Re: [Add] data integrity and DNSSEC or DoH/DoT

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Tue, 03 September 2019 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
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 AC799120013 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 IF_MRmvZBTeO for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx36-out10.antispamcloud.com (mx36-out10.antispamcloud.com [209.126.121.30]) (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 890A7120024 for <add@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xse360.mail2web.com ([66.113.197.106] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx114.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1i5BUI-0007ko-Uu for add@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 18:17:02 +0200
Received: from xsmtp22.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.61]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46NBt02Q9tz4hm0 for <add@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.5.2.35] (helo=xmail10.myhosting.com) by xsmtp22.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1i5BUG-000292-79 for add@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 09:16:56 -0700
Received: (qmail 20513 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2019 16:16:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.104]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.46.209]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail10.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <neil.cook=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; 3 Sep 2019 16:16:55 -0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-AEE47544-9E93-49EE-B5C2-1AA05D6A7B5A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G77)
In-Reply-To: <F66D555F-7533-4B42-A036-016345F765A7@open-xchange.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 09:16:54 -0700
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>, ADD Mailing list <add@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <0B481BB1-5BF9-409F-B41D-2DFC4675450A@huitema.net>
References: <A1128702-1E19-4657-9740-E84AE09992F2@piuha.net> <CABcZeBMfOTjq-8hDDoKMtJvfHUA5nC8o60zuk-2Xe-ZhfwriJQ@mail.gmail.com> <766112E1-F532-4C6B-8CA8-A096671E02EE@piuha.net> <CA+9kkMAfuOwJu8_qJTuhAY4mUwR+tVUxr+k3QFHBk3byV672Ow@mail.gmail.com> <A7EA862E-8E80-40E3-834D-E628988C0A24@virtualized.org> <CAFWeb9KT=2JL0oHUgJ2WMcduR3na+hP2QncvRR4YurmqsAWxTA@mail.gmail.com> <59E0EC53-0E30-431C-8376-52C7BFC121A8@virtualized.org> <CAFWeb9+Z7RmXEr46qx5PaUcxh2R3+HXhrZeW-8QEMX4HLt7a-w@mail.gmail.com> <589DAFCB-1BDC-4156-A2CA-179C4559A6B2@virtualized.org> <cf2152d7-8618-7ad2-b8f9-7a259ab5df19@cs.tcd.ie> <683A176C-3CE6-4866-A736-F2A7465FA5B5@rfc1035.com> <CABcZeBPmWYBKcKhjTUBLw62xJT=OXbp3v6MZ+8Gtr=gFmQ-g6A@mail.gmail.com> <E40CC478-BBA1-4DA9-8F6A-FE1782E0F27E@rfc1035.com> <CABcZeBMnG_HJHYrGpQD1LWWNi8zuhAm=0Uy2HNRRmhYS9PsCtg@mail.gmail.com> <06613304-C325-4BA4-AB6F-32D79DFCECA0@open-xchange.com> <CABcZeBMr6WtzbyPPA6W1Da0A9bUoowMVucbBf5K0BQgqZrNdwg@mail.gmail.com> <F66D555F-7533-4B42-A036-016345F7 65A7@open-xchange.com>
To: Neil Cook <neil.cook=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Originating-IP: 66.113.197.106
X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.197.0/24
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.197.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.13)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0duM4P579sYYbdH8Mt+sPVWpSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhVJ4kOOEcgQb3m UCsAH5ITCkTNWdUk1Ol2OGx3IfrIJKywOmJyM1qr8uRnWBrbSAGDNzOpszOkW3faMySFwG163+fH zJ6mVE7ewsipSVIfs4bE1sxs2QFuds/cZSYNm8P2gyWFxOA5dILPypvKxNVhWQwOVcNrdpWfEYrY fLBY3+c10h9aHNaslh2Yjb8ceaq51aOsarGPChhedL2Py5oHk46jSvfpO+1kZkomjtjB6X5Q5Q9f RUeIpTIC2ySfqvnqLwoxlgatmaBb0rBiK9xbkDrUqzcKIief90MVLZY9LbIZh9+IQ1oS9LBn3VIP 95Jz7ujRlJ9wSMlhvaudJXZ9EIBG/qaR+8r9SKFMmPJLf850OvZYsmoVQuOIhwKLK6IKBNB4LZ0v UHHKTzJX7b1JhMjx7v77N42Z/zX3DQBtZa/0j9rMdVQseW3F+doIupqmER9E+btGG8Xk1uugE/FU 4J9TrjYo22Tif+7yfJXbGyN6EipRzMVZ5LqwTx7Vvn9SP+LiFhV9TEgXGI3XmDfDnFIqCLCdAp1y ZulYn20NGB2J9K2UXOuc0AkfrKZ8ay0elvIOvY9Oqmtykgy4YJWMAscn27SQ9Fq6KiqLqTRHwQ98 g2fGU86cSswil+kDetUfttbLHdNhiUq2jBEvMVLlZ4GThCScvU0cCIiHSQbmcVJgKq1oyaA3KnEr WMYbJL3PIPeg9WrzDXOtahmLPdT6/N5lvG1f3sxK9YiXfxnyJdCkrq8xiAwddcUiCajit4hYXPWl FdaGOH191uXjgjQN/RTaYTLUj/RFhcnr3QktcdjZbfio//iQ9VeE2LtuWkLz1vEjHyvS2QZiR+AZ YvfxEvZFKu+ZM2mB1CpThxyaBpbeNHk15VolAGHS5rCXQKDyCQUljhSWDhWh87HBSLhNUo4qiB0X MVQG2R7iUfOzATaF5R3hQJk8CwyURYKQ0Ye0iR3bHfnMCIEU+nrglojKwJanfcoq9IsR6l/OZb9V MEM=
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine9.antispamcloud.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/i8WcyhnvSVhb2ZbPdVtnPlYpKvM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:06:16 -0700
Subject: Re: [Add] data integrity and DNSSEC or DoH/DoT
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, 03 Sep 2019 16:17:04 -0000

 

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:34 AM, Neil Cook <neil.cook=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>> On 3 Sep 2019, at 15:46, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It’s not entirely  useless. The problem it does solve is giving the user a better experience when a site is blocked for resolvers that support this extended Error Code. Currently for HTTPS the user will end up with a TLS connection error of some kind (or a blank page in some browsers). If a resolver returns a “blocked/censored/prohibited” response, then the browser can tell the user that the web page was blocked with an informative message. Assuming this becomes the default behaviour for non-malicious resolvers then I think it will a good signal for distinguishing  "this is malware blocking" from "this resolver is malicious”.
>> 
>> I'm not following. Suppose that we add an error code that says "this site has malware". Now, I operate a resolver which is malicious in the sense that it wishes to block a certain form of content (say, access to the IETF) but don't want the people whose content I am blocking is being blocked for that reason. So, instead I return "this site has malware".
>> 
>> My point here is that a code of this type only tells you what the resolver *asserts* the reason it blocked it is, it doesn't necessarily tell you what the actual reason that the content was blocked.
>> 
> 
> Ok yes I understand. The blocking reason wouldn’t be that useful in the general case of not knowing whether a resolver was malicious. However I think the fact that the resolver is telling you that the content is blocked is still useful, no matter what the reason for the blocking is, for the reason described above. For example in your use-case, the user would see “this site is blocked by the DNS resolver” (or whatever) rather than “TLS connection error” which would be the case today.

Is there a way to explain how the message is blocked? Such as, "this domain is listed as malware in RBZ malware.example.net." Information like that would allow the client to make an informed decision.

-- Christian Huitema