How discoverable are IPv6 addresses and AAAA names by potential attackers? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Come Celebrate our 10 Year Anniversary!IPv6 replacement for scanning IP rangeDNS, subdomain, and IPv6 — possible to add subdomain.example.com NS record to an IPv6 host?Does Windows try to look for IPv6 AAAA records even when it does not have a routable IPv6 address?Win2k8R2 Obtaining DHCPv6 address, but has static configurationWindows 7 laptop with two active network connections will not perform DNS AAAA lookup under certain conditionsSome workstations/servers on the domain respond with IPv6 instead of IPv4 addresses, even though IPv6 is disabled across the boardHow to disable AAAA lookups?How can I identify a rogue IPv6 DHCP server on my LAN?Windows network computers not visible over pure IPv6 (When IPv4 stack disabled or no IPv4 address assigned)How to assign an IPv4 domain name to an IPv6 server behind NAT (local network)?multiple ipv6 routers on the same physical network, how to get it working?

3 doors, three guards, one stone

Is there a way in Ruby to make just any one out of many keyword arguments required?

Can a non-EU citizen traveling with me come with me through the EU passport line?

If 'B is more likely given A', then 'A is more likely given B'

When to stop saving and start investing?

How to motivate offshore teams and trust them to deliver?

What does the "x" in "x86" represent?

How can players work together to take actions that are otherwise impossible?

What's the purpose of writing one's academic bio in 3rd person?

How can I make names more distinctive without making them longer?

How to assign captions for two tables in LaTeX?

macOS-like app switching in Plasma 5

Is above average number of years spent on PhD considered a red flag in future academia or industry positions?

What LEGO pieces have "real-world" functionality?

WAN encapsulation

What causes the vertical darker bands in my photo?

How can I fade player when goes inside or outside of the area?

What are the motives behind Cersei's orders given to Bronn?

How to draw this diagram using TikZ package?

Why did the IBM 650 use bi-quinary?

Single word antonym of "flightless"

How to deal with a team lead who never gives me credit?

Why are there no cargo aircraft with "flying wing" design?

What would be Julian Assange's expected punishment, on the current English criminal law?



How discoverable are IPv6 addresses and AAAA names by potential attackers?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
Come Celebrate our 10 Year Anniversary!IPv6 replacement for scanning IP rangeDNS, subdomain, and IPv6 — possible to add subdomain.example.com NS record to an IPv6 host?Does Windows try to look for IPv6 AAAA records even when it does not have a routable IPv6 address?Win2k8R2 Obtaining DHCPv6 address, but has static configurationWindows 7 laptop with two active network connections will not perform DNS AAAA lookup under certain conditionsSome workstations/servers on the domain respond with IPv6 instead of IPv4 addresses, even though IPv6 is disabled across the boardHow to disable AAAA lookups?How can I identify a rogue IPv6 DHCP server on my LAN?Windows network computers not visible over pure IPv6 (When IPv4 stack disabled or no IPv4 address assigned)How to assign an IPv4 domain name to an IPv6 server behind NAT (local network)?multiple ipv6 routers on the same physical network, how to get it working?



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








11















It is fairly standard to receive a significant number of minor hacking attempts each day trying common username / passwords for services like SSH and SMTP. I've always assumed these attempts are using the "small" address space of IPv4 to guess IP addresses. I notice that I get zero hacking attempts on IPv6 despite my domain having AAAA Name records mirroring every A Name record and all IPv4 services are also open to IPv6.



Assuming a public DNS (AWS route 53) with an obscure subdomain pointing to a reasonably randomised 64 suffix; Are IPv6 addresses and / subdomains remotely discoverable without trying every address in a 64 bit prefix or every subdomain in a very long list of common names?



I am of course aware that crawling the web looking for listed (sub)domain names is simple enough. I'm also aware that machines on the same subnet can use NDP. I'm more interested in whether DNS or the underlying protocols of IPv6 allow discovery / listing unknown domains and addresses by remote.










share|improve this question






















  • Related: IPv6 replacement for scanning IP range

    – Michael Hampton
    9 hours ago

















11















It is fairly standard to receive a significant number of minor hacking attempts each day trying common username / passwords for services like SSH and SMTP. I've always assumed these attempts are using the "small" address space of IPv4 to guess IP addresses. I notice that I get zero hacking attempts on IPv6 despite my domain having AAAA Name records mirroring every A Name record and all IPv4 services are also open to IPv6.



