IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] Behavior in the face of no answer?

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 08 May 2012 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 145689E8006 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 13:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CNDGL8h8nokA for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 13:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFDA21F8459 for <dane@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 13:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:57844) by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1SRqnd-0004zs-SH (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 08 May 2012 21:14:22 +0100
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1SRqnd-0002vp-N8 (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 08 May 2012 21:14:21 +0100
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 21:14:21 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Paul Wouters <paul@cypherpunks.ca>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1205081547230.14847@bofh.nohats.ca>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1205082113260.17365@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CABcZeBMY26xrfvAx=UsYN2XnuONZ2vPy9tNwHQALudd=yQDvgA@mail.gmail.com> <20120503223745.GC1804@mail.yitter.info> <CABcZeBMFV8oiZJfAY1fZ_0bBQWa=q6aBL65AS+W5gBuKmPnwOg@mail.gmail.com> <20120504021044.GB4560@mail.yitter.info> <B25C977F-6B4E-458C-879D-A36EDB94DA75@icsi.berkeley.edu> <20120504023602.GA4683@mail.yitter.info> <CABcZeBO93n_C5detefBcOjAoswe2inGKDj65gQPDQmREyGnhAw@mail.gmail.com> <20120504112922.GB4929@mail.yitter.info> <CABcZeBPTTa07iUHo9XL5WrHGMYHwaQzs6xYtiF25O4Jek8E3RQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120504144426.GD4929@mail.yitter.info> <CABcZeBOM_0L42Rng75AsVda9u4G=FH8=OB8Qg=nQpL-BzRoBuQ@mail.gmail.com> <3FF36EBA-F8B1-4D66-BA00-E8E36A7E449D@kumari.net> <CABcZeBP2iRLa76rSXu4A0OwFxP=tqK1ShZ6wv=6wnaEC6uad+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMfhd9XYS=9SGotCTwa7NJU4L8WFys2rDVsQZxn4a0wz+NxS3Q@mail.gmail.com> <13B3A487-2C93-4958-8FE6-63132742181E@checkpoint.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1205082040330.17365@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1205081547230.14847@bofh.nohats.ca>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>, "dane@ietf.org" <dane@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dane] Behavior in the face of no answer?
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <dane.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane>
List-Post: <mailto:dane@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 20:14:31 -0000

Paul Wouters <paul@cypherpunks.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2012, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> > I think the "DNSSEC works but TLSA doesn't" heuristic may also be useful.
>
> I don't think you can use that at all.
>
> You will still run into DNS implementations that cannot do TLSA or generic
> records that are not malicious, and I don't really know how you would
> distinguish those from malicious TLSA breakage, so you cannot really
> draw any conclusion from such state.

What is the overlap between servers that support DNSSEC but not RFC 3597?

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Forth, Tyne, Dogger: South 4 or 5, becoming variable 3 or 4. Slight,
occasionally moderate at first. Showers. Moderate or good.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email