IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] Re: Potentially interesting DNSSEC library CVE

Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-5@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 24 July 2024 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b538D2F77@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7797C1F6F88 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id StbkE2wHhzdV for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2a10:3781:2413:1:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BF00C1840CC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #158) id m1sWe2O-0000OKC; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 17:36:20 +0200
Message-Id: <m1sWe2O-0000OKC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-5@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b538D2F77@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <m1sWF8d-0000LsC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <1070949df20a6ac1f9c2c2dd401d5953bb362bf2.camel@aisec.fraunhofer.de>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 24 Jul 2024 07:08:44 +0000 ." <1070949df20a6ac1f9c2c2dd401d5953bb362bf2.camel@aisec.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 17:36:18 +0200
Message-ID-Hash: DZXSVBSM6STPV7MIVUKHLNM2EBL5BJCZ
X-Message-ID-Hash: DZXSVBSM6STPV7MIVUKHLNM2EBL5BJCZ
X-MailFrom: pch-b538D2F77@u-1.phicoh.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "Bellebaum, Thomas" <thomas.bellebaum@aisec.fraunhofer.de>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: Potentially interesting DNSSEC library CVE
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0I6gAPiqSlXzRwlQrgI6Yqijdu8>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

> Partially. I believe the DNSSEC validation and following the
> CNAME-chain have to be implemented in the same routine.  This is
> because to perform an authenticated denial of existence, you first
> need to know which name and rrtype you want to prove does not exist.

DNSSEC validation follows the CNAME-chain that is part of validation.

However, the ultimate user of the data also has to follow the CNAME-chain
to avoid picking up unwanted additional records in the answer section.

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status