Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-muks-dnsop-dns-thundering-herd-00.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 25 June 2020 20:14 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 1430A3A0FD2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:26 -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, 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, 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 PiEoguOH7n_J for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 E58923A086C for <DNSOP@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49tB7L08MlzFgY; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 22:14:22 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1593116062; bh=Cz/tHRf5lNaGHf35rI7pWe8v24nYF5rXz5zy2wn6FYE=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=ppiQM+2JNCZvzzme1D3b+RDwzjWpwukIE2i9WQoj0vDYm/Aiq2ORFd4UxfWp1pgC4 ds4gSra6MJGarGIi0rivDhYIgP60acTXCat/YmA6aJPLnQSYCXU4aL2q2N2Q1ItqVO GaBmXzx6Uh6Asm1LpokClSVAHju9GzR4gnqIDamI=
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 6U-uUID7Y04c; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 22:14:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 22:14:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [193.111.228.74] (unknown [193.111.228.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65C006029B9B; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:14:19 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:14:02 -0400
Message-Id: <00CB9C6B-5225-4DE4-8F29-44B30AEB1F72@nohats.ca>
References: <20200625200725.GA1081237@mycre.ws>
Cc: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org>, Cricket Liu <cricket@infobox.com>, DNSOP@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20200625200725.GA1081237@mycre.ws>
To: Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17F75)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Y1vIAfLNmARe-L9K2AUgOdCTgf0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-muks-dnsop-dns-thundering-herd-00.txt
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, 25 Jun 2020 20:14:26 -0000

On Jun 25, 2020, at 16:07, Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws> wrote:


> This seems like a description of a resolver implementation vulnerable to
> the infamous VU#457875. Perhaps an update to the standards track RFC
> 5452 ("Measures for Making DNS More Resilient against Forged Answers")
> would be more appropriate than a new document? That document mentions
> the security problem caused by having multiple outstanding queries for
> the same question but doesn't clearly state a requirement to
> de-duplicate, perhaps because that mitigation was already very common in
> resolver implementations at the time the document was published.

This puzzled me too. Isn’t this a long solved problem? But apparently not, if this is now showing up as it apparently does.

It would be interesting to know which dns implementations are failing here.

Paul