| Port | 53 |
|---|---|
| Transport | TCP and UDP |
| Service | DNS — Domain name resolution; TCP for large answers and zone transfers |
| Category | DNS |
| Range | well-known (0–1023, needs root to bind on Unix) |
| Encrypted | No, plaintext |
| Exposure | Designed to face the internet |
Port 53 DNS · TCP and UDP
DNS, the name system every connection starts with. Queries normally use UDP; TCP is used when an answer does not fit (large DNSSEC responses), for zone transfers (AXFR) and increasingly by resolvers that prefer it.
What runs on port 53
DNS, the name system every connection starts with. Queries normally use UDP; TCP is used when an answer does not fit (large DNSSEC responses), for zone transfers (AXFR) and increasingly by resolvers that prefer it. An authoritative server must answer the world on both; a recursive resolver must not, because open resolvers are abused for amplification attacks. Encrypted variants are DNS over TLS on 853 and DNS over HTTPS on 443.
Software that uses it: BIND · Unbound · Knot · PowerDNS · CoreDNS · dnsmasq · systemd-resolved
Should port 53 be open?
Designed to face the internet. This port exists to be reachable from anywhere, so the usual question is not whether to open it but how the service behind it is configured and patched.
- Allow TCP 53 as well as UDP; blocking it breaks DNSSEC and large answers.
- Recursive resolvers: listen on internal interfaces only or use an allow-list.
- dig +tcp and dig +short are the quickest checks.
Check port 53
# on the host: is anything listening, and which process? ss -ltnp 'sport = :53' ss -lunp 'sport = :53' sudo lsof -i :53 # from another machine: is it reachable? nc -zv host 53 nmap -p 53 host nc -zuv host 53 sudo nmap -sU -p 53 host curl -v telnet://host:53 # raw TCP connect test, Ctrl-C to leave
A port that answers from the internet when it should not is the finding; nmap from a machine outside your network (or a VPS) is the honest test, because scans from inside the LAN pass the firewall you are trying to verify.
Allow or block port 53
# ufw (Ubuntu/Debian)
sudo ufw allow from 10.0.0.0/8 to any port 53 proto tcp
sudo ufw allow from 10.0.0.0/8 to any port 53 proto udp
sudo ufw deny 53/tcp
sudo ufw deny 53/udp
# nftables
nft add rule inet filter input ip saddr 10.0.0.0/8 meta l4proto { tcp, udp } th dport 53 accept
nft add rule inet filter input meta l4proto { tcp, udp } th dport 53 drop
# iptables (legacy)
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 53 -s 10.0.0.0/8 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 53 -j DROP
iptables -A INPUT -p udp --dport 53 -s 10.0.0.0/8 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DROP
# firewalld
sudo firewall-cmd --permanent --add-rich-rule='rule family=ipv4 source address=10.0.0.0/8 port port=53 protocol=tcp accept' Replace 10.0.0.0/8 with the networks that need access. Allowing by source address is the rule that matters; "allow 53" with no source is just "open".
Related ports
Part of the port number reference. Ports are 16-bit numbers; see also the subnet calculator and the packet decoder, which shows ports inside TCP and UDP headers.
Questions
Is port 53 TCP or UDP?
Both. DNS uses TCP and UDP on 53: Domain name resolution; TCP for large answers and zone transfers.
Is port 53 encrypted?
No, plaintext. Anything sent over it can be read by whoever is on the path, so it belongs on a trusted network or inside a VPN or SSH tunnel.
How do I check whether port 53 is open?
On the server, ss -ltnp (or -lunp for UDP) shows whether something listens on 53 and which process. From another machine, nc -zv host 53 or nmap -p 53 host tests reachability. "Open" in a scan means something answered; a firewall usually makes the port filtered (no answer) rather than closed (RST).
Can DNS run on a different port?
Yes; the number is a convention, not a requirement. Changing it reduces log noise from scanners but does not add security, and every client, firewall rule and monitoring check then needs the new number. Keep the default unless you have a concrete reason.