Assuming a public DNS (AWS route 53) with an obscure subdomain pointing to a reasonably randomised 64 suffix; Are IPv6 addresses and / subdomains remotely discoverable without trying every address in a 64 bit prefix or every subdomain in a very long list of common names?



I am of course aware that crawling the web looking for listed (sub)domain names is simple enough. I'm also aware that machines on the same subnet can use NDP. I'm more interested in whether DNS or the underlying protocols of IPv6 allow discovery / listing unknown domains and addresses by remote.










share|improve this question






















  • Related: IPv6 replacement for scanning IP range

    – Michael Hampton
    9 hours ago













11












11








11








It is fairly standard to receive a significant number of minor hacking attempts each day trying common username / passwords for services like SSH and SMTP. I've always assumed these attempts are using the "small" address space of IPv4 to guess IP addresses. I notice that I get zero hacking attempts on IPv6 despite my domain having AAAA Name records mirroring every A Name record and all IPv4 services are also open to IPv6.



Assuming a public DNS (AWS route 53) with an obscure subdomain pointing to a reasonably randomised 64 suffix; Are IPv6 addresses and / subdomains remotely discoverable without trying every address in a 64 bit prefix or every subdomain in a very long list of common names?



I am of course aware that crawling the web looking for listed (sub)domain names is simple enough. I'm also aware that machines on the same subnet can use NDP. I'm more interested in whether DNS or the underlying protocols of IPv6 allow discovery / listing unknown domains and addresses by remote.










share|improve this question














It is fairly standard to receive a significant number of minor hacking attempts each day trying common username / passwords for services like SSH and SMTP. I've always assumed these attempts are using the "small" address space of IPv4 to guess IP addresses. I notice that I get zero hacking attempts on IPv6 despite my domain having AAAA Name records mirroring every A Name record and all IPv4 services are also open to IPv6.



Assuming a public DNS (AWS route 53) with an obscure subdomain pointing to a reasonably randomised 64 suffix; Are IPv6 addresses and / subdomains remotely discoverable without trying every address in a 64 bit prefix or every subdomain in a very long list of common names?



I am of course aware that crawling the web looking for listed (sub)domain names is simple enough. I'm also aware that machines on the same subnet can use NDP. I'm more interested in whether DNS or the underlying protocols of IPv6 allow discovery / listing unknown domains and addresses by remote.







domain-name-system ipv6 autodiscovery discovery






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 12 hours ago









Philip CoulingPhilip Couling

964922




964922












  • Related: IPv6 replacement for scanning IP range

    – Michael Hampton
    9 hours ago

















  • Related: IPv6 replacement for scanning IP range

    – Michael Hampton
    9 hours ago
















Related: IPv6 replacement for scanning IP range

– Michael Hampton
9 hours ago





Related: IPv6 replacement for scanning IP range

– Michael Hampton
9 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















13














Malicious bots don't guess IPv4 addresses anymore. They simply try them all. On modern systems this can take as little as a few hours.



With IPv6, this is not really possible any longer, as you've surmised. The address space is so much larger that it's not even possible to brute-force scan a single /64 subnet within a human lifetime.



Bots will have to get more creative if they are to continue blind scanning on IPv6 as on IPv4, and malicious bot operators will have to get accustomed to waiting far longer between finding any machines, let alone vulnerable ones.



Fortunately for the bad guys and unfortunately for everyone else, IPv6 adoption has gone much more slowly than it really should have. IPv6 is 23 years old but has only seen significant adoption in the last five years or so. But everyone is keeping their IPv4 networks active, and extremely few hosts are IPv6-only, so malicious bot operators have had little incentive to make the switch. They probably won't do until there is a significant abandonment of IPv4, which probably won't happen in the next five years.



I expect that blind guessing probably won't be productive for malicious bots, when they finally do move to IPv6, so they'll have to move to other means, like brute-forcing DNS names, or targeted brute-forcing of small subsets of each subnet.



For instance, a common DHCPv6 server configuration gives out addresses in ::100 through ::1ff by default. That's just 256 addresses to try, out of a whole /64. Reconfiguring the DHCPv6 server to pick addresses from a much larger range mitigates this problem.



