{
    "api_version": "1",
    "kind": "dse_post",
    "self": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/api/v1/posts/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address/",
    "item": {
        "id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address/",
        "slug": "identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address",
        "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address/",
        "alternate_urls": {
            "markdown": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address.md",
            "json": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/api/v1/posts/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address/"
        },
        "title": "Identify the answering server instance behind a shared DNS address",
        "summary": "Use RFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance to review this narrow operational decision without extending the source beyond its stated scope.",
        "format": {
            "slug": "playbook",
            "name": "Playbook"
        },
        "priority": {
            "slug": "advisory",
            "name": "Advisory"
        },
        "featured": false,
        "image": {
            "theme": "network-infrastructure",
            "label": "Networks & infrastructure",
            "alt": "Resilient network core with engineered blue and gold data paths.",
            "card_url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-card.webp?v=1.8.20",
            "hero_url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-hero.webp?v=1.8.20",
            "social_url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-social-v2.jpg?v=1.8.20",
            "width": 2400,
            "height": 1350
        },
        "topics": [
            {
                "slug": "cybersecurity",
                "name": "Cybersecurity",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/topic/cybersecurity/"
            },
            {
                "slug": "networks-infrastructure",
                "name": "Networks & Infrastructure",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/topic/networks-infrastructure/"
            }
        ],
        "author": {
            "name": "DSE Security Editorial Team",
            "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#editorial-team",
            "type": "Organization"
        },
        "publisher": {
            "name": "Detection Systems & Engineering",
            "url": "https://dsesecurity.com/"
        },
        "published_at": "2026-08-27T12:17:41+00:00",
        "modified_at": "2026-08-27T12:18:09+00:00",
        "reviewed_on": "2026-08-26",
        "reading_minutes": 3,
        "word_count": 629,
        "potentially_affected": "Teams, systems, services, or facilities within the stated scope of RFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance",
        "dse_recommendation": "Compare the observed state with the cited official source, document applicability and exceptions, and test any approved change with rollback safeguards.",
        "primary_source": {
            "name": "RFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance",
            "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4892.html",
            "published_on": null,
            "authority": "www.rfc-editor.org"
        },
        "publishing_principles": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/dse-updates-editorial-methodology/",
        "usage_info": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/usage/",
        "copyright_notice": "Copyright © 2026 Detection Systems & Engineering. All rights reserved.",
        "content_html": "<p>Keep this document to one review outcome: Identify the answering server instance behind a shared DNS address. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.</p>\n<h2>Source fact:</h2>\n<p>The official <a href=\"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4892.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">RFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance</a> from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>A server-instance identification mechanism should work in-band with normal DNS queries and also permit a dedicated identification query. The research record locates this support at <strong>Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 1</strong>.</li>\n<li>The identifier should distinguish a server instance without forcing disclosure of a private hostname or administrative unicast address. The research record locates this support at <strong>Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 4</strong>.</li>\n<li>The mechanism should be implementation-neutral, easy to disable, subject to query access controls, and capable of authenticating returned identification data. The research record locates this support at <strong>Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guidelines 3, 5, and 6</strong>.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Do not import neighboring assumptions into the source record. The supported task is a scoped comparison involving authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers and the conditions the source actually describes.</p>\n<h2>What the source does not establish</h2>\n<p>This RFC evidence supports only the named DNS protocol decision; it does not prove Windows implementation support or a safe production configuration. It does not establish a deployment&#8217;s current state, authorize a production change, prove compliance, or show that Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state are healthy. Documented options are review inputs, not universal mandates.</p>\n<h2>Applicability questions</h2>\n<ul>\n<li>For source statement 1 at <strong>Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 1</strong>, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?</li>\n<li>For source statement 2 at <strong>Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 4</strong>, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?</li>\n<li>For source statement 3 at <strong>Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guidelines 3, 5, and 6</strong>, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?</li>\n<li>Within authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers, which versions, roles, and configuration states define the review population?</li>\n<li>Could Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state invalidate the test, hide a failure, or change applicability?</li>\n<li>Who owns the decision, and which observation requires stopping, escalation, or rollback?</li>\n</ul>\n<h2>DSE recommendation:</h2>\n<p>DSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Use a two-person review for the source interpretation and the resulting operational decision. Record the source location, examined part of authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.