IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Revised opportunistic encryption draft

Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> Mon, 16 November 2020 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C1B3A1718 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 02:01:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 j6oFxKia0Ypi for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 02:01:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx3.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99CA53A1712 for <dprive@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 02:01:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx3.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BCAC6A2FD; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 11:01:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from plato (84-81-54-175.fixed.kpn.net [84.81.54.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2AF193C0386; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 11:01:39 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <d8d1613f65f180f1495559114b55a2f06e7de08f.camel@powerdns.com>
From: Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
To: "dprive@ietf.org" <dprive@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 11:01:38 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCipYL6fujSLur6OsoPq3ACv-uOFGFOzks0oij-97gTfp6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C0CBEBC5-D28A-46C0-AE50-078710015466@icann.org> <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2010301202350.2587497@bofh.nohats.ca> <2444B21B-9465-4A5B-97CC-AF809309300A@icann.org> <CABcZeBPZFY9aQ5Nb0q_4uTMFRbY3-S2rus4vaeLaUmvU+h_ftg@mail.gmail.com> <2D07CBD0-30CE-418E-AD05-02E0A5EDB79F@icann.org> <CABcZeBNdNnyjzk0mOtfix=OvVTEpPzegEw_V5QfKvYtkFV+zOw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCirz27EoahrYE8z9AV=Cf=A-i=iPP1deOYPWO8_k1mL+XA@mail.gmail.com> <27ddd3bde1ea11c857a96346b6f4ba5aa8b1d92f.camel@powerdns.com> <CAH1iCipYL6fujSLur6OsoPq3ACv-uOFGFOzks0oij-97gTfp6A@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: PowerDNS.COM B.V.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/7VqTxULo_hm-bBylrM3LzXkJO4c>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Revised opportunistic encryption draft
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dns-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dns-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 10:01:50 -0000

On Sun, 2020-11-15 at 12:40 -0800, Brian Dickson wrote:
> 
> > > Using TLSA records at _853._tcp.<NS_NAME> in a signed zone provides an unambiguous signal to use optionally TLSA, in a downgrade-resistant manner.
> > 
> > Not downgrade-resistant, until NS names in delegations become signed.
> 
> That's a moot point.
> TLSA records MUST be signed, and the TLSA RFC makes this very clear: RFC 6698 section 4.1 (Determining whether a TLSA RRSet can be used MUST be based on the
>    DNSSEC validation state (as defined in [RFC4033]).

Which buys you very little if the name you are looking up is from an
unauthenticated source - like NS names in delegations.

> So, downgrade-resistant, period.

No.
 
Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email