Re: [apps-discuss] CONTEXTJ in TLD DNS-Labels (draft-liman-tld-names-05)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 20 July 2011 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5E021F86C0 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Py4ujQ4bhRTk for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19A621F86BE for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.101] (50-0-66-4.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.66.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6KE7MSE083149 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:07:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <640EE2B8-AB0B-40E5-9815-4A6A5E20FA79@frobbit.se>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:07:34 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B7CF936A-F5F8-4C54-8F31-62C04C08135D@vpnc.org>
References: <B464B2C6607E04FD0572AA74@192.168.1.128> <CANp6Ttw4MaAJy2VRvZ8929oBju9jL3b69PkSyFLi-SC4YaNTnw@mail.gmail.com> <5AC1318B-A219-4056-BD14-C90BEE85669E@frobbit.se> <8159C20D-BF2B-42CB-9529-C870A2AD1572@vpnc.org> <E7E5E31E-89E7-46AF-9FA8-6CFD8F661376@frobbit.se> <C6CF1575-D301-4802-B877-8130781B268B@vpnc.org> <640EE2B8-AB0B-40E5-9815-4A6A5E20FA79@frobbit.se>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <patrik@frobbit.se>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: apps-discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] CONTEXTJ in TLD DNS-Labels (draft-liman-tld-names-05)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:07:41 -0000

On Jul 19, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> On 19 jul 2011, at 21.49, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
>> We have already seen the perceived need for these characters in the root zone, and we have not seen any statement of how they can cause harm *in the root zone*. "Phishing" in the root zone, given the horrendous weight of the process for getting new names put in the root zone, is not a threat. Which others do you believe that need to be weighed against the value of the characters?
> 
> Yes, phishing in the root zone. People putting URLs on web pages that you click on.

This is an argument about disallowing labels with non-PVALID at any level, not just in the root. Prohibiting non-PVALID in the root will do nothing to prevent those attacks; an attacker just puts the phishing label in a different part of the domain name.

> It is tons of code easier in various applications to "know" that a code point is either allowed or not allowed in the TLD than having context dependent rules that otherwise is the option.

Such a rule just begs for various applications to "know" that non-PVALID codepoints are illegal anywhere. This was discussed in the INDAbis WG, and the WG decided that the root zone was not special.

> So the question is whether security software can filter out URLs with ZWNJ in the TLD as dangerous or not.


This truly sounds like a re-assessment of non-PVALID in IDNA2008. I'm willing to have that discussion if you are, but trying to say that it somehow applies only to the root seems misguided.

--Paul Hoffman