Over the past few days Cloudflare has been notified through our vulnerability disclosure program and the certificate transparency mailing list that unauthorized certificates were issued by Fina CA for 1.1.1.1, one of the IP addresses used by our public DNS resolver service. From February 2024 to August 2025, Fina CA issued twelve certificates for 1.1.1.1 without our permission. We did not observe unauthorized issuance for any properties managed by Cloudflare other than 1.1.1.1.

We have no evidence that bad actors took advantage of this error. To impersonate Cloudflare's public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1, an attacker would not only require an unauthorized certificate and its corresponding private key, but attacked users would also need to trust the Fina CA. Furthermore, traffic between the client and 1.1.1.1 would have to be intercepted.

While this unauthorized issuance is an unacceptable lapse in security by Fina CA, we should have caught and responded to it earlier. After speaking with Fina CA, it appears that they issued these certificates for the purposes of internal testing. However, no CA should be issuing certificates for domains and IP addresses without checking control. At present all certificates have been revoked. We are awaiting a full post-mortem from Fina.

While we regret this situation, we believe it is a useful opportunity to walk through how trust works on the Internet between networks like ourselves, destinations like 1.1.1.1, CAs like Fina, and devices like the one you are using to read this. To learn more about the mechanics, please keep reading.

Cloudflare operates a public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1 service that millions of devices use to resolve domain names from a human-readable format such as example.com to an IP address like 192.0.2.42 or 2001:db8::2a.

The 1.1.1.1 service is accessible using various methods, across multiple domain names, such as cloudflare-dns.com and one.one.one.one, and also using various IP addresses, such as 1.1.1.1, 1.0.0.1, 2606:4700:4700::1111, and 2606:4700:4700::1001. 1.1.1.1 for Families also provides public DNS resolver services and is hosted on different IP addresses — 1.1.1.2, 1.1.1.3, 1.0.0.2, 1.0.0.3, 2606:4700:4700::1112, 2606:4700:4700::1113, 2606:4700:4700::1002, 2606:4700:4700::1003.

As originally specified in RFC 1034 and RFC 1035, the DNS protocol includes no privacy or authenticity protections. DNS queries and responses are exchanged between client and server in plain text over UDP or TCP. These represent around 60% of queries received by the Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 service. The lack of privacy or authenticity protection means that any intermediary can potentially read the DNS query and response and modify them without the client or the server being aware.

To address these shortcomings, we have helped develop and deploy multiple solutions at the IETF. The two of interest to this post are DNS over TLS (DoT, RFC 7878) and DNS over HTTPS (DoH, RFC 8484). In both cases the DNS protocol itself is mainly unchanged, and the desirable security properties are implemented in a lower layer, replacing the simple use of plain-text in UDP and TCP in the original specification. Both DoH and DoT use TLS to establish an authenticated, private, and encrypted channel over which DNS messages can be exchanged. To learn more you can read DNS Encryption Explained.

During the TLS handshake, the server proves its identity to the client by presenting a certificate. The client validates this certificate by verifying that it is signed by a Certification Authority that it already trusts. Only then does it establish a connection with the server. Once connected, TLS provides encryption and integrity for the DNS messages exchanged between client and server. This protects DoH and DoT against eavesdropping and tampering between the client and server.

The TLS certificates used in DoT and DoH are the same kinds of certificates HTTPS websites serve. Most website certificates are issued for domain names like example.com. When a client connects to that website, they resolve the name example.com to an IP like 192.0.2.42, then connect to the domain on that IP address. The server responds with a TLS certificate containing example.com, which the device validates.

However, DNS server certificates tend to be used slightly differently. Certificates used for DoT and DoH have to contain the service IP addresses, not just domain names. This is due to clients being unable to resolve a domain name in order to contact their resolver, like cloudflare-dns.com. Instead, devices are first set up by connecting to their resolver via a known IP address, such as 1.1.1.1 in the case of Cloudflare public DNS resolver. When this connection uses DoT or DoH, the resolver responds with a TLS certificate issued for that IP address, which the client validates. If the certificate is valid, the client believes that it is talking to the owner of 1.1.1.1 and starts sending DNS queries.

You can see that the IP addresses are included in the certificate Cloudflare’s public resolver uses for DoT/DoH:

Certificate:
  Data:
      Version: 3 (0x2)
      Serial Number:
          02:7d:c8:c5:e1:72:94:ae:c9:ed:3f:67:72:8e:8a:08
      Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption
      Issuer: C=US, O=DigiCert Inc, CN=DigiCert Global G2 TLS RSA SHA256 2020 CA1
      Validity
          Not Before: Jan  2 00:00:00 2025 GMT
          Not After : Jan 21 23:59:59 2026 GMT
      Subject: C=US, ST=California, L=San Francisco, O=Cloudflare, Inc., CN=cloudflare-dns.com
      X509v3 extensions:
          X509v3 Subject Alternative Name:
              DNS:cloudflare-dns.com, DNS:*.cloudflare-dns.com, DNS:one.one.one.one, IP Address:1.0.0.1, IP Address:1.1.1.1, IP Address:162.159.36.1, IP Address:162.159.46.1, IP Address:2606:4700:4700:0:0:0:0:1001, IP Address:2606:4700:4700:0:0:0:0:1111, IP Address:2606:4700:4700:0:0:0:0:64, IP Address:2606:4700:4700:0:0:0:0:6400

The section above describes normal, expected use of Cloudflare public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1 service, using certificates managed by Cloudflare. However, Cloudflare has been made aware of other, unauthorized certificates being issued for 1.1.1.1. Since certificate validation is the mechanism by which DoH and DoT clients establish the authenticity of a DNS resolver, this is a concern. Let’s now dive a little further in the security model provided by DoH and DoT.

