IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey - *please* review.

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sat, 21 February 2015 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE7D1A046D for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 12:44:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 6SOvhsFOX8GI for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 12:44:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C38F71A00B2 for <DANE@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 12:44:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3kqM8l1C5lzB5Q; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 21:44:39 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: mx.nohats.ca; dkim=pass reason="1024-bit key; unprotected key" header.d=nohats.ca header.i=@nohats.ca header.b=MWMTok+5; dkim-adsp=pass
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 bfy8i3BM6qbg; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 21:44:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 21:44:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2A480416; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 15:44:37 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1424551477; bh=rHm4I49ZPjAdQ3HFd/s/4v2Xf5KTdNBXeZdv+3rSDr0=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=MWMTok+5OxNjA7rE88AgBpVICShJrlB1ewThlPRBA2j8DMs98Ik6KpezYjVVbhtVf iqsoeqqP3colIpa29rOC1zNbfJf2uLsi3c38OEaPcBOEa27pQf3W5YVsDinxrBzKjE 27ipWUSh3IgZ8A/ZzoResDqNxaSRf+QVhlM7mGwA=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id t1LKibrp007285; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 15:44:37 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 15:44:37 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCir+z6QjPQkgjF+jhKM4=ZCXpsQYDWsJqHRJ=20mGHeX9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1502211543270.4576@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CAHw9_iJPuG23Aok7V_wcAMirua_DPDLHy01tnd+DaUqEeK3NZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCir+z6QjPQkgjF+jhKM4=ZCXpsQYDWsJqHRJ=20mGHeX9w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/aWtySdRn73qky8nWURMt7U4UmA8>
Cc: "<dane@ietf.org>" <DANE@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dane] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey - *please* review.
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 20:44:46 -0000

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Brian Dickson wrote:

> I have read the document. Modulo any other minor comments from other
> reviewers, I think it is a fine document, and should be published.
> Extremely minor comment:

Thanks for the review!

> In section 5.1, about email leaks, it may be worth additionally mentioning:
> Use of distinct SALT values can further limit brute force efforts, even
> where the same key is used.

How would that help? I would assume the attacker zone walks the zone and
then brute forces the names offline. Whether the actual live zone
changes salt wouldnt matter at that point?

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email