

Scanning Alexa's Top 1M for AXFR - internetwache
https://en.internetwache.org/scanning-alexas-top-1m-for-axfr-29-03-2015/

======
SwellJoe
They don't actually explain how to disable AXFR...saying just: "The easiest
way to fix this issue is to re-check your dns server’s configuration file. 
Make sure that the nameservers only allow AXFR to subsidiary nameservers and
that these aren’t allowed to answer AXFR requests." 

In BIND, this is configured by the allow-transfer option.  You can explicitly
allow your slaves with an option like:

    
    
        allow-transfer { 192.168.1.1; };
    

Or, disable all transfers by specifying "none;".  This can be done on a per-
zone basis, as well, though the global section will apply in the absence of
zone-specific configuration, which I suspect is how so many servers are
misconfigured (i.e. there is no rule in place to block it in the global
section, so it is allowing all for zones that don't have an allow-transfer
section).  I just noticed that some of my zones on slave servers fall prey to
this, as well, even though I know better.  The default seems to be to allow
all, if allow-query allows all. 

That said, I'm not overly alarmed.  Very little (roughly zero) sensitive data
exists in my world-facing zones. 

~~~
internetwache
Hi, thanks for the feedback! 

We thought about putting some "example fixes/configurations" into the
blogpost, but then abandoned the idea, because there are a lot of different
DNS servers out there. 

Only covering a few didn't seem useful to us. 

So thank you for giving an example configuration for BIND :)

~~~
SwellJoe
Haha...you know enough to know that BIND has tremendous market share.  It _may_
not be the best name server, but it's _definitely_ the most popular.  Why not
help 65%+ of name server administrators with specific advice? 

~~~
internetwache
Yeah, you're right.  We've updated the blogpost. 

Thanks! 

------
brohee
The article author seems to ignore the existence of views.  If you have
confidential data query-able from the outside, it's a much bigger issue than
wide open AXFR... Restricting AXFR is more cute than efficient, the
information still leave your network unencrypted. 

[http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-unix-bind9-named-
configur...](http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-unix-bind9-named-configure-
views/)

~~~
internetwache
Hi,

that's another good point! 

Thanks for bringing it up.