Consider a client that is preconfigured to use the 1.1.1.1 resolver service using DoT. The client must establish a TLS session with the configured server before it can send any DNS queries. To be trusted, the server needs to present a certificate issued by a CA that the client trusts. The collection of certificates trusted by the client is also called the root store.

Certificate:
  Data:
      Version: 3 (0x2)
      Serial Number:
          02:7d:c8:c5:e1:72:94:ae:c9:ed:3f:67:72:8e:8a:08
      Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption
      Issuer: C=US, O=DigiCert Inc, CN=DigiCert Global G2 TLS RSA SHA256 2020 CA1

A Certification Authority (CA) is an organisation, such as DigiCert in the section above, whose role is to receive requests to sign certificates and verify that the requester has control of the domain. In this incident, Fina CA issued certificates for 1.1.1.1 without Cloudflare's involvement. This means that Fina CA did not properly check whether the requestor had legitimate control over 1.1.1.1. According to Fina CA:

“They were issued for the purpose of internal testing of certificate issuance in the production environment. An error occurred during the issuance of the test certificates when entering the IP addresses and as such they were published on Certificate Transparency log servers.”

Although it’s not clear whether Fina CA sees it as an error, we emphasize that it is not an error to publish test certificates on Certificate Transparency (more about what that is later on). Instead, the error at hand is Fina CA using their production keys to sign a certificate for an IP address without permission of the controller. We have talked about misuse of 1.1.1.1 in documentation, lab, and testing environments at length. Instead of the Cloudflare public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1 IP address, Fina should have used an IP address it controls itself.

Unauthorized certificates are unfortunately not uncommon, whether due to negligence — such as IdenTrust in November 2024 — or compromise. Famously in 2011, the Dutch CA DigiNotar was hacked, and its keys were used to issue hundreds of certificates. This hack was a wake-up call and motivated the introduction of Certificate Transparency (CT), later formalised in RFC 6962. The goal of Certificate Transparency is not to directly prevent misissuance, but to be able to detect any misissuance once it has happened, by making sure every certificate issued by a CA is publicly available for inspection.

In certificate transparency several independent parties, including Cloudflare, operate public logs of issued certificates. Many modern browsers do not accept certificates unless they provide proof in the form of signed certificate timestamps (SCTs) that the certificate has been logged in at least two logs. Domain owners can therefore monitor all public CT logs for any certificate containing domains they care about. If they see a certificate for their domains that they did not authorize, they can raise the alarm. CT is also the data source for public services such as crt.sh and Cloudflare Radar’s certificate transparency page.

Not all clients require proof of inclusion in certificate transparency. Browsers do, but most DNS clients don’t. We were fortunate that Fina CA did submit the unauthorized certificates to the CT logs, which allowed them to be discovered.

Our immediate concern was that someone had maliciously used the certificates to impersonate the 1.1.1.1 service. Such an attack would require all the following:

1. An attacker would require a rogue certificate and its corresponding private key.

2. Attacked clients would need to trust the Fina CA.

3. Traffic between the client and 1.1.1.1 would have to be intercepted.

In light of this incident, we have reviewed these requirements one by one:

1. We know that a certificate was issued without Cloudflare's involvement. We must assume that a corresponding private key exists, which is not under Cloudflare's control. This could be used by an attacker. Fina CA wrote to us that the private keys were exclusively in Fina’s controlled environment and were immediately destroyed even before the certificates were revoked. As we have no way to verify this, we have and continue to take steps to detect malicious use as described in point 3.

2. Furthermore, some clients trust Fina CA. It is included by default in Microsoft’s root store and in an EU Trust Service provider. We can exclude some clients, as the CA certificate is not included by default in the root stores of Android, Apple, Mozilla, or Chrome. These users cannot have been affected with these default settings. For these certificates to be used nefariously, the client’s root store must include the Certification Authority (CA) that issued them. Upon discovering the problem, we immediately reached out to Fina CA, Microsoft, and the EU Trust Service provider. Microsoft responded quickly, and started rolling out an update to their disallowed list, which should cause clients that use it to stop trusting the certificate.

3. Finally, we have launched an investigation into possible interception between users and 1.1.1.1. The first way this could happen is when the attacker is on-path of the client request. Such man-in-the-middle attacks are likely to be invisible to us. Clients will get responses from their on-path middlebox and we have no reliable way of telling that is happening. On-path interference has been a persistent problem for 1.1.1.1, which we’ve been working on ever since we announced 1.1.1.1.

A second scenario can occur when a malicious actor is off-path, but is able to hijack 1.1.1.1 routing via BGP. These are scenarios we have discussed in a previous blog post, and increasing adoption of RPKI route origin validation (ROV) makes BGP hijacks with high penetration harder. We looked at the historical BGP announcements involving 1.1.1.1, and have found no evidence that such routing hijacks took place.