And using modified EUI-64 addresses for SLAAC reduces the search space to 2^24 multiplied by the number of assigned OUIs. While this is over 100 billion addresses, it's far less than 2^64. Random bots won't bother to search this space, but state-level malicious actors will, for targeted attacks, especially if they can make educated guesses as to which NICs might be in use, to reduce the search space further. Using RFC 7217 stable privacy addresses for SLAAC is easy (at least on modern operating systems that support it) and mitigates this risk.






share|improve this answer






























    1














    Regarding AAAA records:



    DNS is traditionally unencrypted. While there is a family of standards (DNSSEC) for signing DNS, the encryption of DNS records has had a far more haphazard deployment process, and so it is generally safest to assume that any MitM can read all of your DNS queries unless you have gone out of your way to configure encrypted DNS explicitly on the client side. You would know if you had done so because it's quite an ordeal.



    (Also, your web browser is probably sending unencrypted SNI in the TLS handshake, after it has resolved the domain. It is not obvious how you would go about plugging this hole, since a VPN or Tor can still be MitM'd between the exit node or VPN termination point and the remote server.)



    However, MitM attacks may or may not be a problem, depending on your threat model. More important is the simple fact that DNS names are intended to be public information. Lots of people (search engines, DNS registrars, etc.) collect and publicize DNS names for entirely benign reasons. DNS resolvers typically apply rate limits, but these limits are usually quite generous, because they're meant to stop DoS attacks, not subdomain enumeration. Creating an HTTPS certificate often involves publishing the domain name for all to see, depending on the CA (Let's Encrypt does it, and so do many others). In practice, it is quite impossible to keep a domain or subdomain a secret, because just about everyone assumes they are public and makes no effort to hide them.



    So, to answer this question:




    I'm more interested in whether DNS or the underlying protocols of IPv6 allow discovery / listing unknown domains and addresses by remote.




    Technically, no, it doesn't. But that does not matter because an enormous amount of higher-layer technology just assumes your DNS records are public, so public they will inevitably be.






    share|improve this answer























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "2"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f963115%2fhow-discoverable-are-ipv6-addresses-and-aaaa-names-by-potential-attackers%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      13














      Malicious bots don't guess IPv4 addresses anymore. They simply try them all. On modern systems this can take as little as a few hours.



      With IPv6, this is not really possible any longer, as you've surmised. The address space is so much larger that it's not even possible to brute-force scan a single /64 subnet within a human lifetime.



      Bots will have to get more creative if they are to continue blind scanning on IPv6 as on IPv4, and malicious bot operators will have to get accustomed to waiting far longer between finding any machines, let alone vulnerable ones.



      Fortunately for the bad guys and unfortunately for everyone else, IPv6 adoption has gone much more slowly than it really should have. IPv6 is 23 years old but has only seen significant adoption in the last five years or so. But everyone is keeping their IPv4 networks active, and extremely few hosts are IPv6-only, so malicious bot operators have had little incentive to make the switch. They probably won't do until there is a significant abandonment of IPv4, which probably won't happen in the next five years.



      I expect that blind guessing probably won't be productive for malicious bots, when they finally do move to IPv6, so they'll have to move to other means, like brute-forcing DNS names, or targeted brute-forcing of small subsets of each subnet.



      For instance, a common DHCPv6 server configuration gives out addresses in ::100 through ::1ff by default. That's just 256 addresses to try, out of a whole /64. Reconfiguring the DHCPv6 server to pick addresses from a much larger range mitigates this problem.



      And using modified EUI-64 addresses for SLAAC reduces the search space to 2^24 multiplied by the number of assigned OUIs. While this is over 100 billion addresses, it's far less than 2^64. Random bots won't bother to search this space, but state-level malicious actors will, for targeted attacks, especially if they can make educated guesses as to which NICs might be in use, to reduce the search space further. Using RFC 7217 stable privacy addresses for SLAAC is easy (at least on modern operating systems that support it) and mitigates this risk.






      share|improve this answer



























        13














        Malicious bots don't guess IPv4 addresses anymore. They simply try them all. On modern systems this can take as little as a few hours.



        With IPv6, this is not really possible any longer, as you've surmised. The address space is so much larger that it's not even possible to brute-force scan a single /64 subnet within a human lifetime.



        Bots will have to get more creative if they are to continue blind scanning on IPv6 as on IPv4, and malicious bot operators will have to get accustomed to waiting far longer between finding any machines, let alone vulnerable ones.



