Re: [DNSOP] Draft for dynamic discovery of secure resolvers

Paul Vixie <> Tue, 21 August 2018 02:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99632130E02 for <>; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 19:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UHmKM-WVxUm6 for <>; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 19:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CA96130DF6 for <>; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 19:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:9061:ce0d:93bf:336d] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:9061:ce0d:93bf:336d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27209892C6; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 02:43:57 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 19:43:55 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.25 (Windows/20180328)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Pusateri <>
CC: Paul Ebersman <>, dnsop <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft for dynamic discovery of secure resolvers
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 02:43:59 -0000

Tom Pusateri wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 10:21 PM, Paul Vixie<>  wrote:
>> if DOH is widely used by criminals, botnets, and malware to bypass
>> perimeter security policy, then there will be a big problem and we
>> will be solving it for many years to come, even if the browser is
>> the only thing using it. browsers are where most modern vulns have
>> occurred, and i expect that trend to accelerate. "because that's
>> where the money was.”
> I can see good use cases and bad ones.

all power tools can kill.

> If web servers did DNSSEC validation and only served addresses for
> names that were validated, I wouldn’t have a problem with that at
> all.
> If web servers only served addresses for names within the domain of
> the web server, I wouldn’t have a problem with that either.
> if they start serving non DNSSEC validated addresses for names
> outside their domain, I think they’re overreaching.

DOH's use will be indiscriminate, and will reach DNS servers who have 
web protocol front ends, who will offer full-spectrum RDNS. there will 
be no binding or relation at all between the web content servers and the 
DNS content servers who happen to use web protocols. so, please worry.

P Vixie