</p>\n<p>Do not move from citation to production in one step. Pilot the decision where practical, observe agreed signals, retain a reversal point, and verify Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state. Handle credentials, keys, recovery data, and personal information through approved secure channels.</p>\n<h2>Verification and evidence</h2>\n<p>Tie each conclusion back to <strong>Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 1</strong>; <strong>Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 4</strong>; <strong>Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guidelines 3, 5, and 6</strong> and to observable material such as zone data, packet captures, query transcripts, delegation checks, resolver configuration, and negative-answer behavior. Preserve provenance and stable identifiers without copying secrets into the evidence set.</p>\n<p>Close the review only when the evidence, exception handling, resulting action, and after-state are linked. Schedule a new review after material technical, organizational, incident, or source changes; today&#8217;s observation is not a continuing guarantee.</p>\n<h2>Official references</h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4892.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">RFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance</a> — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force</li>\n</ul>",
        "content_text": "Keep this document to one review outcome: Identify the answering server instance behind a shared DNS address. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.\nSource fact:\nThe official RFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:\n\nA server-instance identification mechanism should work in-band with normal DNS queries and also permit a dedicated identification query. The research record locates this support at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 1.\nThe identifier should distinguish a server instance without forcing disclosure of a private hostname or administrative unicast address. The research record locates this support at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 4.\nThe mechanism should be implementation-neutral, easy to disable, subject to query access controls, and capable of authenticating returned identification data. The research record locates this support at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guidelines 3, 5, and 6.\n\nDo not import neighboring assumptions into the source record. The supported task is a scoped comparison involving authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers and the conditions the source actually describes.\nWhat the source does not establish\nThis RFC evidence supports only the named DNS protocol decision; it does not prove Windows implementation support or a safe production configuration. It does not establish a deployment’s current state, authorize a production change, prove compliance, or show that Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state are healthy. Documented options are review inputs, not universal mandates.\nApplicability questions\n\nFor source statement 1 at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 1, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nFor source statement 2 at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 4, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nFor source statement 3 at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guidelines 3, 5, and 6, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nWithin authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers, which versions, roles, and configuration states define the review population?\nCould Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state invalidate the test, hide a failure, or change applicability?\nWho owns the decision, and which observation requires stopping, escalation, or rollback?\n\nDSE recommendation:\nDSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Use a two-person review for the source interpretation and the resulting operational decision. Record the source location, examined part of authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.\nDo not move from citation to production in one step. Pilot the decision where practical, observe agreed signals, retain a reversal point, and verify Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state. Handle credentials, keys, recovery data, and personal information through approved secure channels.\nVerification and evidence\nTie each conclusion back to Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 1; Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 4; Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guidelines 3, 5, and 6 and to observable material such as zone data, packet captures, query transcripts, delegation checks, resolver configuration, and negative-answer behavior. Preserve provenance and stable identifiers without copying secrets into the evidence set.\nClose the review only when the evidence, exception handling, resulting action, and after-state are linked. Schedule a new review after material technical, organizational, incident, or source changes; today’s observation is not a continuing guarantee.\nOfficial references\n\nRFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force",
        "content_markdown": "Keep this document to one review outcome: Identify the answering server instance behind a shared DNS address. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.\n\n## Source fact:\n\nThe official [RFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4892.html) from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:\n\n- A server-instance identification mechanism should work in-band with normal DNS queries and also permit a dedicated identification query. The research record locates this support at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 1.\n\n- The identifier should distinguish a server instance without forcing disclosure of a private hostname or administrative unicast address. The research record locates this support at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 4.\n\n- The mechanism should be implementation-neutral, easy to disable, subject to query access controls, and capable of authenticating returned identification data. The research record locates this support at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guidelines 3, 5, and 6.\n\nDo not import neighboring assumptions into the source record. The supported task is a scoped comparison involving authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers and the conditions the source actually describes.