Re: [DNSOP] Localhost - more reliable options?
Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 18 August 2017 01:28 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 6D143132723 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 5R0zv98ofaCy for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22e.google.com (mail-qk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) (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 727B91326E1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id o124so37649035qke.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:28:44 -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=pXIWFanqkqD36Ogf7OfnQODj4AttvJd+lLglxD8kAvc=; b=QEooV5fsfQc8ZKxLWlkwm/foiv1tZoUwHhBRmDhm5vZtriS/4UgMMNgyiKE3h4JTV8 jgusCA+zgBJJ6HfSGEJijY/teyRnWnaA2EhEEsI9RyG0nfcUgB890yBP+hmxIhg81r+w 2r+haa8V1iUeYY+NgaZbxtW5y1to4Cgv6bhkrtl72djvs8IiKpCbf7EN1EvpUWSOzeiy QAh4A+OmRm1Q5RvFTGZsSMy5gGrfr+Vc86f2VMZNNl3mhZTIEO0H74vqo4tZdNpxPRDZ eEOUDr/r0ySQsFT5ZQLi/UiTosmeahwZgv/npV0O2uzZB3MYdwWjMnzhi9p0DreZDx+C upTQ==
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=pXIWFanqkqD36Ogf7OfnQODj4AttvJd+lLglxD8kAvc=; b=cX40aK5MVp1/eN/MXzlJPr2eEtbkYWAZuJAZiv9tQeIb0AUusudDGfKV7ydjxkCZwt XbaPnzJHpj6fYAq3VZMY2+U4AZj2Oug5Pd4ngfYdvIvSSQuibxCm9bx6VwWxJWbWiKO6 ib7ThMernjaimiPEUP1Jc2mOZsB0RurIFwE1kPfpWSQjjcWR82SXadZn4/ThcxRerH5o qRk1fMbhFEqzP9xbgUJyPXpaQrVSsAxZK7sTxBRhxO5tGhJ76ObmCXadDTrsOOnLUXHG KpVASjYX69dcUQnQCm14pJtDfsBTZPu+U+0CYsxpJxL7O92zYd7NBzBQyrlBFwpVWK58 renw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jpi53xQ27rF62FCrShu+NgLVR3yjNwYbaGCMdlS9hymFilpfcn uy4Aesp9TYzagiBi
X-Received: by 10.55.124.67 with SMTP id x64mr10008217qkc.98.1503019723627; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.30.153] (c-24-60-163-103.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.60.163.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c50sm3267900qte.55.2017.08.17.18.28.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <597FEBF7-7D11-4E50-9B79-63301914F75B@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_791FF05B-E70D-4C17-A2F6-E46DB9C3CD14"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:28:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCiqr_9Om-jwRq6mLABH3cZ1D0qptLHVUQ1YtZn0ViQM=Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
To: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
References: <CAH1iCiqr_9Om-jwRq6mLABH3cZ1D0qptLHVUQ1YtZn0ViQM=Mw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1OLfdym6JjF7Vkfe9qfouYDcBRk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Localhost - more reliable options?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 01:28:47 -0000
El 17 ag 2017, a les 18:22, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> va escriure: > Sorry if this isn't as clear as I intended - basically, what I'm saying, is that the answer might not even be an IP, protocol and port, but might even be a "file:/// <file:///>" URI, for a named pipe, which avoids the whole IP stack. It's hard to see how this is going to help. What we are trying to do here is bypass DNS; now you are asking us to go through DNS to get the name of a local resource and contact it. So really you've just increased the attack surface.
- [DNSOP] Localhost - more reliable options? Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] Localhost - more reliable options? Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Localhost - more reliable options? Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] Localhost - more reliable options? Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Localhost - more reliable options? Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] Localhost - more reliable options? Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Localhost - more reliable options? Richard Barnes