Re: [dane] DNSSEC debug advice (TLSA lookup problem).

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 04 September 2014 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 B82BC1A026F for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 KXdzhy3B_ca4 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24D8D1A026C for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94AB2349441 for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 23:05:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12521160068 for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 23:08:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7643160052 for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 23:08:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED33E1E6D2FC for <dane@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:05:33 +1000 (EST)
To: dane@ietf.org
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20140904202137.GD26920@mournblade.imrryr.org> <20140904210017.09E4D1E6A231@rock.dv.isc.org> <20140904213730.GE26920@mournblade.imrryr.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 04 Sep 2014 21:37:31 +0000." <20140904213730.GE26920@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 09:05:33 +1000
Message-Id: <20140904230533.ED33E1E6D2FC@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/pzgAHBG6kl9zgBm0AQ0hyGtxGqQ
Subject: Re: [dane] DNSSEC debug advice (TLSA lookup problem).
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: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 23:05:42 -0000

In message <20140904213730.GE26920@mournblade.imrryr.org>, Viktor Dukhovni writ
es:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:00:16AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> > Just go and read how the DNS works first.  This will tell you what
> > rules DNSSEC has to prove were met for each answer.
> 
> Yes, in fact between posting and reading your answer, I went off
> and did some reading.  The problem as I now understand it seems to
> be that:
> 
> 	1.   *.clarion-hotels.cz IN CNAME 	exists.
> 	2.   mail2.clarion-hotels.cz		exists.
> 	3.   _tcp.mail2.clarion-hotels.cz	does not exist.
> 
> and finally, the nameservers for clarion-hotels.cz incorrectly
> apply the wildcard CNAME to a child of an existing sibling node
> (mail2).  This is detected as an error by various validating
> resolvers.
>
> Is this right?

Yes.
 
> > The RRSIG for _25._tcp.mail2.clarion-hotels.cz says it was generated
> > from a wildcard record which the validator proved by retaining the
> > correct number of labels to form the suffix of the wildcard record
> > and adding a '*' label.  This gives the name of the record that was
> > signed.  The number of labels is also part of the data that is
> > hashed to form the RRSIG.
> 
> Right, so along with this there needs to be a non-existence proof
> for the labels replaced with the wildcard, but there is no such
> proof, because "mail2" exists.
> 
> > Now can we please stop second guessing whether DNSSEC actually
> > works.  It does.
> 
> Sorry, I was just surprised by the RRSIG values being the same for
> multiple qnames, but did not know about the RRSIG label count field.
> So my guess was way off, but it was a guess, and I did ask for
> advice from folks who actually know how this works.

Ok.  Sorry if I came on a bit strong.
 
> So now I need to figure out what manner of broken name servers are:
> 
>     ns.forpsi.cz
>     ns.forpsi.it
>     ns.forpsi.net
> 
> -- 
> 	Viktor.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dane mailing list
> dane@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org