Although we cannot be certain, so far we have seen no evidence that these certificates have been used to impersonate Cloudflare public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1 traffic. In later sections we discuss the steps we have taken to prevent such impersonation in the future, as well as concrete actions you can take to protect your own systems and users.

All unauthorized certificates for 1.1.1.1 were valid for exactly one year and included other domain names. Most of these domain names are not registered, which indicates that the certificates were issued without proper domain control validation. This violates sections 3.2.2.4 and 3.2.2.5 of the CA/Browser Forum’s Baseline Requirements, and sections 3.2.2.3 and 3.2.2.4 of the Fina CA Certificate Policy.

The full list of domain names we identified on the unauthorized certificates are as follows:

fina.hr
ssltest5
test.fina.hr
test.hr
test1.hr
test11.hr
test12.hr
test5.hr
test6
test6.hr
testssl.fina.hr
testssl.finatest.hr
testssl.hr
testssl1.finatest.hr
testssl2.finatest.hr

It’s also worth noting that the Subject attribute points to a fictional organisation TEST D.D., as can be seen on this unauthorized certificate:

        Serial Number:
            a5:30:a2:9c:c1:a5:da:40:00:00:00:00:56:71:f2:4c
        Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption
        Issuer: C=HR, O=Financijska agencija, CN=Fina RDC 2015
        Validity
            Not Before: Nov  2 23:45:15 2024 GMT
            Not After : Nov  2 23:45:15 2025 GMT
        Subject: C=HR, O=TEST D.D., L=ZAGREB, CN=testssl.finatest.hr, serialNumber=VATHR-32343828408.306
        X509v3 extensions:
            X509v3 Subject Alternative Name:
                DNS:testssl.finatest.hr, DNS:testssl2.finatest.hr, IP Address:1.1.1.1

All timestamps are UTC. All certificates are identified by their date of validity.

The first certificate was issued to be valid starting February 2024, and revoked 33 min later. 11 certificate issuances with common name 1.1.1.1 followed from February 2024 to August 2025. Public reports have been made on Hacker News and on the certificate-transparency mailing list early in September 2025, which Cloudflare responded to.

While responding to the incident, we identified the full list of misissued certificates, their revocation status, and which clients trust them.

The full timeline for the incident is as follows.

Cloudflare has invested from the very start in the Certificate Transparency ecosystem. Not only do we operate CT logs ourselves, we also run a CT monitor that we use to alert customers when certificates are mis-issued for their domains.

It is therefore disappointing that we failed to properly monitor certificates for our own domain. We failed three times. The first time because 1.1.1.1 is an IP certificate and our system failed to alert on these. The second time because even if we were to receive certificate issuance alerts, as any of our customers can, we did not implement sufficient filtering. With the sheer number of names and issuances we manage it has not been possible for us to keep up with manual reviews. Finally, because of this noisy monitoring, we did not enable alerting for all of our domains. We are addressing all three shortcomings.

We double-checked all certificates issued for our names, including but not limited to 1.1.1.1, using certificate transparency, and confirmed that as of 3 September, the Fina CA issued certificates are the only unauthorized issuances. We contacted Fina, and the root programs we know that trust them, to ask for revocation and investigation. The certificates have been revoked.

Despite no indication of usage of these certificates so far, we take this incident extremely seriously. We have identified several steps we can take to address the risk of these sorts of problems occurring in the future, and we plan to start working on them immediately:

Alerting: Cloudflare will improve alerts and escalation for issuance of certificates for missing Cloudflare owned domains including 1.1.1.1 certificates.

Transparency: The issuance of these unauthorised 1.1.1.1 certificates were detected because Fina CA used Certificate Transparency. Transparency inclusion is not enforced by most DNS clients, which implies that this detection was a lucky one. We are working on bringing transparency to non-browser clients, in particular DNS clients that rely on TLS.

Bug Bounty: Our procedure for triaging reports made through our vulnerability disclosure program was the cause for a delayed response. We are working to revise our triaging process to ensure such reports get the right visibility.

Monitoring: During this incident, our team relied on crt.sh to provide us a convenient UI to explore CA issued certificates. We’d like to give a shout to the Sectigo team for maintaining this tool. Given Cloudflare is an active CT Monitor, we have started to build a dedicated UI to explore our data in Radar. We are looking to enable exploration of certs with IP addresses as common names to Radar as well.

This incident demonstrates the disproportionate impact that the current root store model can have. It is enough for a single certification authority going rogue for everyone to be at risk.

If you are an IT manager with a fleet of managed devices, you should consider whether you need to take direct action to revoke these unauthorized certificates. We provide the list in the timeline section above. As the certificates have since been revoked, it is possible that no direct intervention should be required; however, system-wide revocation is not instantaneous and automatic and hence we recommend checking.

If you are tasked to review the policy of a root store that includes Fina CA, you should take immediate actions to review their inclusion in your program. The issue that has been identified through the course of this investigation raises concerns, and requires a clear report and follow-up from the CA. In addition, to make it possible to detect future such incidents, you should consider having a requirement for all CAs in your root store to participate in Certificate Transparency. Without CT logs, problems such as the one we describe here are impossible to address before they result in impact to end users.

We are not suggesting that you should stop using DoH or DoT. DNS over UDP and TCP are unencrypted, which puts every single query and response at risk of tampering and unauthorised surveillance. However, we believe that DoH and DoT client security could be improved if clients required that server certificates be included in a certificate transparency log.

