AVG can’t get DNS Setup right

It seems that antivirus company AVG can’t get their DNS Setup right.

Today I spotted the below in syslog:

DNS format error from 204.193.144.47#53 resolving crashportal.avg.com/AAAA for client 127.0.0.1#34590: Name avg.com (SOA) not subdomain of zone crashportal.avg.com -- invalid response

So the AVG updater tried to contact via IPv6, as a record type of AAAA was requested, a host called crashportal.avg.com. To do so it had to “resolve” that hostname crashportal.avg.com to an IP address in order to submit a crash dump for a recent crash of their virus scanner (very trustworthy!), and the DNS resolver failed to resolve the IP address. So why is this?

Let’s see:

# dig -t AAAA crashportal.avg.com

; <<>> DiG 9.9.5-9-Debian <<>> -t AAAA crashportal.avg.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 21322
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

Huh? We can’t resolve this because our server failed? Let’s see what’s going on…

# dig -t SOA avg.com

; <<>> DiG 9.9.5-9-Debian <<>> -t SOA avg.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 42124
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 6, ADDITIONAL: 3

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;avg.com.                       IN      SOA

;; ANSWER SECTION:
avg.com.                1160    IN      SOA     ns.grisoft.cz. domainadministration.avg.com. 2015061601 86400 3600 1209600 10800

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
avg.com.                172607  IN      NS      a11-66.akam.net.
avg.com.                172607  IN      NS      a20-66.akam.net.
avg.com.                172607  IN      NS      a13-65.akam.net.
avg.com.                172607  IN      NS      a26-67.akam.net.
avg.com.                172607  IN      NS      a1-182.akam.net.
avg.com.                172607  IN      NS      a6-67.akam.net.

Ok, so the above quoted Akamai nameservers should be able to help… Let’s see:

# dig -t AAAA crashportal.avg.com @a11-66.akam.net.

; <<>> DiG 9.9.5-9-Debian <<>> -t AAAA crashportal.avg.com @a11-66.akam.net.
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 63788
;; flags: qr rd ad; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 4
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;crashportal.avg.com.           IN      AAAA

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
crashportal.avg.com.    300     IN      NS      gtm-atl.avg.com.
crashportal.avg.com.    300     IN      NS      gtm-self.avg.com.
crashportal.avg.com.    300     IN      NS      gtm-tnt.avg.com.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
gtm-atl.avg.com.        3000    IN      A       204.193.144.47
gtm-tnt.avg.com.        3000    IN      A       173.245.115.70
gtm-self.avg.com.       3000    IN      A       212.96.161.252

So the server was not authoritative to answer the request and pointed us to a different set of servers.

Note that the IP address from my error message (204.193.144.47) belongs to one of the nameservers mentioned above!

Ok, let’s ask that server:

# dig -t AAAA crashportal.avg.com @204.193.144.47

; <<>> DiG 9.9.5-9-Debian <<>> -t AAAA crashportal.avg.com @204.193.144.47
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 47390
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;crashportal.avg.com.           IN      AAAA

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
avg.com.                60      IN      SOA     gtm-tnt.avg.com. hostmaster.gtm-tnt.avg.com. 2015052909 10800 3600 604800 60

Why does the nameserver respond with an SOA record even though it’s supposed to be authoritative and was asked for AAAA? It’s not a delegation as — and this is exactly the error message — avg.com is not a subdomain of crashportal.avg.com. Duh!

In my humble opinion it is very disappointing if an IT security company cannot even get the basics right, such as DNS.

This issue reminded me of another similar issue I observed a while ago: Avira can’t get their DNS Setup right. And guess what? This was an antivirus company, too…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *