DNS A record with https:// in the label
I recently encountered for the first time an A record of the form:
https://www.example.com. <TTL> IN A <IP address>
As far as I know, this record is deliberate (i.e. not an error). I know that the colon and forward-slash are valid characters for a label, per RFC 2181, but I don't understand the record's purpose. Does some certificate authority use this form for domain control validation? Does this form protect against some type of exploit? Trap some kind of user error or known issue with software?
domain-name-system a-record
asked Nov 27 at 1:09
Binky
9116
add a comment |
I recently encountered for the first time an A record of the form:
https://www.example.com. <TTL> IN A <IP address>
As far as I know, this record is deliberate (i.e. not an error). I know that the colon and forward-slash are valid characters for a label, per RFC 2181, but I don't understand the record's purpose. Does some certificate authority use this form for domain control validation? Does this form protect against some type of exploit? Trap some kind of user error or known issue with software?
domain-name-system a-record
asked Nov 27 at 1:09
Binky
9116
1
Is the IP address different from the one for the matching www.example.com? What makes you think this is deliberate and not an error?
– jcaron
Nov 27 at 16:07
The reason I suspect this A record is not misconfigured is because the organization controlling these records is a major corporation with a large online presence, whose DNS records I would expect to be under significant scrutiny. But I am fully capable of believing that these A records are an error. I will dig (no pun intended) into this issue further and post an update if I determine the reason for the records.
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:21
If anyone has a Farsight DNSDB account or a similar service, and would like to query the full DNS space for other A records having "https://", that'd be really cool. :)
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:28
The IP address mapping of the A record forhttps://www.example.comis different from the the IP address mapping forwww.example.com. The former maps to addresses (multiple A records) in the /16 netblock owned by "example.com" per ARIN whois. The latter maps to a CNAME in the domain of a major CDN provider. The CNAME chain ultimately maps to an IP address in the CDN provider's network
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:55
@Binky: That is not a good reason to suspect it's not misconfigured. Incompetence in major corporations is extremely common.
– R..
Nov 28 at 4:01
add a comment |
I recently encountered for the first time an A record of the form:
https://www.example.com. <TTL> IN A <IP address>
As far as I know, this record is deliberate (i.e. not an error). I know that the colon and forward-slash are valid characters for a label, per RFC 2181, but I don't understand the record's purpose. Does some certificate authority use this form for domain control validation? Does this form protect against some type of exploit? Trap some kind of user error or known issue with software?
domain-name-system a-record
asked Nov 27 at 1:09
Binky
9116
I recently encountered for the first time an A record of the form:
https://www.example.com. <TTL> IN A <IP address>
As far as I know, this record is deliberate (i.e. not an error). I know that the colon and forward-slash are valid characters for a label, per RFC 2181, but I don't understand the record's purpose. Does some certificate authority use this form for domain control validation? Does this form protect against some type of exploit? Trap some kind of user error or known issue with software?
domain-name-system a-record
domain-name-system a-record
asked Nov 27 at 1:09
Binky
9116
asked Nov 27 at 1:09
Binky
9116
asked Nov 27 at 1:09
Binky
9116
asked Nov 27 at 1:09
Binky
9116
asked Nov 27 at 1:09
Binky
9116
9116
1
Is the IP address different from the one for the matching www.example.com? What makes you think this is deliberate and not an error?
– jcaron
Nov 27 at 16:07
The reason I suspect this A record is not misconfigured is because the organization controlling these records is a major corporation with a large online presence, whose DNS records I would expect to be under significant scrutiny. But I am fully capable of believing that these A records are an error. I will dig (no pun intended) into this issue further and post an update if I determine the reason for the records.
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:21
If anyone has a Farsight DNSDB account or a similar service, and would like to query the full DNS space for other A records having "https://", that'd be really cool. :)
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:28
The IP address mapping of the A record forhttps://www.example.comis different from the the IP address mapping forwww.example.com. The former maps to addresses (multiple A records) in the /16 netblock owned by "example.com" per ARIN whois. The latter maps to a CNAME in the domain of a major CDN provider. The CNAME chain ultimately maps to an IP address in the CDN provider's network
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:55
@Binky: That is not a good reason to suspect it's not misconfigured. Incompetence in major corporations is extremely common.
– R..
