
> > BIND 8 patch for Verisign stupidity
> > 
> > This page provides a patch to BIND 8 to ignore the wildcard A record
> > Verisign is now returning for unregistered .com/.net domains.  It was
> > cooked up over 10 minutes of pure anger and has not been properly
> > tested; it would be better to be able to specify which IPs to ignore in
> > the configuration file.  Suggestions or improved patches are very
> > much welcomed.  
> > 
> > This patch was made against BIND 8.4.1.
> 
> Here is the acual patch:
> 
> ---cut here---
> 
> --- src/bin/named/ns_resp.c.old	2003-05-30 20:52:14 +0900
> +++ src/bin/named/ns_resp.c	2003-09-16 12:09:30 +0900
> @@ -971,6 +971,15 @@
>  */
>  		if (i < ancount) {
>  			/* Answer section. */
> +			/* HACK to kill Verisign stupidity
> +			 *   --achurch at achurch.org */
> +			char IP_TO_KILL[] = {64,94,110,11};
> +			if (type == ns_t_a
> +			 && memcmp(dp->d_data, IP_TO_KILL, 4) == 0
> +			) {
> +				validanswer = 0;
> +				continue;
> +			}
>  			/*
>  			 * Check for attempts to overflow the buffer in
>  			 * getnameanswer.
> 
> ---cut here---
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Guillaume
> 
> "Christopher X. Candreva" <chris at westnet.com> wrote in message news:<bk5ek8$2vuh$1 at sf1.isc.org>...
> > Verisign is now returning a wildcard record for any unregistered .net
> > domain, with .com soon to follow.  This is to redirect all such requests to
> > their own search site.
> > 
> > Now, the IP they are returning currently is 64.94.110.11. It just occurred
> > to me, is it possible to configure bind such that any lookup that returns
> > that IP returns Host not found  instead ?
> > 
> > If Verisign is determined to break DNS, perhaps we can break it back ?

In a previous post (if it makes it here) I suggested another patch
that provides an NXDOMAIN response.  DO NOT USE that patch, it does
not return a properly formatted NXDOMAIN response.  I would wait for
someone to come out with a cleaner solution, and I'll be working on
one myself.