IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 15 May 2012 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 6FD9C21F8593 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2012 07:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.623
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.024, 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 RiafDzMjJoqE for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2012 07:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D95121F85CF for <dane@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2012 07:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22E941ECB41C for <dane@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2012 14:57:23 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:57:21 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dane@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20120515145721.GD20521@mail.yitter.info>
References: <CABcZeBMY26xrfvAx=UsYN2XnuONZ2vPy9tNwHQALudd=yQDvgA@mail.gmail.com> <643D87CD-D01E-47B8-82E5-D3F57D50C80B@vpnc.org> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1205142229552.10990@bofh.nohats.ca> <CABcZeBMS9cJ3m6JwJED7XAqdsF=zbTUUU_o3-opiZvqMyr7mdw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1205142352010.10990@bofh.nohats.ca> <20120515112154.GA20521@mail.yitter.info> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1205150816001.14601@bofh.nohats.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1205150816001.14601@bofh.nohats.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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, 15 May 2012 14:57:24 -0000

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 08:19:24AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> 
> Yes, it is as bad as the cert partrol plugin that tracks PKIX states
> in a browser. But it's better then disabling TLSA at all in the face
> of DNS errors (where we assume most errors are genuine network errors
> and not attacks).

I think ekr is arguing that use cases 0 and 1 are different than use
cases 2 and 3; it seems to me that in use cases 2 and 3, if you can't
get an answer out of the DNS you're already screwed: you can't proceed
with a TLS connection, because you don't have the necessary material
to do the negotiation.  What did I miss?

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email