Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Major DNS Bug 23.01 with Quad9 on SSL

    General pfSense Questions
    27
    185
    149.1k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • johnpozJ
      johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @Gertjan
      last edited by

      @gertjan said in Major DNS Bug 23.01 with Quad9 on SSL:

      To (re)build a TLS connections, entropy is going through the drain fast.

      Linux for sure this can be a problem - and especially on vms, etc. But I thought bsd got their entropy in a different way? and it was unlikely for bsd to run out like linux can?

      An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
      If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
      Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
      SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.11

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • GertjanG
        Gertjan @N0m0fud
        last edited by Gertjan

        @n0m0fud

        Strange :

        ...
        dhcp lease entries
        
        include: /var/unbound/dhcpleases_entries.conf
        Domain overrides
        
        include: /var/unbound/domainoverrides.conf
        Unbound custom options
        
        server:
        tls-upstream: yes
        forward-zone:
        name: "."
        forward-ssl-upstream: yes
        forward-addr: 1.1.1.1@853
        forward-addr: 1.0.0.1@853
        #forward-addr: 2606:4700:4700::64@853
        #forward-addr: 2606:4700:4700::6400@853
        #forward-addr: 149.112.112.11@853
        #forward-addr: 9.9.9.11@853
        #forward-addr: 2620:fe::11@853
        #forward-addr: 2620:fe::fe:11@853
        #forward-addr: 52.205.50.148@853
        
        Remote Control Config
        .....
        

        When you set :
        33d830eb-62c6-44a7-96dd-81b6d45fe64f-image.png

        pfSense will add a "forward-zone" section will all the needed addresses :

        .....
        # dhcp lease entries
        include: /var/unbound/dhcpleases_entries.conf
        
        
        # Domain overrides
        include: /var/unbound/domainoverrides.conf
        # Forwarding
        forward-zone:
        	name: "."
        	forward-tls-upstream: yes
        	forward-addr: 9.9.9.9@853#dns9.quad9.net
        	forward-addr: 149.112.112.112@853#dns9.quad9.net
        	forward-addr: 2620:fe::fe@853#dns9.quad9.net
        	forward-addr: 2620:fe::9@853#dns9.quad9.net
        
        
        # Unbound custom options
        server:
         statistics-cumulative: no
        
        
        ###
        # Remote Control Config
        ###
        .....
        

        And no "forward-ssl-upstream" but "forward-tls-upstream", although both are the same.

        So you are forwarding without the GUI set to forwarding ?
        Why would you use the custom options to achieve forwarding ?
        Maybe that needed to be done in the past, but no so anymore.

        The usage of

        tls-upstream: yes
        

        is also very rare.
        Google knows about it - in just one place ( !! ): it's the unbound.conf doc :

        
               tls-upstream: <yes or no>
                      Enabled or disable whether the upstream queries use TLS only for
                      transport.   Default is no.  Useful in tunneling scenarios.  The
                      TLS contains plain DNS in TCP wireformat.  The other server must
                      support  this  (see  tls-service-key).  If you enable this, also
                      configure a tls-cert-bundle  or  use  tls-win-cert  or  tls-sys-
                      tem-cert  to  load CA certs, otherwise the connections cannot be
                      authenticated. This option enables TLS for all of them,  but  if
                      you  do not set this you can configure TLS specifically for some
                      forward  zones  with  forward-tls-upstream.    And   also   with
                      stub-tls-upstream.
        
        

        Reading this makes me thing : I would stay away from it.

        Btw : I'm forwarding to quad9 (IPv4 and IPv6) for the last week or so.
        I didn't detect no issues what so ever.
        If my unbound got restarted, like this morning, that was me doing so.

        No "help me" PM's please. Use the forum, the community will thank you.
        Edit : and where are the logs ??

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • S SteveITS referenced this topic on
        • S SteveITS referenced this topic on
        • cmcdonaldC
          cmcdonald Netgate Developer
          last edited by cmcdonald

          I am working on a build of the version of Unbound we shipped with 22.05 that will run on 23.01 (and one for 23.05). If the problem goes away with this old version of Unbound, I will start bisecting to find a root cause. I just don't want to go off in the weeds chasing ghosts.

          It would also be useful to know if this problem also manifests on 23.05.

          Standby

          Need help fast? https://www.netgate.com/support

          cmcdonaldC 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 4
          • cmcdonaldC
            cmcdonald Netgate Developer @cmcdonald
            last edited by cmcdonald

            This issue is not unique to pfSense.

            We do have a workaround:

            1. Stop the Unbound service
            2. Run elfctl -e +noaslr /usr/local/sbin/unbound
            3. Start the Unbound service

            Ref: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=270912

            Need help fast? https://www.netgate.com/support

            J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 6
            • J
              joedan @cmcdonald
              last edited by joedan

              @cmcdonald

              I am following this thread with interest, I once was plagued with this (DNS over TLS slowness, random timeouts) but no longer and its not 100% clear why, so I made the change as a precaution.

              elfctl -e +noaslr /usr/local/sbin/unbound

              elfctl /usr/local/sbin/unbound

              Shell Output - elfctl /usr/local/sbin/unbound
              File '/usr/local/sbin/unbound' features:
              noaslr 'Disable ASLR' is set.
              noprotmax 'Disable implicit PROT_MAX' is unset.
              nostackgap 'Disable stack gap' is unset.
              wxneeded 'Requires W+X mappings' is unset.
              la48 'amd64: Limit user VA to 48bit' is unset.