\n\n## What the source does not establish\n\nThis RFC evidence supports only the named DNS protocol decision; it does not prove Windows implementation support or a safe production configuration. It does not establish a deployment’s current state, authorize a production change, prove compliance, or show that Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state are healthy. Documented options are review inputs, not universal mandates.\n\n## Applicability questions\n\n- For source statement 1 at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 1, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\n\n- For source statement 2 at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 4, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\n\n- For source statement 3 at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guidelines 3, 5, and 6, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\n\n- Within authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers, which versions, roles, and configuration states define the review population?\n\n- Could Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state invalidate the test, hide a failure, or change applicability?\n\n- Who owns the decision, and which observation requires stopping, escalation, or rollback?\n\n## DSE recommendation:\n\nDSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Use a two-person review for the source interpretation and the resulting operational decision. Record the source location, examined part of authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.\n\nDo not move from citation to production in one step. Pilot the decision where practical, observe agreed signals, retain a reversal point, and verify Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state. Handle credentials, keys, recovery data, and personal information through approved secure channels.\n\n## Verification and evidence\n\nTie each conclusion back to Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 1; Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 4; Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guidelines 3, 5, and 6 and to observable material such as zone data, packet captures, query transcripts, delegation checks, resolver configuration, and negative-answer behavior. Preserve provenance and stable identifiers without copying secrets into the evidence set.\n\nClose the review only when the evidence, exception handling, resulting action, and after-state are linked. Schedule a new review after material technical, organizational, incident, or source changes; today’s observation is not a continuing guarantee.\n\n## Official references\n\n- [RFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4892.html) — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force"
    },
    "json_ld": {
        "@context": "https://schema.org",
        "@graph": [
            {
                "@type": "Organization",
                "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization",
                "name": "Detection Systems & Engineering",
                "alternateName": "DSE Security",
                "url": "https://dsesecurity.com/",
                "logo": {
                    "@type": "ImageObject",
                    "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/dse-logo-20260812.png?v=1.8.20"
                }
            },
            {
                "@type": "Organization",
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#editorial-team",
                "name": "DSE Security Editorial Team",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/",
                "parentOrganization": {
                    "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization"
                }
            },
            {
                "@type": "WebSite",
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#website",
                "name": "DSE Updates",
                "alternateName": "DSE Security Knowledge Hub",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/",
                "inLanguage": "en-US",
                "publisher": {
                    "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization"
                },
                "potentialAction": {
                    "@type": "SearchAction",
                    "target": {
                        "@type": "EntryPoint",
                        "urlTemplate": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/?q={search_term_string}"
                    },
                    "query-input": "required name=search_term_string"
                }
            },
            {
                "@type": "WebPage",
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address/",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address/",
                "isPartOf": {
                    "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#website"
                },
                "lastReviewed": "2026-08-26"
            },
            {
                "@type": "BreadcrumbList",
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address/#breadcrumbs",
                "itemListElement": [
                    {
                        "@type": "ListItem",
                        "position": 1,
                        "name": "DSE Updates",
                        "item": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/"
                    },
                    {
                        "@type": "ListItem",
                        "position": 2,
                        "name": "Identify the answering server instance behind a shared DNS address",
                        "item": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address/"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "@type": [
                    "Article",
                    "TechArticle"
                ],
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address/#article",
                "identifier": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address/",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address/",
                "headline": "Identify the answering server instance behind a shared DNS address",
                "description": "Use RFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance to review this narrow operational decision without extending the source…",
                "abstract": "Use RFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance to review this narrow operational decision without extending the source beyond its stated scope.",