Nov 28 at 4:01
add a comment |
1
Is the IP address different from the one for the matching www.example.com? What makes you think this is deliberate and not an error?
– jcaron
Nov 27 at 16:07
The reason I suspect this A record is not misconfigured is because the organization controlling these records is a major corporation with a large online presence, whose DNS records I would expect to be under significant scrutiny. But I am fully capable of believing that these A records are an error. I will dig (no pun intended) into this issue further and post an update if I determine the reason for the records.
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:21
If anyone has a Farsight DNSDB account or a similar service, and would like to query the full DNS space for other A records having "https://", that'd be really cool. :)
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:28
The IP address mapping of the A record forhttps://www.example.comis different from the the IP address mapping forwww.example.com. The former maps to addresses (multiple A records) in the /16 netblock owned by "example.com" per ARIN whois. The latter maps to a CNAME in the domain of a major CDN provider. The CNAME chain ultimately maps to an IP address in the CDN provider's network
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:55
@Binky: That is not a good reason to suspect it's not misconfigured. Incompetence in major corporations is extremely common.
– R..
Nov 28 at 4:01
1
1
Is the IP address different from the one for the matching www.example.com? What makes you think this is deliberate and not an error?
– jcaron
Nov 27 at 16:07
Is the IP address different from the one for the matching www.example.com? What makes you think this is deliberate and not an error?
– jcaron
Nov 27 at 16:07
The reason I suspect this A record is not misconfigured is because the organization controlling these records is a major corporation with a large online presence, whose DNS records I would expect to be under significant scrutiny. But I am fully capable of believing that these A records are an error. I will dig (no pun intended) into this issue further and post an update if I determine the reason for the records.
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:21
The reason I suspect this A record is not misconfigured is because the organization controlling these records is a major corporation with a large online presence, whose DNS records I would expect to be under significant scrutiny. But I am fully capable of believing that these A records are an error. I will dig (no pun intended) into this issue further and post an update if I determine the reason for the records.
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:21
If anyone has a Farsight DNSDB account or a similar service, and would like to query the full DNS space for other A records having "https://", that'd be really cool. :)
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:28
If anyone has a Farsight DNSDB account or a similar service, and would like to query the full DNS space for other A records having "https://", that'd be really cool. :)
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:28
The IP address mapping of the A record for
https://www.example.com is different from the the IP address mapping for www.example.com. The former maps to addresses (multiple A records) in the /16 netblock owned by "example.com" per ARIN whois. The latter maps to a CNAME in the domain of a major CDN provider. The CNAME chain ultimately maps to an IP address in the CDN provider's network– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:55
The IP address mapping of the A record for
https://www.example.com is different from the the IP address mapping for www.example.com. The former maps to addresses (multiple A records) in the /16 netblock owned by "example.com" per ARIN whois. The latter maps to a CNAME in the domain of a major CDN provider. The CNAME chain ultimately maps to an IP address in the CDN provider's network– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:55
@Binky: That is not a good reason to suspect it's not misconfigured. Incompetence in major corporations is extremely common.
– R..
Nov 28 at 4:01
@Binky: That is not a good reason to suspect it's not misconfigured. Incompetence in major corporations is extremely common.
– R..
Nov 28 at 4:01
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The most likely explanation is a user unfamiliar with DNS tried to configure the DNS records and made a mistake that's glaringly obvious to anyone familiar with DNS, but not to people who aren't.
While a DNS label can be any arbitary binary data generally, you should read the rest of section 11, in particular:
Note however, that the various applications that make use of DNS data
can have restrictions imposed on what particular values are
acceptable in their environment. For example, that any binary label
can have an MX record does not imply that any binary name can be used
as the host part of an e-mail address. Clients of the DNS can impose
whatever restrictions are appropriate to their circumstances on the
values they use as keys for DNS lookup requests, and on the values
returned by the DNS. If the client has such restrictions, it is
solely responsible for validating the data from the DNS to ensure
that it conforms before it makes any use of that data.
Among other things, this means that the label syntax may be constrained depending on the RR type. As specified in RFC 1123 section 2.1 and RFC 952, Internet host names have such a constrained syntax, in which the colon and slash are not valid.
answered Nov 27 at 1:30
Michael Hampton♦
164k26304619
add a comment |
It's wrong for a standard address but it's possibly someone using DNS as a out of band communication device.
