Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns?
Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Wed, 28 November 2018 13:12 UTC
Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
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 07071130F7B; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 05:12:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.42
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 TMKcMiFf4k-5; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 05:12:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14115130F7F; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 05:12:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wASDCfLv008076 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:12:41 +0200 (EET)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id wASDCfhV011587; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:12:41 +0200 (EET)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <23550.37961.117514.513410@fireball.acr.fi>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:12:41 +0200
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns.all@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811261658250.3596@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CAHw9_iL6CpLf6h_ysWEjvNjzaU2TPk-SyVGzLs_J9Yk_5A4OmA@mail.gmail.com> <46B41554-ABC0-4939-99E3-703E1FD998D5@hopcount.ca> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811261658250.3596@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 25.1.1 (x86_64--netbsd)
X-Edit-Time: 34 min
X-Total-Time: 34 min
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/5Gb7tRd476m_pF-5Pfc_0W1d1lM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns?
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:12:54 -0000
Tony Finch writes: > Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote: > > > > It seems to me that the intended use-case is access to corporate-like > > network environments where intranet.corporate-like.com might exist on > > the inside but not on the outside. > > More likely cases like corporate-like.local or corporate-like.int or > like.corp etc. usw. :-( Yes, this is the more common practice to use. I.e., several companies quite often have (multiple) internal domains they use. Because those are internal domains they cannot get real certificates for them. Because they cannot use real certificates they use self signed certificates, thus users have to click on "trust this web site having invalid certificate yes/no". The idea is that with TLSA we could get some kind of security for those internal sites. More competent companies might also run their own CA and use that to sign internal web sites, but unfortunately those more competent companies usually then also have heavy IT processes that requires all kind of complicated stuff to get things be signed by corporate CA, and then developers setting up intranet / chat system / testing setup etc revert to self signed certificates, because it is easy. On the other hand getting DNS names added to the internal DNS is usually something that happens often, and is not too hard to do, getting TLSA record along with the name should also be quite easy. Now when browsers start to make it harder and harder to allow access to self signed certificates, users are seeing more and more problems with that. > Private DNSSEC trust anchors should be distributed in the same way > that you would distribute corporate X.509 trust anchors. This is exactly what is proposed by the draft, execpt that it is split in two parts, i.e., the names for which TAs can be given are distributed in same way as X.509 trust anchors, the actual contents for the TA for that whitelisted name is distributed inside IKE. The draft requires the whitelist to pre-configured before starting up the VPN connection. It also do require implementations to ignore all those settings unless user have explictly configured split-tunnel on for that connection. I.e., in the example the VPNs-R-Us would not be able to set those configuration settings, nor would it be able to provide dialog asking that. VPN-R-Us would require provide instructions how to configure your VPN client to do that, i.e., it would need to ask users to do following: - In your IPsec VPN configuration dialog click "Add" to add new VPN. - Type in VPNs-R-Us for name, and IP of f00::BA5 as IP-address. - Click advanced - In Advanced settings to go the enterprise VPN tab - In there click the Enable Split-tunnel setup check box. - Answer YES to question verifying that you really want to configure this manually, and do not want to use the managment profile provided by the enterprise (normally enterprise VPN setups are managed automatically by profiles provided by the company, normal users usually do not even have option to change anything). - After that click "Add items to DNSSEC whitelist". - Type in "farfetch.com", and click OK. - (vpn client would probably forbid him adding .com to list as or if it is added it would be ignored), so VPN-R-Us is smart and asks following: - Type in "paypal.com" and click OK. - Click OK to few times and get the VPN configuration setup. - Then fire up the VPN client. More likely VPN-R-Us would say if you do not want to do that, just download this easy binary exe that will do all that configuration for you (and some others they do not mention). I.e., that whitelist needs to be modified out of band. Usually it is done by the management system taking care of the enterprise profiles, i.e., the same program that installs X.509 roots for the company CA, and mandates that virus checkers are up to date before allowing connection to the corporate network, and which also configures the VPN connection too. If you are running that kind of programs you have already given all control to whoever provided you that program (VPN-R-Us, or the enterprise). In enterprise case, you usually do not have option not to, as those softwares come pre-installed and you cannot uninstall or not to use them. On the other hand do not use your work laptop to go to paypal, if you do not trust your company... And yes, the enterprise (or VPN-R-Us) management.exe could also install those TAs directly for the global system use without any problems. This would not be problem for the VPN-R-Us (they would be happy to have fake TA in your system even when you are not using their VPN), but enterprise might not want to have its TA there when you are not connected to its network, just to limit the exposure, and they might want to update the TA contens, even when the whitelisted domain name stays same. I.e., if the TAs cannot be transmitted and agreed to be taken in use (after comparing them to whitelist) inside the IKE, then enterprises will most likely just install them by the management system for general use (or not use DNSSEC). I think that would weaken security more than what is proposed in this draft. -- kivinen@iki.fi
- [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme-spl… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-i… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-i… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-i… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-i… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-i… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-i… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-i… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-i… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-i… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-i… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-i… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-i… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Scott Morizot
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-i… Paul Wouters