IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?)

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 20 June 2018 09:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 20CEC130E60 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 02:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=unavailable 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 ocmMh0mBZ2mG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 02:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33934124BE5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 02:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:41063) by ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1fVZ3q-0002bL-1D (Exim 4.91) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:05:54 +0100
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:05:54 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: "Wellington, Brian" <bwelling=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <D770751E-437F-48AA-8B1B-19A9F3A966CE@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806200953070.916@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <6C8533C2-6510-4A0E-A7EA-50EB83E43A7D@isc.org> <CD6DB8C1-108A-433E-8CD9-34F549844D10@isc.org> <D770751E-437F-48AA-8B1B-19A9F3A966CE@akamai.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/mrBhytb46b_htmiPOotAsyxFiMI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:05:59 -0000

Wellington, Brian <bwelling=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> SIG(0) was implemented in BIND 9 back when BIND 9 was basically the only
> modern implementation, and no one used it then.

I think the problem is it isn't a complete implementation: you can't use
SIG(0) in all the places you can use TSIG. The TKEY support seems to be
specific to Kerberos, whereas broader support would make it a neat way to
use slow SIG(0) to establish fast TSIG session keys.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Trafalgar: In southeast, cyclonic 6 or 7 decreasing 4 or 5 later, otherwise
northeasterly, backing northerly later, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 in northwest.
Moderate. Rain or thundery showers. Good occasionally poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email