It's not hard to imagine having to pass data via DNS instead of through 'normal' channels.
answered Nov 27 at 12:07
djsmiley2k
320211
1
Could you go ahead and imagine for us? As it is this answer doesn't really say what might be happening - just that the answerer thinks it is logical.
– Saiboogu
Nov 27 at 19:20
1
it's possibly someone using DNS as a out of band communication device. @djsmiley2k I didn't mention this possibility in my original post because the organization controlling these A records is a corporation with substantial security/compliance requirements. For these records to be an out-of-band access mechanism would be highly unlikely, and if the records were an OOB hack, then the repercussions would be... scary.
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:32
@Blinky fair enough, it's unlikely in this case, but it's a possibility in others.
– djsmiley2k
Nov 28 at 9:11
This is certainly a possible thing, but DNS side channels are normally done with text in a TXT record, and not in the hostname itself. Additionally "https://" looks like an error, not a cyphered text.
– Criggie
Nov 28 at 18:28
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f941735%2fdns-a-record-with-https-in-the-label%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
The most likely explanation is a user unfamiliar with DNS tried to configure the DNS records and made a mistake that's glaringly obvious to anyone familiar with DNS, but not to people who aren't.
While a DNS label can be any arbitary binary data generally, you should read the rest of section 11, in particular:
Note however, that the various applications that make use of DNS data
can have restrictions imposed on what particular values are
acceptable in their environment. For example, that any binary label
can have an MX record does not imply that any binary name can be used
as the host part of an e-mail address. Clients of the DNS can impose
whatever restrictions are appropriate to their circumstances on the
values they use as keys for DNS lookup requests, and on the values
returned by the DNS. If the client has such restrictions, it is
solely responsible for validating the data from the DNS to ensure
that it conforms before it makes any use of that data.
Among other things, this means that the label syntax may be constrained depending on the RR type. As specified in RFC 1123 section 2.1 and RFC 952, Internet host names have such a constrained syntax, in which the colon and slash are not valid.
answered Nov 27 at 1:30
Michael Hampton♦
164k26304619
add a comment |
The most likely explanation is a user unfamiliar with DNS tried to configure the DNS records and made a mistake that's glaringly obvious to anyone familiar with DNS, but not to people who aren't.
While a DNS label can be any arbitary binary data generally, you should read the rest of section 11, in particular:
Note however, that the various applications that make use of DNS data
can have restrictions imposed on what particular values are
acceptable in their environment. For example, that any binary label
can have an MX record does not imply that any binary name can be used
as the host part of an e-mail address. Clients of the DNS can impose
whatever restrictions are appropriate to their circumstances on the
values they use as keys for DNS lookup requests, and on the values
returned by the DNS. If the client has such restrictions, it is
solely responsible for validating the data from the DNS to ensure
that it conforms before it makes any use of that data.
Among other things, this means that the label syntax may be constrained depending on the RR type. As specified in RFC 1123 section 2.1 and RFC 952, Internet host names have such a constrained syntax, in which the colon and slash are not valid.
answered Nov 27 at 1:30
Michael Hampton♦
164k26304619
add a comment |
The most likely explanation is a user unfamiliar with DNS tried to configure the DNS records and made a mistake that's glaringly obvious to anyone familiar with DNS, but not to people who aren't.
While a DNS label can be any arbitary binary data generally, you should read the rest of section 11, in particular:
Note however, that the various applications that make use of DNS data
can have restrictions imposed on what particular values are
acceptable in their environment. For example, that any binary label
can have an MX record does not imply that any binary name can be used
as the host part of an e-mail address. Clients of the DNS can impose
whatever restrictions are appropriate to their circumstances on the
values they use as keys for DNS lookup requests, and on the values
returned by the DNS. If the client has such restrictions, it is
solely responsible for validating the data from the DNS to ensure
that it conforms before it makes any use of that data.
Among other things, this means that the label syntax may be constrained depending on the RR type. As specified in RFC 1123 section 2.1 and RFC 952, Internet host names have such a constrained syntax, in which the colon and slash are not valid.
answered Nov 27 at 1:30
Michael Hampton♦
164k26304619
The most likely explanation is a user unfamiliar with DNS tried to configure the DNS records and made a mistake that's glaringly obvious to anyone familiar with DNS, but not to people who aren't.
