IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] the same in old days, was making names the same NEED protocol changes?

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sun, 27 February 2011 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D313A6A37 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:36:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.725
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.725 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.474, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wakHwjALA5Ij for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:36:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE673A6A31 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:36:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 7486 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2011 18:37:17 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=1d3d.4d6a99dd.k1102; i=johnl@submit.iecc.com; bh=I5pzPs847yERQhqkXSI/xv0tGqf4qsNp+tbvDATmdLQ=; b=MvpKfCRjAiqKsmku3Njxsw1g4A2QNc3R5S5oik3G64jE8F/DwJRh6zWjSZvKOKt6pfgq+TdpFRXczyaqMKbRlI6Czk33VZ4BEIqZk4mtnrZGP5AGFEtVQxr9xaNd/3Q2XRXQoo2zHCHqkWC+Jwz4MKkL7+XFgDb4V2f9K4F4Qcc=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Received: (ofmipd johnl@64.57.183.62) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 27 Feb 2011 18:36:55 -0000
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:37:17 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102271336340.6604@joyce.lan>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <552AB7D12FAB50296E795CF5@Ximines.local>
References: <20110227182720.6537.qmail@joyce.lan> <552AB7D12FAB50296E795CF5@Ximines.local>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] the same in old days, was making names the same NEED protocol changes?
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:36:21 -0000

>> The primary shortcoming I see is a security issue: anyone can set a 
>> BNAME to make a random name equivalent to one of mine.

> How does this differ from DNAME?

Not in any important way I can see.  But I'm not aware of any application 
servers that autoconfigure based on DNAME, either.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email