Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] New: draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients

william manning <> Fri, 05 April 2019 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD531205CC; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 09:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hsuOi67sZ6a4; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 09:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BBA312051F; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 09:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c4so2523208ywa.11; Fri, 05 Apr 2019 09:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=S0ws1wmYsF4vt5xH9Iu4yvbM90SU6cSfDGjXi0YKhDg=; b=ZwTOPFroPbgoa6fO3+oltD2VTqs0br8n2L1Sk+pHqZhN47mbLg0DuawnWZ6MoMpXFT i42vpmc2YEqt72bxnEsvRPQowzbQ1xyIonpJnzExvvW2a0EPpgx1qtz6o/5IekFU7uCq id2ucuSAQp+Z+NVx++ZKhwuM+FcAumI9l7fvlM6NC74ePMoQSznF4EGvJFZj6U7z84LS 9FyErJgdB8/NH4wN0kJ9BEK0q1xoASyxyAPA0xR6Qs7sQchJTycrn1dqCRl8i/TqXVlg 1MvDME9h5/RAtt/QqkYNVLSiLbBARXBUSJtONdv+b3BgsL6cNsiuQo+Om1YNWql6c4B2 tagg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=S0ws1wmYsF4vt5xH9Iu4yvbM90SU6cSfDGjXi0YKhDg=; b=IFn9wb2Zahb3n5j0NZQM8lWHfojd8ZtJdMZMxhOoUQmbaPEfnNHDkGzDcp7IR4iK7h BHbPcZ9enkTH6UspJXqJd+L2yHuzh+feMU6izoB68EpHhMYI489Ad0oK6Vb6KiKFMGqe hgMEw5VTaxKnPa0BiWX6sOIqLsK1JqgcVWHF2l0dDwrQBpDIa4JHY+ZvP88upZofj4Ce 1nrlKnH3IcmVLoTIahSbju70M47cKaUSu1h+zwgzhYp71mRZhpJePH1dLzrJibA/gT2f vEAq3DBrDXxT87zrIhAa4uhZ1uTFv+Kw2+ASlisxdykmp73igCw7j7VDv5cMxtjtpqdF lDtg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU6ImZuhOiaJOCGuwZrwAJZqgBh04m/NrfSPvXOSiJ+JyZKDFqX LjQFnnS8y8xMeS9bc07osYDlkDW3PG9M3IRf3fk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxLwiEuWLHxCGIYSjJBcTFpL33jIVGBe9nC2LuVr6ayR6m2XC1o6vB7LA6k5yo3wa3PzIbpBddWuTWXPxkPamM=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:3d17:: with SMTP id k23mr11405457ywa.266.1554482603382; Fri, 05 Apr 2019 09:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: william manning <>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 09:43:12 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: nalini elkins <>
Cc: Christian Huitema <>,, Vittorio Bertola <>, dnsop <>,, "Ackermann, Michael" <>, Stephen Farrell <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000625c190585cb2f8e"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] New: draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 16:43:29 -0000

Every now and then, Paul Vixie and I are in complete harmony.  In my
current slot, we are one of thousands of entities that are being held
accountable to a series of regulatory requirements that have significant
fiscal impacts on the exfiltration of private/patient data.  We are
starting to focus on three distinct areas to reduce the impact that DOH
presents to our security posture.  1) In contractual/proccurement
language.  We have some "Must have" items and now we will have "Must not"
items.  2) There are at least two technical options for tracking/blocking
DOH which are being turned into turnkey options to "swat" this covert C&C
channel.  3) Aggressive Browser Hygiene.

This genie has not signed BAA or supplier agreement with us and we will not
allow it to dictate our business processes or affect our liability without
the DOH enabler shouldering fiscal and legal exposure when DOH is shown to
be the culprit in exposure of private data.  I can't see how DOH is going
to pass GDRP muster inside the EU either, but that is for others to
debate.  I have told my GDRP affected counterparts about the privacy risks
with DOH deployment.

as usual, YMMV.

/William Manning

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 8:26 PM nalini elkins <>

>  > Similarly, putting DNS in user space allows for immediate adoption of
> DNSSEC and privacy enhancements, even when the operating system or the
> local network does not support them
> At enterprises (banks, insurance, etc) on their internal networks, people
> run their own DNS servers which may resolve for both internal and external
> sites.
> We were recently talking to a Fortune 50 company in the United States
> about what might happen you install a version of the browser which uses
> DNS-over-HTTPS automatically.  (Clearly, this applies to any variant.)
> The questions that the Fortune 50 company architect asked were something
> like this:
> 1. You mean that DNS could be resolved outside my enterprise?
> 2. So whoever that is that resolves my DNS sees the pattern and frequency
> of what sites my company goes to?
> 3. How do I change this?
> I look forward to a discussion on this issue..    There will be at least
> one enterprise present in Prague to speak for themselves.  I will see if I
> can get others to participate remotely.
> It would be good to also discuss how to warn enterprises that this is
> about to happen.   I wonder if an announcement via CERT or another group
> may be appropriate.
> Thanks,
> Nalini
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:36 AM Christian Huitema <>
> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2019 4:07 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> > Honestly, I understood it differently - at this point in time they are
>> > doing tests on whether their resolver performs better or worse than
>> > the system's one, but their announced model is that Firefox will adopt
>> > a DoH resolver (though it's unclear how it will be chosen) and it will
>> > just use that one. But if people from Mozilla could make a clearer
>> > announcement on what their plans currently are, that would be good.
>> > Still, most of the issues arise whenever an application, for whatever
>> > reason and under any mechanism, starts to use one or more resolvers
>> > different than the one set up in the operating system: even if it used
>> > more than one, you would still get many of the issues listed in the
>> > document (though, if it used more than one at the same time, I think
>> > you'd actually also get some new specific issues, so we'd need to add
>> > a discussion of this possibility).
>> Your view of operating systems and applications is firmly rooted in
>> history, which is another way to say in the past. The evolution in the
>> past years points to a systematic deconstruction of that relation, with
>> for example virtual machine, containers, or the trend to move network
>> stacks out of the operating system and into the application. This is
>> pretty obvious for security stacks, but it is also becoming very clear
>> with QUIC and transport stacks. There are two big drivers: portability,
>> and rapid adoption of innovation. These two drivers apply to DNS just
>> like they apply to transport.
>> Putting QUIC in application space allows for immediate provision of
>> innovations like 0-RTT, head-of-queue blocking mitigation, or the better
>> crypto of TLS 1.3. Similarly, putting DNS in user space allows for
>> immediate adoption of DNSSEC and privacy enhancements, even when the
>> operating system or the local network does not support them. That genie
>> is not going back in the bottle any time soon.
>> -- Christian Huitema
>> _______________________________________________
>> dns-privacy mailing list
> --
> Thanks,
> Nalini Elkins
> President
> Enterprise Data Center Operators
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list