IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Validating responses when following unsigned CNAME chains...

Brian Somers <bsomers@opendns.com> Thu, 30 April 2020 03:39 UTC

Return-Path: <bsomers@opendns.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 723F43A0F2A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=opendns-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 2A8HD5b0Baia for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x434.google.com (mail-pf1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (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 198F43A0F25 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x434.google.com with SMTP id x2so2222610pfx.7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=opendns-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=fPIgE2ySerjw1FXjUy9UE4wspROpMXD/Q12lqgxBEU4=; b=T51ppCItyscE1fAGptcWbVzfE/46jXRKRlUmi2v3iF9i4i+x58+F4Tce7PfIiNs9oJ OsFe3M21ld+CVX/0qV5gn+CRO32n+5+sweFrzYd+4oHjimSw7DYJ7ufG+K4WoqJDvwIz a1Vy2+aizVfe1KFguWL9aFvOOfq4PSk5dmvb17SDCY7582kuzgIj9EaQ7gOjwf9WQIhr Mdc+Q/gjVx/aSTo+enlBQsRWrIYTD5A4e4Ddxe88ILIg14E/aIBqwinFBNb+nNOd4T7p 1EZ4BDACA+1SsijVs1oxoXQS0d/MZJMUkeyTNyCN3dBTAw5vq1VLt0OgJeskpaBI2WNK SFVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=fPIgE2ySerjw1FXjUy9UE4wspROpMXD/Q12lqgxBEU4=; b=uJSKNZhUe3JUTZBKH5srs4v81VaZy2S+ZvAxGIT1cVX+0p1CJfcwn5MUcy/t7Ibzo3 zH+483WLXX6tv6CV9Z/ahCAiW3+LwvrIHncrkfkdZOnbxXOsAgJB7W93lVh1+7ZmbLLq tkPntYtH+hYETTf8nDt9CYXuFLT6F/3Ni8qBydMQIZsmcRItrHguo5PvR9V2uSnGxP5/ bBNqCd6G3My70Sq0JYm/Hf9J1/QBUXN4p35Lb5X3TKvqBp5rsap+BslyI0X43i6FF0Cc f2DAwsbZ0o4MnNLn3TobFEBH0lxkvO+y14YrBmA1MtZ2R95I7DvzITwcJDClkuo0d/p5 t0eA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZ9Pe6EyZdQtlbmWMRm/NQyjGA4VB+K1tB1wnMM5y1kl2AEO38C BtdRBq+K2um1AAR9hYXmWtNu53h+1c/vLw/1
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKg3uYhB07KivCWgkxQ6JJNoV1hzm+j19dbkix9+ZYToJFsjo+0B+zkvFIW317dRzabfCXzzw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:7742:: with SMTP id s63mr1376129pgc.133.1588217941481; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:470:e83b:a7:8516:4f4f:6da3:85b4? ([2001:470:e83b:a7:8516:4f4f:6da3:85b4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q97sm553209pjb.7.2020.04.29.20.39.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
From: Brian Somers <bsomers@opendns.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHPuVdU0BkdWszQs0cAE0N2AA9cqJfO=aA70GsmyWw7Hzeb6Cw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:38:59 -0700
Cc: Brian Somers <bsomers@opendns.com>, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <58C18901-494E-4C2C-9C0D-746D9B08FA5A@opendns.com>
References: <1EA6A13C-6E60-4ED9-9A50-E33D9D17504C@fugue.com> <129b0546-0123-30e0-cfca-8a66721ab046@nthpermutation.com> <CAHPuVdU0BkdWszQs0cAE0N2AA9cqJfO=aA70GsmyWw7Hzeb6Cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/EMKV0HgMs0Ya8vqis9UxYBr-BDQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Validating responses when following unsigned CNAME chains...
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, 30 Apr 2020 03:39:06 -0000

On Apr 29, 2020, at 7:12 PM, Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike, perhaps there was some confusion on this point 12 years ago, but
> deployed validator code all agree on what the state is. I encourage 
> implementers to confirm (or correct me if I misstate something).

Absolutely.  You only get the AD bit if *ALL* RRs in the Answer & Auth
sections are validated as secure.

….
> : If you've got an securely insecure (e.g. delegation was to an insecure 
> : zone at some point) CNAME that points into a secure zone, I would say 
> : your result is probably Bogus  or Unsecure as you haven't any way to 
> : evaluate trust.  I don't think you can bootstrap security this way..
> 
> Deployed validator code says Insecure.. It can't be Bogus, because the validator
> has determined that the CNAME is a demonstrably insecure zone,

Furthermore, the CNAME alias RRset must be validated unless the CD bit is set.
A validating resolver MUST validate and can only return RRsets if they are proven
to be either insecure or secure.  If the aliased RRset is bogus, the answer is
SERVFAIL.

—
Brian

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email