IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Proposal for a new record type: SNI

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 20 February 2017 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 CAD54129480 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 13:19:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 tkIOB186hWmZ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 13:19:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31CD312954C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 13:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 9236 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2017 21:19:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 20 Feb 2017 21:19:47 -0000
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 21:19:25 -0000
Message-ID: <20170220211925.1906.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1702201458030.23970@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/_lHRhceV_cv_sSbKlSPr0DJRWO4>
Cc: dot@dotat.at
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Proposal for a new record type: SNI
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 21:19:51 -0000

In article <alpine.DEB.2.11.1702201458030.23970@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> you write:
>Would it be easier or harder, instead of adding a new SNI RRtype, to use
>DANE TLSA records to identify the server's cert or key, and use a
>variation of TLS SNI to request the cert by digest instead of by name?

I don't see how that would help.  Using passive DNS it's easy to find
all the names that point to a server, which makes it easy to get all
of the TLSA records for those names so the bad guy knows the hashes.

R's,
John

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status