Re: [DNSOP] Localhost - more reliable options?

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Fri, 18 August 2017 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 ED3BD126B71 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.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 awl0YJlST3Hg for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x231.google.com (mail-wr0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::231]) (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 4D86B120721 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 49so63748176wrw.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FvYJ63Z3YzBdr2k+kcAFRSUMId2ZVl7wDbPvfYkeOi4=; b=sM9z/ZW0fCD2oPfn0AQMI07R8qIkC8Qz+9H0oHttMGJ1EWHIuvJDhP6POb33RStQpU gWYd9LX6Wgq5DoezBcqi5v9loTFifbltVHcuDZtgPFZly4HJfygjHoclBlPfxYiWkLjy YUMUx0Q0d4CT4v+oICLFWYXE7WP//aTEIIdMhibJ+nlqcpKsundG7JdGa2v3wLLuAjk2 fC5UDSfR4A+neQ9cs/gYei+iVCvINCmyewLiRViHeER5qppcft+lNHyYlMmVOI+pUfI6 hFUMWeR+ByhR3KP7cQg6Vs6KomHRE6fX/A/GdoHfjx5YLyTolwqRHPcfMLXQctknk6n9 xpRw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FvYJ63Z3YzBdr2k+kcAFRSUMId2ZVl7wDbPvfYkeOi4=; b=SoZpq8UbJjDoAWAk3vnhUJmmlq5N+b6L7LCGrsY/Fwv5pwiFjDPohVsMJ4B9pJU9vt 3V9AyYIDUjtgoG9nBWU36XbG+oY1CSpjL9t3CJQZ8/J7a8MDRv01XTBOUNmNoYZDP8b4 bTL5HhwiK1q5cC2/3WwJ0u/YnuJYtVqjLrlEQyvuzEpTZCrV3is9K0yAIfBgHeuIv72r tq4fIHjz4c5L7geS7MCI3s1kqKBsupR69MfDhySqfvaRZXvIZilfgetGVPFbMDV0TrXn N+ldWWYtPq7DtQsOqIvhptF1t9YD+9s7eI/8MbtzjVU4XmfBTEUWdQJINKE8/lFp9i4e WUHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5g+hn21SToNVsFSMVU0VEON1TlorXhzb+B9M04C02sBKDoKHSAM LDjaShcxxSwOibk30fNSB+sXPZRPBsHn
X-Received: by 10.223.134.180 with SMTP id 49mr5736605wrx.157.1503077889584; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.225.5 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCiqr_9Om-jwRq6mLABH3cZ1D0qptLHVUQ1YtZn0ViQM=Mw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH1iCiqr_9Om-jwRq6mLABH3cZ1D0qptLHVUQ1YtZn0ViQM=Mw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:38:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgTf-CEkXmhw_p62S1zXuxGS=oCqSyvRCcu0wEYoEBH2wg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1146b06cadf39705570a97e0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/M_pdOJyULCRw5SY-od2DVqQAzTE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Localhost - more reliable options?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:38:14 -0000

Sorry, but point of order: We have a solution that entails a minimal change
from the current state of the art and minimal incremental security risk.
Let's not re-open fundamental questions, please.

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Brian Dickson <
brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:

> The discussions about localhost (and 127.0.0.1 and ::1) have ben very
> enlightening.
>
> However, I wonder whether the desired use case -- reliably establishing a
> connection to a host, based on information in DNS -- might be more
> securely/reliably solved using other mechanisms?
>
> Using "localhost" is basically making unilateral assumptions (and using
> ::1 or 127.0.0.1 equally so).
>
> I think the reliability, and possibly the security, are better achieved
> with bilateral mechanisms.
>
> E.g. If the specific use case is a client trying to talk to a server, on a
> particular port and protocol, then a more robust method of determining that
> the server offers such a service, would be using SRV or URI records.
>
> When the client, resolver, authority server, and service-server may not be
> tightly coupled, it might require additional enhancements, such as client
> subnet (or similar), to ensure the appropriate answer is given.
>
> The specific value returned to the query might be 127.0.0.1, or might be
> some other address; the main thing is that the address is deliberately
> associated with a service that wants the client to use, and presumably the
> service knows that the client is on the same host.
>
> Sorry if this isn't as clear as I intended - basically, what I'm saying,
> is that the answer might not even be an IP, protocol and port, but might
> even be a "file:///" URI, for a named pipe, which avoids the whole IP stack.
>
> Hope this provides useful ideas which point away from localhost per se.
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>