I am installing Mail-in-a-Box which uses an implementation of LE.
The error message (log?) is:
Log:
Saving debug log to /var/log/letsencrypt/letsencrypt.log Plugins selected: Authenticator webroot, Installer None Performing the following challenges: http-01 challenge for somedomain.somewhere.com http-01 challenge for box.miabdnstest.ml http-01 challenge for www.box.miabdnstest.ml Using the webroot path /home/user-data/ssl/lets_encrypt/webroot for all unmatched domains. Waiting for verification… Cleaning up challenges Failed authorization procedure. box.miabdnstest.ml (http-01): urn:ietf:params:acme:error:dns :: DNS problem: SERVFAIL looking up CAA for miabdnstest.ml, www.box.miabdnstest.ml (http-01): urn:ietf:params:acme:error:dns :: DNS problem: SERVFAIL looking up CAA for miabdnstest.ml IMPORTANT NOTES: - The following errors were reported by the server: Domain: box.miabdnstest.ml Type: None Detail: DNS problem: SERVFAIL looking up CAA for miabdnstest.ml Domain: www.box.miabdnstest.ml Type: None Detail: DNS problem: SERVFAIL looking up CAA for miabdnstest.ml
Name resolution is working fine … thoughts please?
Your DNS-servers reply with the wrong answer when asked for a CAA record.
It isn't required. The problem is, your DNS server replies with an error (REFUSED). It's perfectly fine for your DNS servers to reply with "your request is accepted, but I don't have a CAA record, sorry dude" (i.e., a NOERROR response without an answer).
Admittedly, I am not familiar with the unbound logs that you linked … can you show me the specific error please ? Thanks!
Because I am seeing this …
Feb 17 12:55:31 unbound[5588:0] info: response for ns1.box.miabdnstest.ml. AAAA IN Feb 17 12:55:31 unbound[5588:0] info: reply from <box.miabdnstest.ml.> 205.185.124.235#53 Feb 17 12:55:31 unbound[5588:0] info: query response was nodata ANSWER Feb 17 12:55:31 unbound[5588:0] info: response for ns2.box.miabdnstest.ml. AAAA IN Feb 17 12:55:31 unbound[5588:0] info: reply from <miabdnstest.ml.> 205.185.124.235#53 Feb 17 12:55:31 unbound[5588:0] info: query response was nodata ANSWER
miabdnstest.ml zone: The server(s) responded over TCP with a malformed response or with an invalid RCODE. (205.185.124.235)
miabdnstest.ml zone: The server(s) responded over UDP with a malformed response or with an invalid RCODE. (205.185.124.235)
miabdnstest.ml/A: The response had an invalid RCODE (REFUSED). (205.185.124.235, UDP_-_EDNS0_4096_D_K)
miabdnstest.ml/AAAA: The response had an invalid RCODE (REFUSED). (205.185.124.235, UDP_-_EDNS0_4096_D_K)
miabdnstest.ml/DNSKEY: The response had an invalid RCODE (REFUSED). (205.185.124.235, UDP_-_EDNS0_4096_D_K, UDP_-_EDNS0_512_D_K)
miabdnstest.ml/MX: The response had an invalid RCODE (REFUSED). (205.185.124.235, UDP_-_EDNS0_4096_D_K, UDP_-_EDNS0_512_D_K)
miabdnstest.ml/NS: The response had an invalid RCODE (REFUSED). (205.185.124.235, UDP_-_EDNS0_4096_D_K)
miabdnstest.ml/SOA: The response had an invalid RCODE (REFUSED). (205.185.124.235, TCP_-_EDNS0_4096_D_)
miabdnstest.ml/SOA: The response had an invalid RCODE (REFUSED). (205.185.124.235, UDP_-_EDNS0_4096_D_K, UDP_-_EDNS0_4096_D_K_0x20)
miabdnstest.ml/TXT: The response had an invalid RCODE (REFUSED). (205.185.124.235, UDP_-_EDNS0_4096_D_K)
Hmmm … interesting. I am upgrading Mail-in-a-Box to a newer version on a current release of Ubuntu (18.04 LTS) … everything worked fine on the previous version. I will have to check over there to see what may be causing this. I have not seen anything similar on their forums … yet…
Oh!!!
[they should probably stick to doing mail then]
nslookup -q=ns miabdnstest.ml # first try timed out
DNS request timed out.
timeout was 2 seconds.
DNS request timed out.
timeout was 2 seconds.
*** Request to UnKnown timed-out
nslookup -q=ns miabdnstest.ml # second try worked but returns only one IP
miabdnstest.ml nameserver = ns1.box.miabdnstest.ml
miabdnstest.ml nameserver = ns2.box.miabdnstest.ml
ns1.box.miabdnstest.ml internet address = 205.185.124.235
ns2.box.miabdnstest.ml internet address = 205.185.124.235
Normally there is NEVER any issues … there must be some bug in my reinstall.
And yes … poor implementation but at the moment there is only one IP for the name server, which is against RFC but works (except for a few specific TLD’s).