Re: [DNSOP] An approach to DNS privacy

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Tue, 11 March 2014 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2398B1A074C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham
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 bgb3Bmyy5SQq for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06D31A03F7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id C325F280558; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:27:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF3F2803C2; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:27:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:8::7:113]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3724C007C; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:26:51 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:26:51 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Message-ID: <20140311152651.GB6740@nic.fr>
References: <CAMm+LwgZOPvGX_mzqmpt1zDj3cZdF0y2du=Di5q8Vfo4aYjNYw@mail.gmail.com> <87lhwj8y4d.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87lhwj8y4d.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 7.3
X-Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-686-pae i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/NlM_Z2eOqMZfELF9hXSbCGRNwR8
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] An approach to DNS privacy
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:27:31 -0000

On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:28:18AM +0100,
 Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote 
 a message of 20 lines which said:

> In most jurisdictions, home networks use recursive resolvers whose
> operators are required by law to provide cleartext copies to local
> authorities.

This (and other similar privacy-invasive cases) is precisely why we
need to improve DNS privacy.

> Encryption won't change that.

As mentioned in draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-privacy-sol, encryption is
_one_ solution, it is not _the_ solution. At least two other
techniques can complement encryption, QNAME minimization and a caching
resolver on your own machine (possibly forwarding to the IAP's
resolvers).

> If it is about securing broadcast media, just run IPsec between the
> CPE and the first ISP router with trusted ARP and routing tables.

If it were so simple ("just run"), why isn't it pervasive?