This event is the first time we have observed a rogue issuance of a certificate used by our public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1 service. While we have no evidence this was malicious, we know that there might be future attempts that are.

We plan to accelerate how quickly we discover and alert on these types of issues ourselves. We know that we can catch these earlier, and we plan to do so.

The identification of these kinds of issues rely on an ecosystem of partners working together to support Certificate Transparency. We are grateful for the monitors who noticed and reported this issue.

In December 2022, Cloudflare joined the AS112 Project, which helps the Internet deal with misdirected DNS queries. In March 2023, we launched an AS112 statistics page on Radar, providing insight into traffic trends and query types for this misdirected traffic. Extending the basic analysis presented on that page, and building on the analysis of resolver data used for the Domains page, today we are excited to launch a dedicated DNS page on Cloudflare Radar to provide increased visibility into aggregate traffic and usage trends seen across 1.1.1.1 resolver traffic. In addition to looking at global, location, and autonomous system (ASN) traffic trends, we are also providing perspectives on protocol usage, query and response characteristics, and DNSSEC usage.

The traffic analyzed for this new page may come from users that have manually configured their devices or local routers to use 1.1.1.1 as a resolver, ISPs that set 1.1.1.1 as the default resolver for their subscribers, ISPs that use 1.1.1.1 as a resolver upstream from their own, or users that have installed Cloudflare’s 1.1.1.1/WARP app on their device. The traffic analysis is based on anonymised DNS query logs, in accordance with Cloudflare’s Privacy Policy, as well as our 1.1.1.1 Public DNS Resolver privacy commitments.

Below, we walk through the sections of Radar’s new DNS page, reviewing the included graphs and the importance of the metrics they present. The data and trends shown within these graphs will vary based on the location or network that the aggregated queries originate from, as well as on the selected time frame.

As with many Radar metrics, the DNS page leads with traffic trends, showing normalized query volume at a worldwide level (default), or from the selected location or autonomous system (ASN). Similar to other Radar traffic-based graphs, the time period shown can be adjusted using the date picker, and for the default selections (last 24 hours, last 7 days, etc.), a comparison with traffic seen over the previous period is also plotted.

For location-level views (such as Latvia, in the example below), a table showing the top five ASNs by query volume is displayed alongside the graph. Showing the network’s share of queries from the selected location, the table provides insights into the providers whose users are generating the most traffic to 1.1.1.1.

When a country/region is selected, in addition to showing an aggregate traffic graph for that location, we also show query volumes for the country code top level domain (ccTLD) associated with that country. The graph includes a line showing worldwide query volume for that ccTLD, as well as a line showing the query volume based on queries from the associated location. Anguilla’s ccTLD is .ai, and is a popular choice among the growing universe of AI-focused companies. While most locations see a gap between the worldwide and “local” query volume for their ccTLD, Anguilla’s is rather significant — as the graph below illustrates, this size of the gap is driven by both the popularity of the ccTLD and Anguilla’s comparatively small user base. (Traffic for .ai domains from Anguilla is shown by the dark blue line at the bottom of the graph.) Similarly, sizable gaps are seen with other “popular” ccTLDs as well, such as .io (British Indian Ocean Territory), .fm (Federated States of Micronesia), and .co (Colombia). A higher “local” ccTLD query volume in other locations results in smaller gaps when compared to the worldwide query volume.

Depending on the strength of the signal (that is, the volume of traffic) from a given location or ASN, this data can also be used to corroborate reported Internet outages or shutdowns, or reported blocking of 1.1.1.1. For example, the graph below illustrates the result of Venezuelan provider CANTV reportedly blocking access to 1.1.1.1 for its subscribers. A comparable drop is visible for Supercable, another Venezuelan provider that also reportedly blocked access to Cloudflare’s resolver around the same time.

Individual domain pages (like the one for cloudflare.com, for example) have long had a choropleth map and accompanying table showing the popularity of the domain by location, based on the share of DNS queries for that domain from each location. A similar view is included at the bottom of the worldwide overview page, based on the share of total global queries to 1.1.1.1 from each location.

While traffic trends are always interesting and important to track, analysis of the characteristics of queries to 1.1.1.1 and the associated responses can provide insights into the adoption of underlying transport protocols, record type popularity, cacheability, and security.

Published in November 1987, RFC 1035 notes that “The Internet supports name server access using TCP [RFC-793] on server port 53 (decimal) as well as datagram access using UDP [RFC-768] on UDP port 53 (decimal).” Over the subsequent three-plus decades, UDP has been the primary transport protocol for DNS queries, falling back to TCP for a limited number of use cases, such as when the response is too big to fit in a single UDP packet. However, as privacy has become a significantly greater concern, encrypted queries have been made possible through the specification of DNS over TLS (DoT) in 2016 and DNS over HTTPS (DoH) in 2018. Cloudflare’s 1.1.1.1 resolver has supported both of these privacy-preserving protocols since launch. The DNS transport protocol graph shows the distribution of queries to 1.1.1.1 over these four protocols. (Setting up 1.1.1.1 on your device or router uses DNS over UDP by default, although recent versions of Android support DoT and DoH. The 1.1.1.1 app uses DNS over HTTPS by default, and users can also configure their browsers to use DNS over HTTPS.)