              This website indicates ASLR is on by default in FreeBSD14 -
              https://wiki.freebsd.org/AddressSpaceLayoutRandomization and not in 13 (or lower?) so maybe this explains why I stumbled across this after upgrading from 22.05 to 23.01?

              J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • J
                joedan @joedan
                last edited by joedan

                @joedan

                After 24 hours here are some unbound stats observed by turning off ASLR as per note above. My environment has been stable during the last 10 days; this being the only change made 24 hours ago. I WFH 8-10 hours a week and my DNS calls have been consistent over this period (running DNS over TLS to Cloudflare).

                6a611e6f-a622-4237-8ea6-0193bb3f8cd5-image.png

                10-15ms average recursion time improvement since the change

                8c1bd27c-d032-4697-bb5c-dbedbc1fda25-image.png

                DNS queries have remained fairly consistent

                d171cb89-2ab7-4c86-925e-7409c3103e04-image.png

                This observation sticks out though. I'm not technical enough to pretend what's going on here but 'TCP out' has tightened up. All other metrics measured (which are hidden) are identical.

                4f1654bd-546d-4b2f-929d-fe663bdbbec3-image.png

                Data shows a consistent new trend after disabling ASLR several days later...

                8c1dcfe1-b000-4ffe-a68f-da75daf9b92f-image.png
                2079de11-347b-4f86-822c-af2755e26a30-image.png

                J GertjanG 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • J
                  JonH @joedan
                  last edited by

                  @joedan Where do I find that graphing?

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • J
                    joedan
                    last edited by joedan

                    @jonh

                    I use Grafana / InfluxDB.
                    I'm not a linux person so use a downloaded / pre-made Home Assistant virtual machine in Windows 11 Pro (HyperV). The Grafana / Influx DB addon's were a very simple click to install and run.

                    I use the pfSense Telegraf package using custom config for Unbound stats reporting documented here..
                    https://github.com/VictorRobellini/pfSense-Dashboard

                    The Grafana dashboard is here..
                    https://grafana.com/grafana/dashboards/6128-unbound/
                    Victor doesn't appear to have one for unbound but I also use his dashboard for other stats (from his Github page).

                    I didn't have to code anything just follow the bouncing ball on various sites to set things up.

                    J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • J
                      JonH @joedan
                      last edited by

                      @joedan Thanks, I'll check it out

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • GertjanG
                        Gertjan @joedan
                        last edited by

                        @joedan said in Major DNS Bug 23.01 with Quad9 on SSL:

                        Like the subject of the thread :

                        490442f2-5e32-44dd-8063-58c7433a8a5b-image.png

                        but arguably the same issue : 1.1.1.1 or 9.9.9.9, "what is the difference ?", I'm forwarding just to test 'if it works, or not'.
                        Up until today, I didn't find any issues.

                        Note that I'm still using

                        700aaa28-6470-455b-b3c8-bb15bd5e2608-image.png

                        as I presume that error conditions would get logged, if they arrive.
                        The last log line form unbound tells me that it started a couple of day ago :

                        dc244d62-568b-4b23-9566-7a518425233b-image.png

                        I'm going to restart unbound now, and disable address space layout randomization (ALSR), although I just can't wrap my head around this workaround: why would the position in (virtual mapped) memory matter ?
                        ALSR is used in every modern OS these days.
                        It's a extra layer of obscurity without any cost or negative side effects, and, as far as I know, only makes the life of a hacker more difficult. hack entry vectors by using stack or memory (aka buffer) overruns are become much harder, as the process uses another layout in memory every time it starts.

                        Btw : this is is what I think. I admit I don't know shit about this ALSR executable option, and was aware only vaguely about the concept.

                        I also think, or thought, that a coder that makes programs doesn't need to be aware of 'where' the code, data and other segments are placed in memory. We all code relocatable for decades now without being aware of it, as the compiler and linker takes care of all these things.
                        The unbound issue was marked as as FreeBSD bug first, and they, FreeBSD, said : go ask the unbound author. See post above.
                        Disabling ASLR is just a stop-gap. (edit : if this is even related to this bug, issue ... we'll see)
                        IMHO, the real issue is somewhere between unbound and ones of it's linked libraries "libcrypto.so.111" and "libssl.so.111", as I presume that the issue arrives when forwarding over TLS is used.

                        The default unbound mode is resolving doesn't use TLS, so, for me, that explains why the resolver is working fine while resolving.

                        Anyway, not a pfSense issue, more an unbound issue or even further away, the way how all this interoperates.
                        The good news : Its still an issue for Netgate, as they are very FreeBSD aware, they will find out what the real issue is.

