Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-16
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Fri, 20 January 2012 07:23 UTC
Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 468A021F85F8 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:23:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126,
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 JvqIP-HIB3y1 for
<dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by
ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB65421F85F6 for <dnsext@ietf.org>;
Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN
"bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org
(Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07A735F98B1;
Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:22:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:902a:92d4:e011:46b7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by
bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 164CF216C6B;
Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:22:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org
(Postfix) with ESMTP id 931F31BB343E; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:22:44 +1100 (EST)
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20120120054939.GD4365@mail.yitter.info>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:49:39 CDT."
<20120120054939.GD4365@mail.yitter.info>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:22:44 +1100
Message-Id: <20120120072244.931F31BB343E@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-16
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>,
<mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>,
<mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:23:11 -0000
5.9. Always set the CD bit on Queries
This is demonstratively *bad* advice. The discussion to do
with always setting CD bit on queries centered around
different sets of trust anchors.
If you take two validating recursive server in series with
the *same* trust anchors. If you always set CD then the
downstream server is vulnerable to a accidental denial of
service attack if any of the authoritative servers for the
zone is returning stale (will fail validation) data.
C -> VR1 -> VR2 -> {A1, A2, A3 .... AN }
VR1 should make CD=0 as it has no control over which of A1
... AN, VR2 queries. By making a CD=0 query, VR2 will
filter out responses from the stale server. If the response
from VR2 to the CD=0 is SERVFAIL then VR1 it should make a
CD=1 query in case there is a mis-configured trust anchor
or bad clock.
Yes, Andrew it is re-opening this subject.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
- [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updat… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Edward Lewis
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… W.C.A. Wijngaards
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mohan Parthasarathy
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mohan Parthasarathy
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mohan Parthasarathy
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Warren Kumari
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Michael StJohns
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Matthijs Mekking
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Blacka, David
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mohan Parthasarathy
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mark Andrews