IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: [Add] new draft: draft-grover-add-policy-detection-00

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Sun, 14 July 2019 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.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 9C156120134 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 achHPLHuzBxw for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd33.google.com (mail-io1-xd33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) (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 E6ED212000F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd33.google.com with SMTP id m24so31338438ioo.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qui9fLIFMfVNNAeWptCOlLZ+MKWhYikOCtH0AoxU3zs=; b=neXQzXFUI2sOjBQ9tGE/VCN4T2PhAfqHFIszgsprWNn8zdm8MCoyUsFf5bGPfsW7di aJ3T8n00kzcveMz3VYxZGWiR0bqjxRjVN4Hl5SPp+PsSqHa1KJsHc7urAZpWzIv+GEQB sqqBX5ONCpm84/rd1Ka6anHFopQyXIhReTsh4qohSdzlmzAuUmKk9vZlSD6YBTFCcXJP +OM7GItR8HlskVQaJfT9CwH8ITenb6OiSlPET/Mun0CpBfAXC1Q4CRJcYhCJgbCTWaAC O8B5tPnKOtc7Z4FdTesvWqGCo4i00p86LUifb8NvNeVTBAmz+rR5mEqyh611ELAKat4i 0ncQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qui9fLIFMfVNNAeWptCOlLZ+MKWhYikOCtH0AoxU3zs=; b=Y/AJsxk78pQw3IPb3q9HARBmTzDellenRE4tW5mnv5Y4WjHhU2V6INuRAR7FJU9zYo dqepJh3jBjPCS2wpbEACYwQNxSRqjceizD7vMKuJNp2rJSAoiQbvDP3UpCobv4no6Mzk EiQE2rT/96M+PAz2HZD4BXL+DCdMIOThNBMVQ2dB3GXQIIEgyztlgKzSrhYTC8JgaNK/ yBHBsuCGKY3yNvomVTZNkTmRYpfR1Q5aa+ydzi8aYjikeYWdZz7XITWwDqi2qO1N5Qab 7FPU6unMb75dvcxV8mDAi5r+9dPOfvkxQwSio9Gyk+LI+Y4rolV4P5/P77Jgf4oFjKzT EOHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWSpN1sAkF4WJemXunqUrbWySZjVa0Rv98U+AZXJjFF7EKrwP+X TJ2SKDgFOZRd3DXQXZKoQBYTjyyoGP0uF79r+Loc7Hwquee5uw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwisPe3uBZoSEmSufPkDv4xTTglf9QK8lSWY8nH2N3aqRK4Uj/i1kuCCvLXrcxwx/Z20hlk1BxpkIwv+ppohhE=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b602:: with SMTP id g2mr21823364iof.54.1563145751738; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:09:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SyVmgMpD6Cd=m2Z03nts-Bv9ZVgJkG8oaj_jzwYMUZuCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000043c2c4058dac3b7d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ZzTJ_lAW8vQHhBNWRbZp3NzmoGY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: [Add] new draft: draft-grover-add-policy-detection-00
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: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 23:09:15 -0000

Paul Vixie wrote:
> dns content filtering can be triggered by response data also, and not
just by
> the dns request (which itself might not be the initial request.) in
common use
> by dns firewalls, for example those using DNS RPZ, policy might be
triggered
> by the iteration through an authoritative name server address, or an
> authoritative name server name, or by the response (answer) address, or
even
> by the stub client's IP address.

Was DNS intentionally designed to be insecure?

thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email