IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Comments regarding the NSEC5

Jan Včelák <jan.vcelak@nic.cz> Thu, 12 March 2015 10:15 UTC

Return-Path: <jan.vcelak@nic.cz>
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 142AF1A90F1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.361
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.361 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 ONmrCwpXz1gN for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A07701A90EC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pc-cznic4.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1220:80c:2a92:4aff:feca:f18d]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F1E114006C; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:15:09 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1426155309; bh=m01w1lw9pv0BMxNk+jkRrDf5drfeSPC/6RCh5k1aBI0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=jg+NqiWGpQoBq1o9XETwFgOVJVcHaa3ifi6/H/yADYpSEdBy6QLH9KvrUDfb3stdB qWcsGnv3pRkNDMo1BkrLm5o86MvRbBlosGnzKkKcvpsOysgpTLB87Ib2yASITwawNM hLNiRZ9X5E957Ixu4qhO/KfTJghaAK1ORnaMlxPA=
From: Jan Včelák <jan.vcelak@nic.cz>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:15:06 +0100
Message-ID: <3070134.2yIek5FY2o@pc-cznic4>
Organization: CZ.NIC Labs
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.4 (Linux/4.0.0-0.rc2.git0.1.fc22.x86_64; KDE/4.14.6; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <17FB96B6-B44C-4C9B-A68E-112C5EAE0CA3@icsi.berkeley.edu>
References: <55002098.5060709@redhat.com> <55006FC7.1030206@nic.cz> <17FB96B6-B44C-4C9B-A68E-112C5EAE0CA3@icsi.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.6 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/am8x1Rjua1lTiBDOid9Kbf0aN2w>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@icsi.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Comments regarding the NSEC5
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:15:12 -0000

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 09:52:55 AM Nicholas Weaver wrote:
> Why not just do something simpler?  The only thing NSEC5 really differs in a
> way that counts is not in the NSEC record but really just the DNSKEY
> handling, having a separate key used for signing the NSEC* records.
> 
> So why define NSEC5 at all.
> 
> Instead, just specify a separate flag for the DNSKEY record, "NSEC-only",
> sign the NSEC3 dynamically, bada bing, bada boom, done!

This would not work. Anyone holding the NSEC-only private key could fake 
denying answers for the zone. So if your zone is slaved by a less-trusted 
party, they could still manipulate your zone. This is not possible with NSEC5.

Jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email