Re: [dns-privacy] TLSA for secure resolver-auth transport

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 12, 2020, at 19:50, Vladimír Čunát <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 8/12/20 9:50 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>> Delegation NS records are not signed, so do we stick -those- (or a hash 
>>> of the NSset perhaps?) into DS? 
>> 
>> I don't think so. The DS is signed, and following that path, it hardly 
>> matters where the NS records point to. Do you fear that you will receive 
>> bad NS records from the parent, who will than MITM you by relaying 
>> DNSSEC payloads from the real authoritative server, and thus losing privacy 
>> that way?  [...]
> That parent may not be using a secure transport (e.g. root isn't expected to), in which case anyone on path may be a MITM.  I suppose in that case we could use the NS to obtain DNSSEC proof for itself, but adding this half-secure phase would seem to complicate stuff, and you probably don't want to ask deeper than the apex until MITM is disproven (leaking additional labels and allowing the MITM to deepen the attack)
> 

Query minimalisation and unbound’s hardening options for infrastructure records would do this already with today’s software configuration.

Paul