While a DNS label can be any arbitary binary data generally, you should read the rest of section 11, in particular:
Note however, that the various applications that make use of DNS data
can have restrictions imposed on what particular values are
acceptable in their environment. For example, that any binary label
can have an MX record does not imply that any binary name can be used
as the host part of an e-mail address. Clients of the DNS can impose
whatever restrictions are appropriate to their circumstances on the
values they use as keys for DNS lookup requests, and on the values
returned by the DNS. If the client has such restrictions, it is
solely responsible for validating the data from the DNS to ensure
that it conforms before it makes any use of that data.
Among other things, this means that the label syntax may be constrained depending on the RR type. As specified in RFC 1123 section 2.1 and RFC 952, Internet host names have such a constrained syntax, in which the colon and slash are not valid.
answered Nov 27 at 1:30
Michael Hampton♦
164k26304619
edited Nov 27 at 1:44
answered Nov 27 at 1:30
Michael Hampton♦
164k26304619
answered Nov 27 at 1:30
Michael Hampton♦
164k26304619
answered Nov 27 at 1:30
Michael Hampton♦
164k26304619
164k26304619
add a comment |
add a comment |
It's wrong for a standard address but it's possibly someone using DNS as a out of band communication device.
It's not hard to imagine having to pass data via DNS instead of through 'normal' channels.
answered Nov 27 at 12:07
djsmiley2k
320211
1
Could you go ahead and imagine for us? As it is this answer doesn't really say what might be happening - just that the answerer thinks it is logical.
– Saiboogu
Nov 27 at 19:20
1
it's possibly someone using DNS as a out of band communication device. @djsmiley2k I didn't mention this possibility in my original post because the organization controlling these A records is a corporation with substantial security/compliance requirements. For these records to be an out-of-band access mechanism would be highly unlikely, and if the records were an OOB hack, then the repercussions would be... scary.
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:32
@Blinky fair enough, it's unlikely in this case, but it's a possibility in others.
– djsmiley2k
Nov 28 at 9:11
This is certainly a possible thing, but DNS side channels are normally done with text in a TXT record, and not in the hostname itself. Additionally "https://" looks like an error, not a cyphered text.
– Criggie
Nov 28 at 18:28
add a comment |
It's wrong for a standard address but it's possibly someone using DNS as a out of band communication device.
It's not hard to imagine having to pass data via DNS instead of through 'normal' channels.
answered Nov 27 at 12:07
djsmiley2k
320211
1
Could you go ahead and imagine for us? As it is this answer doesn't really say what might be happening - just that the answerer thinks it is logical.
– Saiboogu
Nov 27 at 19:20
1
it's possibly someone using DNS as a out of band communication device. @djsmiley2k I didn't mention this possibility in my original post because the organization controlling these A records is a corporation with substantial security/compliance requirements. For these records to be an out-of-band access mechanism would be highly unlikely, and if the records were an OOB hack, then the repercussions would be... scary.
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:32
@Blinky fair enough, it's unlikely in this case, but it's a possibility in others.
– djsmiley2k
Nov 28 at 9:11
This is certainly a possible thing, but DNS side channels are normally done with text in a TXT record, and not in the hostname itself. Additionally "https://" looks like an error, not a cyphered text.
– Criggie
Nov 28 at 18:28
add a comment |
It's wrong for a standard address but it's possibly someone using DNS as a out of band communication device.
It's not hard to imagine having to pass data via DNS instead of through 'normal' channels.
answered Nov 27 at 12:07
djsmiley2k
320211
It's wrong for a standard address but it's possibly someone using DNS as a out of band communication device.
It's not hard to imagine having to pass data via DNS instead of through 'normal' channels.
answered Nov 27 at 12:07
djsmiley2k
320211
answered Nov 27 at 12:07
djsmiley2k
320211
answered Nov 27 at 12:07
djsmiley2k
320211
answered Nov 27 at 12:07
djsmiley2k
320211
320211
1
Could you go ahead and imagine for us? As it is this answer doesn't really say what might be happening - just that the answerer thinks it is logical.