        Fortunately for the bad guys and unfortunately for everyone else, IPv6 adoption has gone much more slowly than it really should have. IPv6 is 23 years old but has only seen significant adoption in the last five years or so. But everyone is keeping their IPv4 networks active, and extremely few hosts are IPv6-only, so malicious bot operators have had little incentive to make the switch. They probably won't do until there is a significant abandonment of IPv4, which probably won't happen in the next five years.



        I expect that blind guessing probably won't be productive for malicious bots, when they finally do move to IPv6, so they'll have to move to other means, like brute-forcing DNS names, or targeted brute-forcing of small subsets of each subnet.



        For instance, a common DHCPv6 server configuration gives out addresses in ::100 through ::1ff by default. That's just 256 addresses to try, out of a whole /64. Reconfiguring the DHCPv6 server to pick addresses from a much larger range mitigates this problem.



        And using modified EUI-64 addresses for SLAAC reduces the search space to 2^24 multiplied by the number of assigned OUIs. While this is over 100 billion addresses, it's far less than 2^64. Random bots won't bother to search this space, but state-level malicious actors will, for targeted attacks, especially if they can make educated guesses as to which NICs might be in use, to reduce the search space further. Using RFC 7217 stable privacy addresses for SLAAC is easy (at least on modern operating systems that support it) and mitigates this risk.






        share|improve this answer

























          13












          13








          13







          Malicious bots don't guess IPv4 addresses anymore. They simply try them all. On modern systems this can take as little as a few hours.



          With IPv6, this is not really possible any longer, as you've surmised. The address space is so much larger that it's not even possible to brute-force scan a single /64 subnet within a human lifetime.



          Bots will have to get more creative if they are to continue blind scanning on IPv6 as on IPv4, and malicious bot operators will have to get accustomed to waiting far longer between finding any machines, let alone vulnerable ones.



          Fortunately for the bad guys and unfortunately for everyone else, IPv6 adoption has gone much more slowly than it really should have. IPv6 is 23 years old but has only seen significant adoption in the last five years or so. But everyone is keeping their IPv4 networks active, and extremely few hosts are IPv6-only, so malicious bot operators have had little incentive to make the switch. They probably won't do until there is a significant abandonment of IPv4, which probably won't happen in the next five years.



          I expect that blind guessing probably won't be productive for malicious bots, when they finally do move to IPv6, so they'll have to move to other means, like brute-forcing DNS names, or targeted brute-forcing of small subsets of each subnet.



          For instance, a common DHCPv6 server configuration gives out addresses in ::100 through ::1ff by default. That's just 256 addresses to try, out of a whole /64. Reconfiguring the DHCPv6 server to pick addresses from a much larger range mitigates this problem.



          And using modified EUI-64 addresses for SLAAC reduces the search space to 2^24 multiplied by the number of assigned OUIs. While this is over 100 billion addresses, it's far less than 2^64. Random bots won't bother to search this space, but state-level malicious actors will, for targeted attacks, especially if they can make educated guesses as to which NICs might be in use, to reduce the search space further. Using RFC 7217 stable privacy addresses for SLAAC is easy (at least on modern operating systems that support it) and mitigates this risk.






          share|improve this answer













          Malicious bots don't guess IPv4 addresses anymore. They simply try them all. On modern systems this can take as little as a few hours.



          With IPv6, this is not really possible any longer, as you've surmised. The address space is so much larger that it's not even possible to brute-force scan a single /64 subnet within a human lifetime.



          Bots will have to get more creative if they are to continue blind scanning on IPv6 as on IPv4, and malicious bot operators will have to get accustomed to waiting far longer between finding any machines, let alone vulnerable ones.



          Fortunately for the bad guys and unfortunately for everyone else, IPv6 adoption has gone much more slowly than it really should have. IPv6 is 23 years old but has only seen significant adoption in the last five years or so. But everyone is keeping their IPv4 networks active, and extremely few hosts are IPv6-only, so malicious bot operators have had little incentive to make the switch. They probably won't do until there is a significant abandonment of IPv4, which probably won't happen in the next five years.



          I expect that blind guessing probably won't be productive for malicious bots, when they finally do move to IPv6, so they'll have to move to other means, like brute-forcing DNS names, or targeted brute-forcing of small subsets of each subnet.