                "articleBody": "Keep this document to one review outcome: Identify the answering server instance behind a shared DNS address. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.\nSource fact:\nThe official RFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:\n\nA server-instance identification mechanism should work in-band with normal DNS queries and also permit a dedicated identification query. The research record locates this support at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 1.\nThe identifier should distinguish a server instance without forcing disclosure of a private hostname or administrative unicast address. The research record locates this support at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 4.\nThe mechanism should be implementation-neutral, easy to disable, subject to query access controls, and capable of authenticating returned identification data. The research record locates this support at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guidelines 3, 5, and 6.\n\nDo not import neighboring assumptions into the source record. The supported task is a scoped comparison involving authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers and the conditions the source actually describes.\nWhat the source does not establish\nThis RFC evidence supports only the named DNS protocol decision; it does not prove Windows implementation support or a safe production configuration. It does not establish a deployment’s current state, authorize a production change, prove compliance, or show that Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state are healthy. Documented options are review inputs, not universal mandates.\nApplicability questions\n\nFor source statement 1 at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 1, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nFor source statement 2 at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 4, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nFor source statement 3 at Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guidelines 3, 5, and 6, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nWithin authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers, which versions, roles, and configuration states define the review population?\nCould Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state invalidate the test, hide a failure, or change applicability?\nWho owns the decision, and which observation requires stopping, escalation, or rollback?\n\nDSE recommendation:\nDSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Use a two-person review for the source interpretation and the resulting operational decision. Record the source location, examined part of authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.\nDo not move from citation to production in one step. Pilot the decision where practical, observe agreed signals, retain a reversal point, and verify Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state. Handle credentials, keys, recovery data, and personal information through approved secure channels.\nVerification and evidence\nTie each conclusion back to Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 1; Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guideline 4; Section 3 (Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention), guidelines 3, 5, and 6 and to observable material such as zone data, packet captures, query transcripts, delegation checks, resolver configuration, and negative-answer behavior. Preserve provenance and stable identifiers without copying secrets into the evidence set.\nClose the review only when the evidence, exception handling, resulting action, and after-state are linked. Schedule a new review after material technical, organizational, incident, or source changes; today’s observation is not a continuing guarantee.\nOfficial references\n\nRFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force",
                "datePublished": "2026-08-27T12:17:41+00:00",
                "dateModified": "2026-08-27T12:18:09+00:00",
                "mainEntityOfPage": {
                    "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address/"
                },
                "inLanguage": "en-US",
                "isAccessibleForFree": true,
                "author": {
                    "@type": "Organization",
                    "name": "DSE Security Editorial Team",
                    "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#editorial-team"
                },
                "publisher": {
                    "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization"
                },
                "image": {
                    "@type": "ImageObject",
                    "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/identify-the-answering-server-instance-behind-a-shared-dns-address/#primaryimage",
                    "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-social-v2.jpg?v=1.8.20",
                    "contentUrl": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-social-v2.jpg?v=1.8.20",
                    "width": 1200,
                    "height": 630,
                    "caption": "Identify the answering server instance behind a shared DNS address"
                },
                "articleSection": [
                    "Cybersecurity",
                    "Networks & Infrastructure"
                ],
                "keywords": [
                    "Cybersecurity",
                    "Networks & Infrastructure",
                    "Playbook",
                    "Advisory priority"
                ],
                "genre": "Playbook",
                "about": [
                    {
                        "@type": "Thing",
                        "name": "Cybersecurity",
                        "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/topic/cybersecurity/"
                    },
                    {
                        "@type": "Thing",
                        "name": "Networks & Infrastructure",
                        "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/topic/networks-infrastructure/"
                    }
                ],
                "wordCount": 629,
                "timeRequired": "PT3M",
                "publishingPrinciples": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/dse-updates-editorial-methodology/",
                "usageInfo": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/usage/",
                "copyrightHolder": {
                    "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization"
                },
                "copyrightNotice": "Copyright © 2026 Detection Systems & Engineering. All rights reserved.",
                "citation": {
                    "@type": "CreativeWork",
                    "name": "RFC 4892 — Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance",
                    "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4892.html"
                }
            }
        ]
    }
}