Note that Cloudflare's resolver also services queries over DoH and Oblivious DoH (ODoH) for Mozilla and other large platforms, but this traffic is not currently included in our analysis. As such, DoH adoption is under-represented in this graph.

Aggregated worldwide between February 19 - February 26, distribution of transport protocols was 86.6% for UDP, 9.6% for DoT, 2.0% for TCP, and 1.7% for DoH. However, in some locations, these ratios may shift if users are more privacy conscious. For example, the graph below shows the distribution for Egypt over the same time period. In that country, the UDP and TCP shares are significantly lower than the global level, while the DoT and DoH shares are significantly higher, suggesting that users there may be more concerned about the privacy of their DNS queries than the global average, or that there is a larger concentration of 1.1.1.1 users on Android devices who have set up 1.1.1.1 using DoT manually. (The 2024 Cloudflare Radar Year in Review found that Android had an 85% mobile device traffic share in Egypt, so mobile device usage in the country leans very heavily toward Android.)

RFC 1035 also defined a number of standard and Internet specific resource record types that return the associated information about the submitted query name. The most common record types are A and AAAA, which return the hostname’s IPv4 and IPv6 addresses respectively (assuming they exist). The DNS query type graph below shows that globally, these two record types comprise on the order of 80% of the queries received by 1.1.1.1. Among the others shown in the graph, HTTPS records can be used to signal HTTP/3 and HTTP/2 support, PTR records are used in reverse DNS records to look up a domain name based on a given IP address, and NS records indicate authoritative nameservers for a domain.

A response code is sent with each response from 1.1.1.1 to the client. Six possible values were originally defined in RFC 1035, with the list further extended in RFC 2136 and RFC 2671. NOERROR, as the name suggests, means that no error condition was encountered with the query. Others, such as NXDOMAIN, SERVFAIL, REFUSED, and NOTIMP define specific error conditions encountered when trying to resolve the requested query name. The response codes may be generated by 1.1.1.1 itself (like REFUSED) or may come from an upstream authoritative nameserver (like NXDOMAIN).

The DNS response code graph shown below highlights that the vast majority of queries seen globally do not encounter an error during the resolution process (NOERROR), and that when errors are encountered, most are NXDOMAIN (no such record). It is worth noting that NOERROR also includes empty responses, which occur when there are no records for the query name and query type, but there are records for the query name and some other query type.

With DNS being a first-step dependency for many other protocols, the amount of queries of particular types can be used to indirectly measure the adoption of those protocols. But to effectively measure adoption, we should also consider the fraction of those queries that are met with useful responses, which are represented with the DNS record adoption graphs.

The example below shows that queries for A records are met with a useful response nearly 88% of the time. As IPv4 is an established protocol, the remaining 12% are likely to be queries for valid hostnames that have no A records (e.g. email domains that only have MX records). But the same graph also shows that there’s still a significant adoption gap where IPv6 is concerned.

When Cloudflare’s DNS resolver gets a response back from an upstream authoritative nameserver, it caches it for a specified amount of time — more on that below. By caching these responses, it can more efficiently serve subsequent queries for the same name. The DNS cache hit ratio graph provides insight into how frequently responses are served from cache. At a global level, as seen below, over 80% of queries have a response that is already cached. These ratios will vary by location or ASN, as the query patterns differ across geographies and networks.

As noted in the preceding paragraph, when an authoritative nameserver sends a response back to 1.1.1.1, each record inside it includes information about how long it should be cached/considered valid for. This piece of information is known as the Time-To-Live (TTL) and, as a response may contain multiple records, the smallest of these TTLs (the “minimum” TTL) defines how long 1.1.1.1 can cache the entire response for. The TTLs on each response served from 1.1.1.1’s cache decrease towards zero as time passes, at which point 1.1.1.1 needs to go back to the authoritative nameserver. Hostnames with relatively low TTL values suggest that the records may be somewhat dynamic, possibly due to traffic management of the associated resources; longer TTL values suggest that the associated resources are more stable and expected to change infrequently.

The DNS minimum TTL graphs show the aggregate distribution of TTL values for five popular DNS record types, broken out across seven buckets ranging from under one minute to over one week. During the third week of February, for example, A and AAAA responses had a concentration of low TTLs, with over 80% below five minutes. In contrast, NS and MX responses were more concentrated across 15 minutes to one hour and one hour to one day. Because MX and NS records change infrequently, they are generally configured with higher TTLs. This allows them to be cached for longer periods in order to achieve faster DNS resolution.

DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) add an extra layer of authentication to DNS establishing the integrity and authenticity of a DNS response. This ensures subsequent HTTPS requests are not routed to a spoofed domain. When sending a query to 1.1.1.1, a DNS client can indicate that it is DNSSEC-aware by setting a specific flag (the “DO” bit) in the query, which lets our resolver know that it is OK to return DNSSEC data in the response. The DNSSEC client awareness graph breaks down the share of queries that 1.1.1.1 sees from clients that understand DNSSEC and can require validation of responses vs. those that don’t. (Note that by default, 1.1.1.1 tries to protect clients by always validating DNSSEC responses from authoritative nameservers and not forwarding invalid responses to clients, unless the client has explicitly told it not to by setting the “CD” (checking-disabled) bit in the query.)

