Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] [dns-privacy] New: draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients

["Yishai Beeri (yishaib)" <[e-mail]>]

On 12/03/2019, 20:37, "Doh on behalf of Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 04:55:11PM +0100,
     Neil Cook <[e-mail]> wrote 
     a message of 22 lines which said:
    
    > Actually many enterprises (particularly banks etc.) do not allow DNS resolution directly from employee endpoints.
    
    They block UDP/53, which is not the same thing. Malware or
    non-cooperating applications can do name resolution by other means. I
    still do not understand why people have a problem with DoH whch did
    not already exist before with
    my-own-name-resolution-protocol-over-HTTPS.
    
It is common practice for Malware operators to use bona fide DNS infrastructure (including resolvers) to communicate with the malware application. One useful example are DGAs [1]. This practice is cheaper and more robust for Malware operators than setting up their own DNS resolver service, not to mention implementing a proprietary protocol. It also helps isolate the malware operator from the malware as these communications all happen through legit services (all the malware operator has to do to trigger the resident malware is to register a domain).

DoH, and specifically the (intended) inability to distinguish DoH from other traffic, makes this practice much harder to detect and to block - which is why this a problem that did not already exist before.

[1] https://umbrella.cisco.com/blog/2016/10/10/domain-generation-algorithms-effective/

    _______________________________________________
    Doh mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
    
Yishai