Hopefully this is not an off-topic posting. I've scanned a variety of groups looking to see if anyone else has encountered a similar problem, to no avail, and I simply thought this might be the most appropriate place to post an inquiry.
I'm not a service provider, simply a small business operator with a few servers, providing business clients with mostly standard web and email type services. A couple of nights ago my systems started experiencing a sharp increase in DNS traffic generating a new flavor of error messages. I'd like to know if anyone else out there noticed similar DNS errors in the past couple of days.
The barrage first hit at roughly 9:15pm (Mountain Std Time) on June 28th and lasted only a few minutes. It repeated again at 9:25pm, and then again at roughly 9:38pm, and a 4th round at 10:06pm. I fired up ethereal shortly after the 4th battery in the hopes of capturing additional data, but there was no further activity, and I shut ethereal down the next morning (June 29th). However, later in the morning of the 29th the problem resurfaced, first at roughly 10am, then at 11:00am, 11:30am, and a final blast at 11:45am. Unfortunately I wasn't around during those barrages, so again I missed the opportunity to collect additional information - I only noticed it had happened while reviewing the server logs later that afternoon. The errors haven't re-occurred since.
The error messages are all the same (other than the inbound IP address causing the errors). The error message is as follows:
"DNS Server encountered bad packet from 220.127.116.11. Packet processing leads beyond packet length."
After extracting and sorting the error messages from the server log, I noticed the errors were associated with about 3 dozen IP addresses. The list of IP's associated with the packets that were generating the errors is as follows:
18.104.22.168 = h.root-servers.net
22.214.171.124 = ns1.isi.edu
126.96.36.199 = dns-01.icq.net
188.8.131.52 = g.root-servers.net
184.108.40.206 = aloe.arin.net
220.127.116.11 = e.root-servers.net
18.104.22.168 = b.root-servers.net
22.214.171.124 = c.gtld-servers.net
126.96.36.199 = b.gtld-servers.net
188.8.131.52 = c.root-servers.net
184.108.40.206 = dill.arin.net
220.127.116.11 = i.root-servers.net
18.104.22.168 = g.gtld-servers.net
22.214.171.124 = f.root-servers.net
126.96.36.199 = a.gtld-servers.net
188.8.131.52 = a3.nstld.com
184.108.40.206 = h.gtld-servers.net
220.127.116.11 = j.root-servers.net
18.104.22.168 = k.root-servers.net
22.214.171.124 = dns2.nic.it
126.96.36.199 = l.root-servers.net
188.8.131.52 = a.root-servers.net
184.108.40.206 = ns1.bmo.com
220.127.116.11 = ns2.bmo.com
18.104.22.168 = cbru.br.ns.els-gms.att.net
22.214.171.124 = macu.ma.mt.np.els-gms.att.net
126.96.36.199 = m.root-servers.net
188.8.131.52 = west-pub.mail-abuse.org
184.108.40.206 = dns-02.ns.aol.com
220.127.116.11 = dns-02.icq.net
18.104.22.168 = ns1.gnac.net
22.214.171.124 = dns1-public.alexa.com
126.96.36.199 = ns.uunet.ca
188.8.131.52 = ns2.google.com
184.108.40.206 = ns4.google.com
220.127.116.11 = serv1.cl.msu.edu
18.104.22.168 = ns1.nix.paypal.com
22.214.171.124 = ns2.nix.paypal.com
126.96.36.199 = ns1.sc5.paypal.com
188.8.131.52 = ns2.sc5.paypal.com
I never assume anything happens "by chance" when it comes to anomalies in any of my systems log files, particularly when it's something brand new (I've never encountered this particular error in the past 7 years or so, so it set bells ringing to examine the problem more closely) (and there was nothing different or non-normal in the way of user activity or other processing, etc. at any time prior to or during these 'events'). My initial guess is it's someone trying out some new attack vector attempting to exploit yet another buffer overflow problem in windoze, but the strange thing is that the IP's are all (with the exception of a couple) associated with top-level domain servers (or am I mistaken in that assessment?). I'm not a network specialist by any stretch of the imagination, my skill-sets are in other areas, so I'm afraid I haven't much else to add in the way of information about this problem. I'm just looking to bring it to the attention of those who do have the knowledge/experience in this area in case it's a problem of some significance where forewarning may prove useful to others.
Chief Technology Officer
TeamWorx Productions Ltd.