IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] Re: New draft on collision free key tags in DNSSEC

Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz> Wed, 31 July 2024 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz>
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 D7848C14F6A1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.406
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dZ7FX6JBdjy1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88E47C14F619 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPV6:2001:1488:fffe:6:c21f:a164:9355:1e4c] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:c21f:a164:9355:1e4c]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DC6A1C11DE; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 15:56:45 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results: mail.nic.cz; auth=pass smtp.auth=vladimir.cunat@nic.cz smtp.mailfrom=vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1722434205; bh=D/JxP4PupSDklVGlYtoMvArPjELq7LLEcRIoKdyBv7Q=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From:Reply-To:Subject: To:Cc; b=qYpteqWmpOeEfVD4vezFDDt+25duBt32cWBbK7iLWLvj6BAS5V3seZ3oSL7y1vfXy uhhtF5Qu85oXrr+s9hIz3deZH4g0MfpZerNMQNlL39wjRF4HYtiVY+r62A0Co7AdWv PSvzrtzNuvkV0tYF3P0wGdvUxao5OhBwZr3UaAQo=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------23b0hP2xkgV2Ieh2okTkh9WD"
Message-ID: <6ccae7f0-bc35-4f5c-9b73-84b0157c2be3@nic.cz>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 15:56:44 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Petr Špaček <pspacek@isc.org>, dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAHPuVdUveYraaGtrGveKTiLgP1L19G6g6=bsKsHjsPsP5fkiXg@mail.gmail.com> <774ab370-5d66-4c0d-b0a4-6d9e9cec2549@nic.cz> <db4ce7d8-4956-4c59-b396-c564f513f19b@isc.org>
Content-Language: cs, en-US
From: Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <db4ce7d8-4956-4c59-b396-c564f513f19b@isc.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.10 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.90 / 20.00]; R_MIXED_CHARSET(1.00)[subject]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; WHITELISTED_IP(0.00)[2001:1488:fffe:6:c21f:a164:9355:1e4c]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:25192, ipnet:2001:1488::/32, country:CZ]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[ietf]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]
X-Rspamd-Action: no action
X-Rspamd-Server: mail
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 8DC6A1C11DE
X-Spamd-Bar: /
X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=multimap; Matched map: WHITELISTED_IP
Message-ID-Hash: HVWPD7CT4FSVLGBHSCM36TAU72YLQ2OB
X-Message-ID-Hash: HVWPD7CT4FSVLGBHSCM36TAU72YLQ2OB
X-MailFrom: vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: New draft on collision free key tags in DNSSEC
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/oqvLhN3hYKAEQ-mDUQvB7-A18lQ>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

On 31/07/2024 15.29, Petr Špaček wrote:
> Per-zone limit does not defend against resource exhaustion because an 
> attacker can construct chain of delegations a.b.c.d.e...... and max 
> out limit on each level. Then you instantly get about 126*(per-zone 
> limit on validations) just for this particular attack vector. 

That's part of why I think the implementations need a different approach 
(than this RFC, too).  Attackers can combine.  Do these long delegation 
chains, and jump through several of them by CNAMEs, and put max. number 
of RRSIGs everywhere in a way that many fail, etc.

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status