Unfortunately, as the graph below shows, nearly 90% of the queries seen by Cloudflare’s resolver are made by clients that are not DNSSEC-aware. This broad lack of client awareness may be due to several factors. On the client side, DNSSEC is not enabled by default for most users, and enabling DNSSEC requires extra work, even for technically savvy and security conscious users. On the authoritative side, for domain owners, supporting DNSSEC requires extra operational maintenance and knowledge, and a mistake can cost your domain to disappear from the Internet, causing significant (including financial) issues.

The companion End-to-end security graph represents the fraction of DNS interactions that were protected from tampering, when considering the client’s DNSSEC capabilities and use of encryption (use of DoT or DoH). This shows an even greater imbalance at a global level, and highlights the importance of further adoption of encryption and DNSSEC.

For DNSSEC validation to occur, the query name being requested must be part of a DNSSEC-enabled domain, and the DNSSEC validation status graph represents the share of queries where that was the case under the Secure and Invalid labels. Queries for domains without DNSSEC are labeled as Insecure, and queries where DNSSEC validation was not applicable (such as various kinds of errors) fall under the Other label. Although nearly 93% of generic Top Level Domains (TLDs) and 65% of country code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) are signed with DNSSEC (as of February 2025), the adoption rate across individual (child) domains lags significantly, as the graph below shows that over 80% of queries were labeled as Insecure.

DNS is a fundamental, foundational part of the Internet. While most Internet users don’t think of DNS beyond its role in translating easy-to-remember hostnames to IP addresses, there’s a lot going on to make even that happen, from privacy to performance to security. The new DNS page on Cloudflare Radar endeavors to provide visibility into what’s going on behind the scenes, at a global, national, and network level.

While the graphs shown above are taken from the DNS page, all the underlying data is available via the API and can be interactively explored in more detail across locations, networks, and time periods using Radar’s Data Explorer and AI Assistant. And as always, Radar and Data Assistant charts and graphs are downloadable for sharing, and embeddable for use in your own blog posts, websites, or dashboards.

If you share our DNS graphs on social media, be sure to tag us: @CloudflareRadar and @1111Resolver (X), noc.social/@cloudflareradar (Mastodon), and radar.cloudflare.com (Bluesky). If you have questions or comments, you can reach out to us on social media, or contact us via email.

Cloudflare has been part of a multivendor, industry-wide effort to mitigate two critical DNSSEC vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities exposed significant risks to critical infrastructures that provide DNS resolution services. Cloudflare provides DNS resolution for anyone to use for free with our public resolver 1.1.1.1 service. Mitigations for Cloudflare’s public resolver 1.1.1.1 service were applied before these vulnerabilities were disclosed publicly. Internal resolvers using unbound (open source software) were upgraded promptly after a new software version fixing these vulnerabilities was released.

All Cloudflare DNS infrastructure was protected from both of these vulnerabilities before they were disclosed and is safe today. These vulnerabilities do not affect our Authoritative DNS or DNS firewall products.

All major DNS software vendors have released new versions of their software. All other major DNS resolver providers have also applied appropriate mitigations. Please update your DNS resolver software immediately, if you haven’t done so already.

Domain name system (DNS) security extensions, commonly known as DNSSEC, are extensions to the DNS protocol that add authentication and integrity capabilities. DNSSEC uses cryptographic keys and signatures that allow DNS responses to be validated as authentic. DNSSEC protocol specifications have certain requirements that prioritize availability at the cost of increased complexity and computational cost for the validating DNS resolvers. The mitigations for the vulnerabilities discussed in this blog require local policies to be applied that relax these requirements in order to avoid exhausting the resources of validators.

The design of the DNS and DNSSEC protocols follows the Robustness principle: “be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others”. There have been many vulnerabilities in the past that have taken advantage of protocol requirements following this principle. Malicious actors can exploit these vulnerabilities to attack DNS infrastructure, in this case by causing additional work for DNS resolvers by crafting DNSSEC responses with complex configurations. As is often the case, we find ourselves having to create a pragmatic balance between the flexibility that allows a protocol to adapt and evolve and the need to safeguard the stability and security of the services we operate.

Cloudflare’s public resolver 1.1.1.1 is a privacy-centric public resolver service. We have been using stricter validations and limits aimed at protecting our own infrastructure in addition to shielding authoritative DNS servers operated outside our network. As a result, we often receive complaints about resolution failures. Experience shows us that strict validations and limits can impact availability in some edge cases, especially when DNS domains are improperly configured. However, these strict validations and limits are necessary to improve the overall reliability and resilience of the DNS infrastructure.

The vulnerabilities and how we mitigated them are described below.

A DNSSEC signed zone can contain multiple keys (DNSKEY) to sign the contents of a DNS zone and a Resource Record Set (RRSET) in a DNS response can have multiple signatures (RRSIG). Multiple keys and signatures are required to support things like key rollover, algorithm rollover, and multi-signer DNSSEC. DNSSEC protocol specifications require a validating DNS resolver to try every possible combination of keys and signatures when validating a DNS response.

During validation, a resolver looks at the key tag of every signature and tries to find the associated key that was used to sign it. A key tag is an unsigned 16-bit number calculated as a checksum over the key’s resource data (RDATA). Key tags are intended to allow efficient pairing of a signature with the key which has supposedly created it.  However, key tags are not unique, and it is possible that multiple keys can have the same key tag. A malicious actor can easily craft a DNS response with multiple keys having the same key tag together with multiple signatures, none of which might validate. A validating resolver would have to try every combination (number of keys multiplied by number of signatures) when trying to validate this response. This increases the computational cost of the validating resolver many-fold, degrading performance for all its users. This is known as the Keytrap vulnerability.

