Re: [Add] [EXTERNAL] Re: Browser Administrative Authority

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 28 May 2019 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FF0F120073 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 07:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XsP6qACyIuFM for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 07:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74C6912004B for <add@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2019 07:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45CxNG1Jd7zFPy; Tue, 28 May 2019 16:40:46 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1559054446; bh=UzRhC9iK8YsrpAUQ++FtgtsrZ/UHMI0dh5sU6a1uR2I=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=RR9XY2n0kOIXEGG9SqQLz0qaDl6fCH5shfXtMBurT4nuw6za8RhOUMG2sr4zrxhND ZRGVYhPJeq+SJyxEg1I6iC5hyGqL6quHuJADfLMQ8o2DM815e1waaCWgcfXZVq5W2M zlXp8liG1mJliKOylXAh1xmFTiL1i50nbsp8sK7w=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Buba1EW57UJB; Tue, 28 May 2019 16:40:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 28 May 2019 16:40:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2ACF5322DFC; Tue, 28 May 2019 10:40:42 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 2ACF5322DFC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7FB40D8E84; Tue, 28 May 2019 10:40:42 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 10:40:42 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Neil Cook <neil.cook@open-xchange.com>
cc: add@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <2DD6080A-686C-4B00-9171-630DCFBF3270@open-xchange.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1905281030180.9759@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <182C9119-59F9-43FA-B116-4D45649B74B5@nbcuni.com> <410f4e4d-aee0-d679-b454-6576de90b21a@nomountain.net> <76EF5603-618C-4A73-A4F9-7489B73B0757@nbcuni.com> <9ad7aa89-d751-e4c6-dede-e9c22faf6d20@nomountain.net> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1905262020010.25783@bofh.nohats.ca> <3f2b3225-ad2e-75c8-0cd7-32679e20ebf7@huitema.net> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1905272242570.15000@bofh.nohats.ca> <2DD6080A-686C-4B00-9171-630DCFBF3270@open-xchange.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/fivzBVVOPbzF0BTRR_eeWagYJhI>
Subject: Re: [Add] [EXTERNAL] Re: Browser Administrative Authority
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 14:40:51 -0000

On Tue, 28 May 2019, Neil Cook wrote:

> I don’t know the case of your particular ISP, but IMO saying things like "the ISP (carrier of hotspot) only uses their view of my DNS to my detriment” is not very
> helpful.

I meant, either they don't interfere or resell DNS data, in which case
the last mile is safe because no one else has access to it, or they do
interfere or resell DNS data, in which case encryption to the same ISP
does not help defend against the attack.

But perhaps my view was a bit too simplistic with multi-tenant
deployments. I would hope my ISP, that uses Bell for their last mile,
would encrypt all data between my modem and their network, so Bell
couldn't see anything, but that is not likely to be the case.

Note also that I meant that ISP's can be coerced to mangle DNS, such
as for the recent mandated porn filter in the UK. I did not mean to
say mangling at the ISP level is always the ISPs fault. It could be a
government fault.


Paul