                        [ end of me thinking out loud ]

                        No "help me" PM's please. Use the forum, the community will thank you.
                        Edit : and where are the logs ??

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • stephenw10S
                          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                          last edited by

                          I would love to see anyone who was hitting this issue repeatedly confirm the ASLR workaround here.

                          S J RobbieTTR 4 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • S
                            SwissSteph @stephenw10
                            last edited by

                            @stephenw10
                            I'm testing right now and for the moment it's "OK" .... I just put back my DNS settings like on my 22.05 version (which was working without any problem)

                            5bd68f2f-86bd-4fa5-9835-b895cfebdfae-image.png

                            I started with two "no-name" pfsense, one for use at home and the other as a backup in case of problems (which can happen when you're new to pfsense).
                            ... And now I'm living with a Netgate 8200
                            ... And sorry for my bad English...

                            S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • S
                              SwissSteph @SwissSteph
                              last edited by

                              230b80ad-c87a-48f3-92b6-afa60040f2ed-image.png

                              I started with two "no-name" pfsense, one for use at home and the other as a backup in case of problems (which can happen when you're new to pfsense).
                              ... And now I'm living with a Netgate 8200
                              ... And sorry for my bad English...

                              GertjanG 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • GertjanG
                                Gertjan @SwissSteph
                                last edited by Gertjan

                                @swisssteph

                                Your are forwarding : ok
                                and
                                using TLS - port 853 ?

                                Right ?

                                edit :
                                I am forwarding to these two over TLS - and most (not all) traffic goes actually over 2620:fe::fe and
                                2620:fe::9, the IPv6 counterpart of 9.9.9.9 and 149.112.112.112.
                                I did not do the ASLR patch .... I'm still waiting for it to fail 😢
                                As sson as I see the fail, I'll go patch, so I'll know what I don't want to see any more.

                                No "help me" PM's please. Use the forum, the community will thank you.
                                Edit : and where are the logs ??

                                S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • S
                                  SwissSteph @Gertjan
                                  last edited by

                                  @gertjan

                                  YES

                                  704a9b91-693f-4a84-a04a-73490fcc6c39-image.png

                                  I started with two "no-name" pfsense, one for use at home and the other as a backup in case of problems (which can happen when you're new to pfsense).
                                  ... And now I'm living with a Netgate 8200
                                  ... And sorry for my bad English...

                                  GertjanG 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                  • GertjanG
                                    Gertjan @SwissSteph
                                    last edited by

                                    @swisssteph

                                    Close.
                                    You mean :

                                    cc795123-915a-45fc-abd3-fe12b38a423c-image.png

                                    The "SSL/TLS Listen Port" (your image) is the port unbound uses on the LAN side, so it listens to that port for the DNS requests emitted by the pfSense LAN clients (if you have them, Windows 10 was not capable of doing DNS over TLS, I guess Windwos 11 can do it - didn't check).

                                    No "help me" PM's please. Use the forum, the community will thank you.
                                    Edit : and where are the logs ??

                                    S N 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • S
                                      SwissSteph @Gertjan
                                      last edited by

                                      @gertjan Sorry

                                      16e4dc1b-336d-47fc-8d38-ac73fffdb0ad-image.png

                                      I started with two "no-name" pfsense, one for use at home and the other as a backup in case of problems (which can happen when you're new to pfsense).
                                      ... And now I'm living with a Netgate 8200
                                      ... And sorry for my bad English...

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • N
                                        N0m0fud @Gertjan
                                        last edited by

                                        @gertjan Windows 11 after a certain version supports DOT and DOH

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • J
                                          JonH @stephenw10
                                          last edited by

                                          @stephenw10 The long waits to resolve have plagued me since upgrade to 23.01-Release with python mode & TLS. For the past week+ I've been using unbound/53 with no problems. I updated unbound as soon as I saw Chris's post. For past 2 days I've been back on python mode/853 and it's working well for me. Currently using localhost w/ fallback to dot1 & quad9. Hope this was the 'fix'.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                          • RobbieTTR
                                            RobbieTT @stephenw10
                                            last edited by RobbieTT

                                            @stephenw10 said in Major DNS Bug 23.01 with Quad9 on SSL:

                                            I would love to see anyone who was hitting this issue repeatedly confirm the ASLR workaround here.

                                            I don't know the syntax to reverse the ASLR command - anyone?

                                            I did a crude but repeatable test - hammered a load of name servers, including my pfSense resolver which is pointing at Quad9 using DoT:

                                            Before the ASLR hack:

                                            1684002538158-2023-05-13-at-19.08.59-before.png

                                            After the ASLR hack:

                                            1684002587941-2023-05-13-at-19.16.20-after.png

                                            • Uncached minimums down from 34ms to 9ms
                                            • Uncached maximums down from 663ms to 392ms
                                            • Uncached average down from 103ms to 67ms
                                            • Uncached SD down from 159ms to 90ms

                                            What's not to like?

                                            ☕️

                                            [NB capturing the random 'pauses' and 'fail to loads' suffered (as described earlier) is much harder to represent]

                                            jimpJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.