Re: [Asrg] DNSSEC is NOT secure end to end

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Sat, 30 May 2009 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C073A6A92 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2009 16:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DnNE81Vr2L5M for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2009 16:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E02EB3A6A15 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 30 May 2009 16:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 29538 invoked from network); 31 May 2009 00:57:30 -0000
Received: from bmdi3226.bmobile.ne.jp (HELO necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp) (202.221.175.226) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 31 May 2009 00:57:30 -0000
Message-ID: <4A21C0CB.8070409@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 08:27:07 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja-JP; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: ja, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
References: <200905302032.n4UKVxaZ048822@givry.fdupont.fr>
In-Reply-To: <200905302032.n4UKVxaZ048822@givry.fdupont.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 30 May 2009 16:32:53 -0700
Cc: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] DNSSEC is NOT secure end to end
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 23:26:17 -0000

Francis Dupont wrote:

> => not only this is very arguable (for instance about the resource
> exhaustion) but no hop-by-hop/channel security, even something as
> strong as TSIG, can provide what we need, i.e., end-to-end/object
> security (*).

Unless your meaning of end-to-end differs from that of David Clark,
the following argument of his paper is applicable to DNSSEC.

	http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=383034.383037
	Rethinking the design of the Internet:
	The end to end arguments vs. the brave new world

	The certificate is an assertion by that (presumably
	trustworthy) third party that the indicated public key
	actually goes with the particular user.

	These certificates are principal components of essentially
	all public key schemes,

That is, security of DNSSEC involves third parties and is not end
to end.

> PS (*): I use the common meaning of end-to-end, not Masataka Ohta's one.

I'm afraid you don't know who David Clark is and how he is related
to the end to end argument.

However, all the people who are qualified to discuss end to end do
know him and his argument.

							Masataka Ohta