IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Why ZSK rollover is a Bad Idea (tm)

Chris Thompson <cet1@cam.ac.uk> Wed, 07 October 2009 10:14 UTC

Return-Path: <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB0D28C0DB for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 03:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.367
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.257, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9pb5yuUBIxD6 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 03:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7098728C119 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 03:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:50672) by ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:cet1) id 1MvTYZ-0006X1-1O (Exim 4.70) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:15:39 +0100
Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:cet1) id 1MvTYZ-0000He-DS (Exim 4.67) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:15:39 +0100
Received: from [131.111.11.47] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.2); 07 Oct 2009 11:15:39 +0100
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:15:39 +0100
From: Chris Thompson <cet1@cam.ac.uk>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.2.0910071115390.571@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <FB20C78E-3A72-409C-8406-2B8A00923783@NLnetLabs.nl>
References: <1C586E51-D77C-406C-9B89-47276A9B41B2@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> <p06240812c6f160ac1fb2@10.20.30.158> <d3aa5d00910061408y191bf863p48a6ec703553b67e@mail.gmail.com> <FB20C78E-3A72-409C-8406-2B8A00923783@NLnetLabs.nl>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Sender: Chris Thompson <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Why ZSK rollover is a Bad Idea (tm)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cet1@cam.ac.uk
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 07 Oct 2009 10:14:17 -0000

On Oct 7 2009, Olaf Kolkman wrote:

[...]
>> At 4:09 PM -0400 10/6/09, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
>> Eric Rescorla has an explanation why the zone signing key rollover  
>> mechanism in DNSSEC for the root is a bad idea:  It doesn't  
>> improve security and only makes things more complicated:
>>
>> http://www.educatedguesswork.org/2009/10/on_the_security_of_zsk_rollove.html
[...]
>
>Really this is an DNSOP issues, more specifically an issue for  
>RFC4641bis.
>
>[I've added dnsop, please remove namedroppers when replying to this  
>note]

Well, OK. This is arguably off-topic for both lists, but I was struck
by Eric quoting from

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions

| First, there are Key Signing Keys (KSK) which are used to sign
| other DNSKEY records and the DS records.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I wonder what gave them the idea that DS records were signed with
KSKs rather than (the parent's) ZSKs?

-- 
Chris Thompson               University of Cambridge Computing Service,
Email: cet1@ucs.cam.ac.uk    New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QH,
Phone: +44 1223 334715       United Kingdom.

v2.45.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status