[DNSOP] Favor: Weigh in on draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns?

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Hi there DNSOP,

I (and a number of IESG folken) would like some feedback / guidance on
draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns.

This document (which has gone through IESG eval, and on which I'm currently
holding a DISCUSS) attempts to solve the problem of accessing internal
domains when using a split-tunnel VPN.

Here is the abstract:

"This document defines two Configuration Payload Attribute Types
(INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN and INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA) for the Internet Key
Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2).  These payloads add support for
private (internal-only) DNS domains.  These domains are intended to
be resolved using non-public DNS servers that are only reachable
through the IPsec connection.  DNS resolution for other domains
remains unchanged.  These Configuration Payloads only apply to split
tunnel configurations."

Okey dokey, this sounds reasonable, and solves a problem which probably
shouldn't exist, but does.

The concerning scenario for me (and where I'd like the WG to provide
feedback if I'm being overly twitchy) is:
"The INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA attribute type is used to convey a DNSSEC
trust anchor for such a domain.  This is required if the external
view uses DNSSEC that would prove the internal view does not exist or
would expect a different DNSSEC key on the different versions
(internal and external) of the enterprise domain."

Let's say I'm visiting Elbonia and really really want to watch "The Great
British Baking Show" on Netflix. Elbonia blocks all baking shows[0], and so
I figure I'll fire up my VPN, provided by "VPNs-R-Us - only $1.99 per
month, don't torrent without it!".
As you can guess from the name, VPNs-R-Us is sketchy, but, hey, they were
cheap! (They make up the profit by being malicious).

So, I fire up my IPSEC VPN client, and it pops up a box saying "VPNs-R-Us
wants to provide you with DNS servers for [.com, farfetch.com ] and DNSSEC
Trust Anchors for the same. Continue [Y/N]?". Being a users, desperate  to
watch Paul Hollywood disapprove of someone's puff pastry, I click "Yes"
(admit it, you would too!).
I then browse to www.paypal.com to see if I can buy a shirt just like Noel
Fielding's.

My DNS request goes to VPNs-R-Us, who (because they have provided me with a
DNSSEC TA for .com) answers with 6.6.6.6 and a "validly" signed DNSSEC
answer. They also "helpfully" provide me with a TLSA record, and when I
connect provide me with a certificate with the DNSSEEC chain extension.

The document attempt to mitigate issues like this with: "Other generic or
public domains, such as top-level domains (TLDs), similarly MUST be ignored
if these appear in a whitelist unless the entity actually is the operator
of the TLD. To determine this, an implementation MAY interactively ask the
user when a VPN profile is installed or activated to confirm this.
Alternatively, it MAY provide a special override keyword in its
provisioning configuration to ensure non-interactive agreement can be
achieved only by the party provisioning the VPN client, who presumbly is a
trusted entity by the end-user.", discussions in the Security
Considerations, etc.

I believe that the document is trying to solve a real world problem, but
I'm concerned by the ability to push DNSSEC TAs, and rely on user's ability
to make an informed decision (keeping in mind their behavior when presented
with big red "Are you sure you want to accept this random TLS
certificate?!" browser boxes).

So, would y'all mind weighing in to help me decide what I do with my
DISCUSS? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Allowing this potentially
allows for DNSSEC signing of things like internal TLDs / internal
namespaces, increasing DNSSEC deployment. Am I being overly cautious here?
Should users know better than to blindly click OK on things they don't
understand?

I'd really like your advice, preferably before Friday.

The document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns/
The balloting:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns/ballot/

The thread on my DISCUSS:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/5xvXIidXt3DgxO_V0V8Haosb1Uc


W
[0]: Lest their citizens start wondering why they don't also have cake.


--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf