IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Validating responses when following unsigned CNAME chains...

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 30 April 2020 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 4F1CF3A0C3B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N1u34yHmZXNt for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf30.google.com (mail-qv1-xf30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9AB03A0B2E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf30.google.com with SMTP id ep1so3180332qvb.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=wlthpM111OkZ4wYF02Vl4gKzDhWd3HBDW/GiXevYYJ8=; b=xMo9XiySDlwVFumg9rdyFs5n/MT5uuPXHY3b90OVZy0Yuy6w4acAsZL83sOPHhHl4K T5nyMt/5262yaJ6DfB8m21gxBmPPm+EXeINvfcOXDS1sdajZJD0qzTg/UcxOGCXkf5PZ zLQhEJSfToDbOMjHNUHSQoOj/kY3ZEe98CqwG0fmxyC8ZB6kFCEBgmS6lNDe3Bc54DSF hgevEHn3j/X8AFxKoYGkU1REhpsCnDW6t/4GL18KVyPeqkES5cf9MpdD9y0nJizn8Mz6 b4yOgt4b/AYKNjMYIwJ0l07/pHPjABKxARNULf1heFnmNPO4EYKXwCOvC3m/XPqA40Cq GK4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=wlthpM111OkZ4wYF02Vl4gKzDhWd3HBDW/GiXevYYJ8=; b=A2sqOTNbhJs3AXBxouxsQuVzzkNhh81l4HJDLycakBsnq47H2LJJd6/gE0eWHzqbb0 3cYe1gV+751EqMGyHFSVQvQOnOt62jzgvX/MLGwxReLnZDsBGen0REEIb76dZwzfb88C mNRxsE7F3C/P/LDKbtqMPyB4RNJdbHigkcSxjVfj+d5GMjbhdrvKrR0OnlTnG8ICIF3+ gtXHdIfbG6NoXcqV0qYyAvqoUV0plCqkXvbjYmoOE0kdqA3sDxUQcb8ozhb3eJxpmFAb zrApLW2fqrJltqPgJXP8yhkQ7U3ekigl+4KE9ty01Kt30KznUW4a/jqZcXZvej09zqQy m7nA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZcjLft7WDT77VF8ngDJGMvW8tdX6kSXypHGs6eXPnxtU8Ytfer JPYDdn/U6jHl94/DumnebI5Q0kpKjsE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIp7/Gq1HytSFNsEu+PrYoOYNkPls3qb4+sWbJShu33uDRpSAe9xRZOl+Wktl6VKmdBwxd8MQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1462:: with SMTP id c2mr3463959qvy.202.1588259749809; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:e518:6559:325d:1a5f? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:e518:6559:325d:1a5f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b201sm232433qkg.32.2020.04.30.08.15.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <6311BB51-4617-4316-A56D-EEA73A42D4A0@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C47122D7-131E-4C96-9ABB-4DB6B95A2BD2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3636.0.1\))
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:15:46 -0400
In-Reply-To: <129b0546-0123-30e0-cfca-8a66721ab046@nthpermutation.com>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
To: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
References: <1EA6A13C-6E60-4ED9-9A50-E33D9D17504C@fugue.com> <129b0546-0123-30e0-cfca-8a66721ab046@nthpermutation.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3636.0.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0JYovIlJ018emA3F4FL1rL3Owis>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Validating responses when following unsigned CNAME chains...
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:16:46 -0000

On Apr 29, 2020, at 8:01 PM, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrote:
> If you've got an securely insecure (e.g. delegation was to an insecure zone at some point) CNAME that points into a secure zone, I would say your result is probably Bogus  or Unsecure as you haven't any way to evaluate trust.  I don't think you can bootstrap security this way.

I agree that you can’t bootstrap security this way. I would agree that the answer can’t have the AD bit set. However, I don’t see why this arrangement should be considered bogus.

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email