          For instance, a common DHCPv6 server configuration gives out addresses in ::100 through ::1ff by default. That's just 256 addresses to try, out of a whole /64. Reconfiguring the DHCPv6 server to pick addresses from a much larger range mitigates this problem.



          And using modified EUI-64 addresses for SLAAC reduces the search space to 2^24 multiplied by the number of assigned OUIs. While this is over 100 billion addresses, it's far less than 2^64. Random bots won't bother to search this space, but state-level malicious actors will, for targeted attacks, especially if they can make educated guesses as to which NICs might be in use, to reduce the search space further. Using RFC 7217 stable privacy addresses for SLAAC is easy (at least on modern operating systems that support it) and mitigates this risk.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 6 hours ago









          Michael HamptonMichael Hampton

          175k27320649




          175k27320649























              1














              Regarding AAAA records:



              DNS is traditionally unencrypted. While there is a family of standards (DNSSEC) for signing DNS, the encryption of DNS records has had a far more haphazard deployment process, and so it is generally safest to assume that any MitM can read all of your DNS queries unless you have gone out of your way to configure encrypted DNS explicitly on the client side. You would know if you had done so because it's quite an ordeal.



              (Also, your web browser is probably sending unencrypted SNI in the TLS handshake, after it has resolved the domain. It is not obvious how you would go about plugging this hole, since a VPN or Tor can still be MitM'd between the exit node or VPN termination point and the remote server.)



              However, MitM attacks may or may not be a problem, depending on your threat model. More important is the simple fact that DNS names are intended to be public information. Lots of people (search engines, DNS registrars, etc.) collect and publicize DNS names for entirely benign reasons. DNS resolvers typically apply rate limits, but these limits are usually quite generous, because they're meant to stop DoS attacks, not subdomain enumeration. Creating an HTTPS certificate often involves publishing the domain name for all to see, depending on the CA (Let's Encrypt does it, and so do many others). In practice, it is quite impossible to keep a domain or subdomain a secret, because just about everyone assumes they are public and makes no effort to hide them.



              So, to answer this question:




              I'm more interested in whether DNS or the underlying protocols of IPv6 allow discovery / listing unknown domains and addresses by remote.




              Technically, no, it doesn't. But that does not matter because an enormous amount of higher-layer technology just assumes your DNS records are public, so public they will inevitably be.






              share|improve this answer



























                1














                Regarding AAAA records:



                DNS is traditionally unencrypted. While there is a family of standards (DNSSEC) for signing DNS, the encryption of DNS records has had a far more haphazard deployment process, and so it is generally safest to assume that any MitM can read all of your DNS queries unless you have gone out of your way to configure encrypted DNS explicitly on the client side. You would know if you had done so because it's quite an ordeal.



                (Also, your web browser is probably sending unencrypted SNI in the TLS handshake, after it has resolved the domain. It is not obvious how you would go about plugging this hole, since a VPN or Tor can still be MitM'd between the exit node or VPN termination point and the remote server.)



                However, MitM attacks may or may not be a problem, depending on your threat model. More important is the simple fact that DNS names are intended to be public information. Lots of people (search engines, DNS registrars, etc.) collect and publicize DNS names for entirely benign reasons. DNS resolvers typically apply rate limits, but these limits are usually quite generous, because they're meant to stop DoS attacks, not subdomain enumeration. Creating an HTTPS certificate often involves publishing the domain name for all to see, depending on the CA (Let's Encrypt does it, and so do many others). In practice, it is quite impossible to keep a domain or subdomain a secret, because just about everyone assumes they are public and makes no effort to hide them.



                So, to answer this question:




                I'm more interested in whether DNS or the underlying protocols of IPv6 allow discovery / listing unknown domains and addresses by remote.




                Technically, no, it doesn't. But that does not matter because an enormous amount of higher-layer technology just assumes your DNS records are public, so public they will inevitably be.






                share|improve this answer

























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  Regarding AAAA records:



                  DNS is traditionally unencrypted. While there is a family of standards (DNSSEC) for signing DNS, the encryption of DNS records has had a far more haphazard deployment process, and so it is generally safest to assume that any MitM can read all of your DNS queries unless you have gone out of your way to configure encrypted DNS explicitly on the client side. You would know if you had done so because it's quite an ordeal.



