Re: [dane] DANE and STARTTLS - indication of availability of encryption

Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org> Fri, 06 September 2013 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>
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 7E75311E80F7 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.395
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 34tu5AUZAHnA for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [208.77.212.107]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518C011E80DE for <dane@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1034) id BC33F2AA9FC; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 17:39:19 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:39:19 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>
To: dane@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20130906173919.GZ29796@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <20130904144549.GA29796@mournblade.imrryr.org> <m3bo48885q.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org> <20130905010924.GM29796@mournblade.imrryr.org> <CAF4kx8fq2oxNK2MiCCrNJUn-Qog+TXrHZ+ohj-vKFxpi+5PPEw@mail.gmail.com> <20130905212933.GI61351@mx1.yitter.info> <CAF4kx8etOjE8y4B9dq1dm6_5_8TOYHnp4v1r0bfT1SOr5im0mw@mail.gmail.com> <m3d2om5bt2.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org> <20130906155016.GY29796@mournblade.imrryr.org> <CAF4kx8cHKj24Wwf=4-OECY+rRLsoW2_8V_q+gY2-KmpMOnFg7Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAF4kx8cHKj24Wwf=4-OECY+rRLsoW2_8V_q+gY2-KmpMOnFg7Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [dane] DANE and STARTTLS - indication of availability of encryption
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dane@ietf.org
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: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:39:30 -0000

On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 09:12:08AM -0700, Ian Fette (????????) wrote:

> That would assume deploying dnssec on Gmail.com is somehow easier than on
> Google.com :-)

Sorry if I was unclear.  My example was about testing TLSA in a
signed zone on non-production TLS endpoints before publishing for
the first time on production endpoints.  No intent to imply that
any particular domain is an easier place to do DNSSEC.

In the specific case of gmail.com, you'd need DNSSEC on both gmail.com
and google.com:

    $ dig +short -t mx gmail.com | sort -n
    5 gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
    10 alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
    20 alt2.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
    30 alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
    40 alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.

since not only the gmail.com MX RRset needs to be secure, but also
the zone containing the actual MX hosts, since these are the TLSA
base domains.

I am guessing that one the major obstacles to DNSSEC for Google is
all the interaction with DNS geo load-balancing gear.  I don't know
whether there is gear of that ilk that supports DNSSEC, or whether
beyond the hardware there are architectural obstacles to DNSSEC in
combination with highly dynamic DNS responses.

It may take some time for Google to publish TLSA RRs in a signed
zone, but it is I hope worth the effort to figure out what the
obstacles are and what it would take to address them.

In the mean time Google can easily add client-side DANE TLSA support,
this just requires a DNSSEC aware resolver.

-- 
	Viktor.