– Saiboogu
Nov 27 at 19:20
1
it's possibly someone using DNS as a out of band communication device. @djsmiley2k I didn't mention this possibility in my original post because the organization controlling these A records is a corporation with substantial security/compliance requirements. For these records to be an out-of-band access mechanism would be highly unlikely, and if the records were an OOB hack, then the repercussions would be... scary.
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:32
@Blinky fair enough, it's unlikely in this case, but it's a possibility in others.
– djsmiley2k
Nov 28 at 9:11
This is certainly a possible thing, but DNS side channels are normally done with text in a TXT record, and not in the hostname itself. Additionally "https://" looks like an error, not a cyphered text.
– Criggie
Nov 28 at 18:28
add a comment |
1
Could you go ahead and imagine for us? As it is this answer doesn't really say what might be happening - just that the answerer thinks it is logical.
– Saiboogu
Nov 27 at 19:20
1
it's possibly someone using DNS as a out of band communication device. @djsmiley2k I didn't mention this possibility in my original post because the organization controlling these A records is a corporation with substantial security/compliance requirements. For these records to be an out-of-band access mechanism would be highly unlikely, and if the records were an OOB hack, then the repercussions would be... scary.
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:32
@Blinky fair enough, it's unlikely in this case, but it's a possibility in others.
– djsmiley2k
Nov 28 at 9:11
This is certainly a possible thing, but DNS side channels are normally done with text in a TXT record, and not in the hostname itself. Additionally "https://" looks like an error, not a cyphered text.
– Criggie
Nov 28 at 18:28
1
1
Could you go ahead and imagine for us? As it is this answer doesn't really say what might be happening - just that the answerer thinks it is logical.
– Saiboogu
Nov 27 at 19:20
Could you go ahead and imagine for us? As it is this answer doesn't really say what might be happening - just that the answerer thinks it is logical.
– Saiboogu
Nov 27 at 19:20
1
1
it's possibly someone using DNS as a out of band communication device. @djsmiley2k I didn't mention this possibility in my original post because the organization controlling these A records is a corporation with substantial security/compliance requirements. For these records to be an out-of-band access mechanism would be highly unlikely, and if the records were an OOB hack, then the repercussions would be... scary.
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:32
it's possibly someone using DNS as a out of band communication device. @djsmiley2k I didn't mention this possibility in my original post because the organization controlling these A records is a corporation with substantial security/compliance requirements. For these records to be an out-of-band access mechanism would be highly unlikely, and if the records were an OOB hack, then the repercussions would be... scary.
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:32
@Blinky fair enough, it's unlikely in this case, but it's a possibility in others.
– djsmiley2k
Nov 28 at 9:11
@Blinky fair enough, it's unlikely in this case, but it's a possibility in others.
– djsmiley2k
Nov 28 at 9:11
This is certainly a possible thing, but DNS side channels are normally done with text in a TXT record, and not in the hostname itself. Additionally "https://" looks like an error, not a cyphered text.
– Criggie
Nov 28 at 18:28
This is certainly a possible thing, but DNS side channels are normally done with text in a TXT record, and not in the hostname itself. Additionally "https://" looks like an error, not a cyphered text.
– Criggie
Nov 28 at 18:28
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f941735%2fdns-a-record-with-https-in-the-label%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
Is the IP address different from the one for the matching www.example.com? What makes you think this is deliberate and not an error?
– jcaron
Nov 27 at 16:07
The reason I suspect this A record is not misconfigured is because the organization controlling these records is a major corporation with a large online presence, whose DNS records I would expect to be under significant scrutiny. But I am fully capable of believing that these A records are an error. I will dig (no pun intended) into this issue further and post an update if I determine the reason for the records.
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:21
If anyone has a Farsight DNSDB account or a similar service, and would like to query the full DNS space for other A records having "https://", that'd be really cool. :)
– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:28
The IP address mapping of the A record for
https://www.example.comis different from the the IP address mapping forwww.example.com. The former maps to addresses (multiple A records) in the /16 netblock owned by "example.com" per ARIN whois. The latter maps to a CNAME in the domain of a major CDN provider. The CNAME chain ultimately maps to an IP address in the CDN provider's network– Binky
Nov 27 at 22:55
@Binky: That is not a good reason to suspect it's not misconfigured. Incompetence in major corporations is extremely common.
– R..
Nov 28 at 4:01