                  (Also, your web browser is probably sending unencrypted SNI in the TLS handshake, after it has resolved the domain. It is not obvious how you would go about plugging this hole, since a VPN or Tor can still be MitM'd between the exit node or VPN termination point and the remote server.)



                  However, MitM attacks may or may not be a problem, depending on your threat model. More important is the simple fact that DNS names are intended to be public information. Lots of people (search engines, DNS registrars, etc.) collect and publicize DNS names for entirely benign reasons. DNS resolvers typically apply rate limits, but these limits are usually quite generous, because they're meant to stop DoS attacks, not subdomain enumeration. Creating an HTTPS certificate often involves publishing the domain name for all to see, depending on the CA (Let's Encrypt does it, and so do many others). In practice, it is quite impossible to keep a domain or subdomain a secret, because just about everyone assumes they are public and makes no effort to hide them.



                  So, to answer this question:




                  I'm more interested in whether DNS or the underlying protocols of IPv6 allow discovery / listing unknown domains and addresses by remote.




                  Technically, no, it doesn't. But that does not matter because an enormous amount of higher-layer technology just assumes your DNS records are public, so public they will inevitably be.






                  share|improve this answer













                  Regarding AAAA records:



                  DNS is traditionally unencrypted. While there is a family of standards (DNSSEC) for signing DNS, the encryption of DNS records has had a far more haphazard deployment process, and so it is generally safest to assume that any MitM can read all of your DNS queries unless you have gone out of your way to configure encrypted DNS explicitly on the client side. You would know if you had done so because it's quite an ordeal.



                  (Also, your web browser is probably sending unencrypted SNI in the TLS handshake, after it has resolved the domain. It is not obvious how you would go about plugging this hole, since a VPN or Tor can still be MitM'd between the exit node or VPN termination point and the remote server.)



                  However, MitM attacks may or may not be a problem, depending on your threat model. More important is the simple fact that DNS names are intended to be public information. Lots of people (search engines, DNS registrars, etc.) collect and publicize DNS names for entirely benign reasons. DNS resolvers typically apply rate limits, but these limits are usually quite generous, because they're meant to stop DoS attacks, not subdomain enumeration. Creating an HTTPS certificate often involves publishing the domain name for all to see, depending on the CA (Let's Encrypt does it, and so do many others). In practice, it is quite impossible to keep a domain or subdomain a secret, because just about everyone assumes they are public and makes no effort to hide them.



                  So, to answer this question:




                  I'm more interested in whether DNS or the underlying protocols of IPv6 allow discovery / listing unknown domains and addresses by remote.




                  Technically, no, it doesn't. But that does not matter because an enormous amount of higher-layer technology just assumes your DNS records are public, so public they will inevitably be.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 5 hours ago









                  KevinKevin

                  1318




                  1318



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f963115%2fhow-discoverable-are-ipv6-addresses-and-aaaa-names-by-potential-attackers%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Reverse int within the 32-bit signed integer range: [−2^31, 2^31 − 1]Combining two 32-bit integers into one 64-bit integerDetermine if an int is within rangeLossy packing 32 bit integer to 16 bitComputing the square root of a 64-bit integerKeeping integer addition within boundsSafe multiplication of two 64-bit signed integersLeetcode 10: Regular Expression MatchingSigned integer-to-ascii x86_64 assembler macroReverse the digits of an Integer“Add two numbers given in reverse order from a linked list”

                      Category:Fedor von Bock Media in category "Fedor von Bock"Navigation menuUpload mediaISNI: 0000 0000 5511 3417VIAF ID: 24712551GND ID: 119294796Library of Congress authority ID: n96068363BnF ID: 12534305fSUDOC authorities ID: 034604189Open Library ID: OL338253ANKCR AUT ID: jn19990000869National Library of Israel ID: 000514068National Thesaurus for Author Names ID: 341574317ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

                      Kiel Indholdsfortegnelse Historie | Transport og færgeforbindelser | Sejlsport og anden sport | Kultur | Kendte personer fra Kiel | Noter | Litteratur | Eksterne henvisninger | Navigationsmenuwww.kiel.de54°19′31″N 10°8′26″Ø / 54.32528°N 10.14056°Ø / 54.32528; 10.14056Oberbürgermeister Dr. Ulf Kämpferwww.statistik-nord.deDen danske Stats StatistikKiels hjemmesiderrrWorldCat312794080n790547494030481-4