Variations of this vulnerability include using multiple signatures with one key, using one signature with multiple keys having colliding key tags, and using multiple keys with corresponding hashes added to the parent delegation signer record.

We have limited the maximum number of keys we will accept at a zone cut. A zone cut is where a parent zone delegates to a child zone, e.g. where the .com zone delegates cloudflare.com to Cloudflare nameservers. Even with this limit already in place and various other protections built for our platform, we realized that it would still be computationally costly to process a malicious DNS answer from an authoritative DNS server.

To address and further mitigate this vulnerability, we added a signature validations limit per RRSET and a total signature validations limit per resolution task. One resolution task might include multiple recursive queries to external authoritative DNS servers in order to answer a single DNS question. Clients queries exceeding these limits will fail to resolve and will receive a response with an Extended DNS Error (EDE) code 0. Furthermore, we added metrics which will allow us to detect attacks attempting to exploit this vulnerability.

NSEC3 is an alternative approach for authenticated denial of existence. You can learn more about authenticated denial of existence here. NSEC3 uses a hash derived from DNS names instead of the DNS names directly in an attempt to prevent zone enumeration and the standard supports multiple iterations for hash calculations. However, because the full DNS name is used as input to the hash calculation, increasing hashing iterations beyond the initial doesn’t provide any additional value and is not recommended in RFC9276. This complication is further inflated while finding the closest enclosure proof. A malicious DNS response from an authoritative DNS server can set a high NSEC3 iteration count and long DNS names with multiple DNS labels to exhaust the computing resources of a validating resolver by making it do unnecessary hash computations.

For this vulnerability, we applied a similar mitigation technique as we did for Keytrap. We added a limit for total hash calculations per resolution task to answer a single DNS question. Similarly, clients queries exceeding this limit will fail to resolve and will receive a response with an EDE code 27. We also added metrics to track hash calculations allowing early detection of attacks attempting to exploit this vulnerability.

We would like to thank Elias Heftrig, Haya Schulmann, Niklas Vogel, Michael Waidner from the German National Research Center for Applied Cybersecurity ATHENE, for discovering the Keytrap vulnerability and doing a responsible disclosure.

We would like to thank Petr Špaček from Internet Systems Consortium (ISC) for discovering the NSEC3 iteration and closest encloser proof vulnerability and doing a responsible disclosure.

We would like to thank John Todd from Quad9  and the DNS Operations Analysis and Research Center (DNS-OARC) for facilitating coordination amongst various stakeholders.

And finally, we would like to thank the DNS-OARC community members, representing various DNS vendors and service providers, who all came together and worked tirelessly to fix these vulnerabilities, working towards a common goal of making the internet resilient and secure.

Cloudflare first started talking about DNSSEC in 2014 and at the time, Nick Sullivan wrote: “DNSSEC is a valuable tool for improving the trust and integrity of DNS, the backbone of the modern Internet.”

Over the past four years, it has become an even more critical part of securing the internet. While HTTPS has gone a long way in preventing user sessions from being hijacked and maliciously (or innocuously) redirected, not all internet traffic is HTTPS. A safer Internet should secure every possible layer between a user and the origin they are intending to visit.

As a quick refresher, DNSSEC allows a user, application, or recursive resolver to trust that the answer to their DNS query is what the domain owner intends it to be. Put another way: DNSSEC proves authenticity and integrity (though not confidentiality) of a response from the authoritative nameserver. Doing so makes it much harder for a bad actor to inject malicious DNS records into the resolution path through BGP Leaks and cache poisoning. Trust in DNS matters even more when a domain is publishing record types that are used to declare trust for other systems. As a specific example, DNSSEC is helpful for preventing malicious actors from obtaining fraudulent certificates for a domain. Research has shown how DNS responses can be spoofed for domain validation.

This week we are announcing our full support for CDS and CDNSKEY from RFC 8078. Put plainly: this will allow for setting up of DNSSEC without requiring the user to login to their registrar to upload a DS record. Cloudflare customers on supported registries will be able to enable DNSSEC with the click of one button in the Cloudflare dashboard.

DNSSEC’s largest problem has been adoption. The number of DNS queries validated by recursive resolvers for DNSSEC has remained flat. Worldwide, less than 14% of DNS requests have DNSSEC validated by the resolver according to our friends at APNIC. The blame here falls on the shoulders of the default DNS providers that most devices and users receive from DHCP via their ISP or network provider. Data shows that some countries do considerably better: Sweden, for example, has over 80% of their requests validated, showing that the default DNS resolvers in those countries validate the responses as they should. APNIC also has a fun interactive map so you can see how well your country does.

So what can we do? To ensure your resolver supports DNSSEC, visit brokendnssec.net in your browser. If the page loads, you are not protected by a DNSSEC validating resolver and should switch your resolver. However, in order to really move the needle across the internet, Cloudflare encourages network providers to either turn on the validation of DNSSEC in their software or switch to publicly available resolvers that validate DNSSEC by default. Of course we have a favourite, but there are other fine choices as well.

