IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-vixie-dns-rpz-04.txt

sthaug@nethelp.no Wed, 21 December 2016 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 8165B129A08 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:20:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, 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 WMmkjHZuO3cn for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:20:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B12E129611 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:20:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 830FFE6065; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 22:20:32 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 22:20:32 +0100
Message-Id: <20161221.222032.71134295.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: bortzmeyer@nic.fr
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <20161221210808.6zn6ngw4w7usz5xv@nic.fr>
References: <201612191535.uBJFZh7w091898@calcite.rhyolite.com> <CACfw2hhFLdFgspse7-L8UxCLCCu_g=GYEybOWVZ5xPkMu0YduQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161221210808.6zn6ngw4w7usz5xv@nic.fr>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/sXgU9-CIXpZyDOBI5geChD3TrHg>
Cc: vjs@rhyolite.com, dnsop@ietf.org, chinese.apricot@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-vixie-dns-rpz-04.txt
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: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 21:20:36 -0000

> > adding complexity in the middle of any system increases the size of an
> > attack surface.
> 
> +1 This was described in detail several times (see for instance this
> report
> <https://www.afnic.fr/medias/documents/conseilscientifique/SC-consequences-of-DNS-based-Internet-filtering.pdf>)
> and we already saw its consequences for the security and stability of
> the Internet
> <http://www.computerworld.dk/art/214431/koks-hos-dansk-politi-spaerrer-for-8-000-websites>
> (in danish)
> <http://www.bortzmeyer.org/google-detourne-par-orange.html> (in
> french)

Agreed about the general comment about adding complexity. However,
consider the fact that quite a few operators (I happen to work for
one of them) *already* have this complexity in the system, and the
use of RPZ would actually *reduce* complexity.

Steinar Haug, AS2116

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email