Re: [DNSOP] DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Thu, 14 April 2022 11:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 DC1753A10A4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HeH-oXCSjMZ1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D9AF13A10A2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 6753 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2022 11:51:22 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 14 Apr 2022 11:51:22 -0000
Message-ID: <61b46811-fa52-5ec0-e16b-eb7e9d9560d4@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 20:55:34 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <57f1c37b-497c-e1a0-329c-4b9c8b7e197b@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <A9F689C9-4ABF-4947-AA6B-56E2F0C17D13@nohats.ca> <9732682e-78e7-f6bf-84fc-685de22d5e12@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <350d8ab8-0477-b656-8b08-56f7561a7fda@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAH1iCiqkAPHq1QBKdkbh86j8UhimjEMG9DU15O9Tkch4BedBjg@mail.gmail.com> <0e2dffab-6afc-b1b6-9028-175f89f0d29e@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <b3bf6748-be6d-a287-27e4-87af36ab10@nohats.ca> <dc4a21ee-cc4c-9cb1-9a56-b4992201378c@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <c47227f6-5556-1e75-3a48-8aa6bad498ac@nohats.ca>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <c47227f6-5556-1e75-3a48-8aa6bad498ac@nohats.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/9YqC4HQpPnC5mvoWqc2Fav70o6s>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice
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, 14 Apr 2022 11:55:44 -0000

Paul Wouters wrote:

>> I can't see any reason why you think the root zone is
>> more secure than TLDs, especially because, as I wrote:
> 
> Because I am informed about their operational procedures and I
> contributed to the technical design as one of the for the DNS Root Zone
> Key-Signing-Key of the Root Zone Rollover advisory group.

So, you mean the root zone is secure because of "operational
procedures", which is not cryptographic.

Thank you very much to have confirmed my  point that DNSSEC
is not cryptographically secure.

Your point is, surely, conclusive.

 > I was also responsible for the design and implementation of a large TLD
 > fully implementation redundant DNSSEC signer solution.

So, the root and TLD zones are as secure as diginotar.

 > I talked to a lot of TLD operators at ICANN during my term as the
 > IETF Liason to the ICANN Technical Expert Group.

I'm sure none of them were aware that PKI is not cryptographically
secure. So?

 >> :  Third, all the CAs, including TLDs, pursuing commercial
 >> :  success have very good appearance using such words as
 >> :  "HSMs" or "four eyes minimum". That is, you can't
 >> :  compare actual operational/physical strength from
 >> :  their formal documents.
 >
 > This is an anecdote, that a logical reasoned argument.

That's your anecdote to mention "HSMs" or "four eyes minimum"
proven to be useless by diginotar.

							Masataka Ohta