[DNSOP] Re: IDKEY and Keytrap

Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-5@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 23 July 2024 19:51 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 542D4C1D5C4B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 12:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 Py_K61JvnJVY for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 12:51:42 -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 3A7D0C1D61FE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 12:51:33 -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 m1sWLXn-0000LiC; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 21:51:31 +0200
Message-Id: <m1sWLXn-0000LiC@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
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Jul 2024 10:31:38 -0700 ." <0F1BDEF9-5D6B-44C3-9846-F95D5C8BD4F4@isc.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 21:51:30 +0200
Message-ID-Hash: 66PBVAXEFFDX4JJTPDUNPGSJLHCPX7IW
X-Message-ID-Hash: 66PBVAXEFFDX4JJTPDUNPGSJLHCPX7IW
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
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: IDKEY and Keytrap
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0nH6HtES2U-mLP-ZomN05Inrcu4>
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>

> The ANRW talk "Protocol Fixes for KeyTrap Vulnerabilities this
> afternoon by Elias Heftrig, Haya Schulmann, Niklas Vogel, Michael
> Waidner is proposing that there is a type roll for DS and DNSKEY.
> I dont think this is needed.  The only change actually need is to
> add a new requirement that says that new DNSKEY algorithms MUST
> have DNSKEY RRsets that do not have colliding key tags.  Validators
> can then depend on this behaviour with new key DNSKEY algorithms.
> The only question is do we add aliases for the existing key types.

I can see 3 problems with this approach:
1) we are only safe when the last algorithm that allows colliding keys
   has been deprecated. That may be many decades from now. We are nowhere
   near deprecating algorithms that use SHA-1.
2) Some operators expressed concerns about prohibiting colliding keys,
   especially in multi-signer setups. Delaying the deprecation of current
   algorithms.
3) My own analysis shows that for reasonable zones there is no need to
   tolerate more than 1 signature verification failure per RRset. So
   the gains are no all that high.