Re: [dns-privacy] [[e-mail]: I-D Action: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation-00.txt]

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:09:34AM -0400,
 Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]> wrote
 a message of 50 lines which said:

> minimization might well cause registries to take countermeasures if
> minimization was to affect their business models.

It's a general problem of security: the Bad Guys take
countermeasures. It was discussed in depth at the privacy tutorial at
the last IETF meeting, in London. Someone mentioned "business issues"
with privacy. And another one replied "anti-spam measures disturbed
some people's business, too".

> At the moment their servers support NS queries.  But if minimization
> is introduced they might change policy and start blocking.

This would be a violation of the protocol. We cannot prevent it but we
can at least call a spade a spade.

> the code might want to consider counter strategies. For example, if
> the request is for A records from secret.example.evil, it might
> query for A records as follows
>
> ? A, _.evil
> ? A, _.example.evil
> ? A, www.example.evil

Yes, good idea. "A" is probably the less revealing qtype. Should I add
this trick in the draft?