IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 30 April 2020 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 8F1383A0B5E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-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 xMAbsPcmTF7W for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf36.google.com (mail-qv1-xf36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f36]) (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 4D0C23A0B0B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf36.google.com with SMTP id w18so3177595qvs.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=y+qLiQ/anS1yHTZIhPMJBdsxivgzu1X7RBC36HU5dfg=; b=Uzf+Z5jWmvOVu9aky0paGK1tJuoAtMy/ioEGK2w6gJPVoagkfpjU4uIGGFuXlMc7Io pbm8bLoHFTz21hC+CFSI/bh/syvey5x4sYqT4kjDOJzY1R8V045mfh88gQ4lLeXazhoo Xk5tmQM2p+rxIxsMd5eBaF2jHcwGOWPB5e8orrxmK/4oA6tBwTOri415uecbeUi6br1z OrDH7EHWsDNehKvx4M4Ns/tp9/fjjIierwpZcrAha9JWimjZN3e8WmrKRr39ahKxGzlu MQuoQ/E4LggtCFYjcf8bjc1fUtZAIQGxebaDxpycijmtf6JaogNx1SxZ0tgxwbvso+Fh sufQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=y+qLiQ/anS1yHTZIhPMJBdsxivgzu1X7RBC36HU5dfg=; b=ZWO0IMYY58W12PmH059U2Gy2tGBBkGyrR0BVCQXvCo4FHCNAFhDhgeOJxJPfFrksMq z5bIoj8QHLVCpGQlJRT1F9iBNTFymGA+WZPNPsJjy+qWBr1WXuaWCwiS0r+auwOvQ3ak R4JRsIjLjvPW76KF+pb/KZyGTe5WGA+pJxKEwvetsB7v0noTqVhQR13K/Y45gUfGa4YW rEWdJckpqsxvKjqluN7J13qJHn+R3U/0hkRbEFArevdpwPt+r0nIQI8baFp5lm1YZSap HJPBujW8TEqXwe4gbw9D3LhWSb7eIAYm/5XQok/nRjFsAeklisKRfyU+Ke4WgBnMwGxC Sc1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PualLFNq0Fi0LplnWpjLmgqlwYmtln5+fc/XSEY4ebXREOigawI2 9nIrGUXZ895scelus/kc77ovFQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLEeRvTojG6zPV3Ub+lDc6eQDs5hnBosOnBfBNp3fUXt2Vn5ATNQ/Vcva4lbRMTWY6Bri35CA==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f910:: with SMTP id v16mr3440248qvn.37.1588259845402; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:e518:6559:325d:1a5f? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:e518:6559:325d:1a5f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h25sm2257504qto.87.2020.04.30.08.17.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <B5B438D8-D3A7-41B2-859F-AC7A94031135@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A007D2DC-AEFC-4B99-85A8-A4958227BF7A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3636.0.1\))
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:17:22 -0400
In-Reply-To: <58C18901-494E-4C2C-9C0D-746D9B08FA5A@opendns.com>
Cc: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
To: Brian Somers <bsomers@opendns.com>
References: <1EA6A13C-6E60-4ED9-9A50-E33D9D17504C@fugue.com> <129b0546-0123-30e0-cfca-8a66721ab046@nthpermutation.com> <CAHPuVdU0BkdWszQs0cAE0N2AA9cqJfO=aA70GsmyWw7Hzeb6Cw@mail.gmail.com> <58C18901-494E-4C2C-9C0D-746D9B08FA5A@opendns.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3636.0.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Y6C3VX1x1U2kdVaUpggwHG0Ih94>
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 15:18:44 -0000

On Apr 29, 2020, at 11:38 PM, Brian Somers <bsomers@opendns.com> wrote:
> 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.

Ah. I like this answer. Is there a place where this is stated in the RFC that we can point to?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email