Validation handles the user side, but another problem has been the signing of the zones themselves. Initially, there was concern about adoption at the TLD level given that TLD support is a requirement for DNSSEC to work. This is now largely a non-issue with over 90% of TLDs signed with DS records in the root zone, as of 2018-08-27.

It’s a different story when it comes to the individual domains themselves. Per NIST data, a woefully low 3% of the Fortune 1000 sign their primary domains. Some of this is due to apathy by the domain owners. However, some large DNS operators do not yet support the option at all, requiring domain owners who want to protect their users to move to another provider altogether. If you are on a service that does not support DNSSEC, we encourage you to switch to one that does and let them know that was the reason for the switch. Other large operators, such as GoDaddy, charge for DNSSEC. Our stance here is clear: DNSSEC should be available and included at all DNS operators for free.

In December of 2017, APNIC wrote about why DNSSEC deployment remains so low and that remains largely true today. One key point was that the number of domain owners who attempt DNSSEC activation but do not complete it is very high. Using Cloudflare as an example, APNIC measured that 40% of those who enabled DNSSEC in the Cloudflare Dash (evidenced by the presence of a DNSKEY record) were actually successful in serving a DS key from the registry. Current data over a recent 90 day period is slightly better: we are seeing just over 50% of all zones which attempted to enable DNSSEC were able to complete the process with the registry (Note: these domains still resolve, they are just still not secured). Of our most popular TLDs, .be and .nl have success rates of over 70%, but these numbers are still not where we would want them to be in an ideal world. The graph below shows the specific rates for the most popular TLDs (most popular from left to right).

This end result is likely not surprising to anyone who has tried to add a DS record to their registrar. Locating the part of the registrar UI that houses DNSSEC can be problematic, as can the UI of adding the record itself. Additional factors such as varying degrees of technical knowledge amongst users and simply having to manage multiple logins and roles can also explain the lack of completion in the process. Finally, varying levels of DNSSEC compatibility amongst registrars may prevent even knowledgeable users from creating DS records in the parent.

As an example, at Cloudflare, we took a minimalist UX approach for adding DS records for delegated child domains. A novice user may not understand the fields and requirements for the DS record:

CDS and CDNSKEY

As mentioned in the aforementioned APNIC blog, Cloudflare is supportive of RFC 8078 and the CDS and CDNSKEY records. This should come as no surprise given that our own Olafur Gudmundsson is a co-author of the RFC. CDS and CDNSKEY are records that mirror the DS and DNSKEY record types but are designated to signal the parent/registrar that the child domain wishes to enable DNSSEC and have a DS record presented by the registry. We have been pushing for automated solutions in this space for years and are encouraging the industry to move with us.

Today, we are announcing General Availability and full support for CDS and CDNSKEY records for all Cloudflare managed domains that enable DNSSEC in the Cloudflare dash.

Cloudflare will publish CDS and CDNSKEY records for all domains who enable DNSSEC. Parent registries should scan the nameservers of the  domains under their purview and check for these rrsets. The presence of a CDS key for a domain delegated to Cloudflare indicates that a verified Cloudflare user has enabled DNSSEC within their dash and that the parent operator (a registrar or the registry itself) should take the CDS record content and create the requisite DS record to start signing the domain. TLDs .ch and .cz already support this automated method through Cloudflare and any other DNS operators that choose to support RFC8078. The registrar Gandi and a number of TLDs have indicated support in the near future.

Cloudflare also supports CDS0 for the removal of the DS record in the case that the user transfers their domain off of Cloudflare or otherwise disables DNSSEC.

Below are a number of suggested procedures that parent registries may take to provide for the best experience for our users:

• Scan Selection - Parent Operators should only scan their child domains who have nameservers pointed at Cloudflare (or other DNS operators who adopt RFC8078). Cloudflare nameservers are indicated *.ns.cloudflare.com.

• Scan Regularly - Parent Operators should scan at regular intervals for the presence and change of CDS records. A scan every 12 hours should be sufficient, though faster is better.

• Notify Domain Contacts - Parent Operators should notify their designated contacts through known channels (such as email and/or SMS) for a given child domain upon detection of a new CDS record and an impending change of their DS record. The Parent Operator may also wish to provide a standard delay (24 hours) before changing the DS record to allow the domain contact to cancel or otherwise change the operation.

• Verify Success - Parent Operators must ensure that the domain continues to resolve after being signed. Should the domain fail to resolve immediately after changing the DS record, the Parent Operator must fall back to the previous functional state and should notify designated contacts.

For Cloudflare customers, this means an easier implementation of DNSSEC once your registry/registrar supports CDS and CDNSKEY. Customers can also enable DNSSEC for free on Cloudflare and manually enter the DS to the parent. To check your domain’s DNSSEC status, DNSViz (example cloudflare.com) has one of the most standards compliant tools online.

For registries and registrars, we are taking this step with the hope that more providers support RFC8078 and help increase the global adoption of technology that helps end users be less vulnerable to DNS attacks on the internet.

For other DNS operators, we encourage you to join us in supporting this method as the more major DNS operators that publish CDS and CDNSKEY, the more likely it will be that the registries will start looking for and use them.

Cloudflare will continue pushing down this path and has plans to create and open source additional tools to help registries and operators push and consume records. If this sounds interesting to you, we are hiring.

Subscribe to the blog for daily updates on our announcements.