IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 07 April 2022 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 6B5243A00E9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 07:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 0vBe31Sq_jq6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 07:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.85]) (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 7A0103A00E0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 07:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KZ3w61Xv4zrV; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:40:54 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1649342454; bh=Bw5Lf0yWd/vvWWFe7In7SI4CytLCSmrmNwxKuWyJhOQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=UxBh3FUVb3+8eLExSDObrZh6RSGJ42xUjd0SDzG95115Q3PBr9qaru5+XsqBti/4T FnjV1TbSHqUMSbYp1511RaB/Ezm6RjXrJ0Q0sPQHma3hZhf8iBDx6azCYjpaosX4Zo z7E8At3/HKJ4KGOzoMo1M12gT7kkVLGNNE0qKyv0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aJXmKweiEcur; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:40:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:40:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 241132DB125; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:40:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D022DB124; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:40:52 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:40:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <350d8ab8-0477-b656-8b08-56f7561a7fda@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <860d0d0-281e-b8c9-4169-5998a95a581f@nohats.ca>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/GPjcN3XkFgoeosmpkD5NqQDZyUc>
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, 07 Apr 2022 14:41:02 -0000

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> As I wrote:
>
>>>  Such an individual would have to get access, create the records, give
>>>  them to others, who then have to on-path attack you. At the TLD level
>>>  and higher, this involves HSMs and physical access restrictions using
>>>  a “four eyes minimum” approach.
>
>>  Not surprisingly, diginotar was equally strongly secure.
>
> Are there anyone who still think DNSSEC were cryptographically secure
> or had protected TLDs more securely than diginotar?

Yes, everyone but you who participated in this thread.

Paul

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email