IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] [Ext] DOH bypassing protection mechanisms

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 06 November 2017 05:12 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371A513FB01 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Nov 2017 21:12:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 DxE30eRLew3I for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Nov 2017 21:12:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C910A13FAFE for <doh@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Nov 2017 21:12:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2423; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1509945144; x=1511154744; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=gFre3CbRqL2qs0hIvH5s92CN4lN2bGaBmat3oPjgbzA=; b=RzPVBUYr9/Nwl5e8MTp6+QxaZi5Fg/5pkV5EelagRKGZVqkJY/xrbJjd E4huhKuFQO0tp9NA/ylxHPgr9B7hJD0iLOsvjJwQDFzqJZFgEqGNWAuXH +/PH8r/1isO7ec+sC7TuvL2dHfwSH+lCqHead91Ozh30G6BCJ9cL2ajRa A=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ChAACM7v9Z/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBhBhuhCSKH3SPeyaWRoIRBwOFOwKFFhgBAQEBAQEBAQFrKIUfAQUjVhALGCoCAlcGAQwIAQGKH6odgieLBgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAREPgy6FbAuCdogmgmIFog6EQoIjjheBfIl8hzyWFoE5HziBbDQhCB0Vgy6EX0CNGAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,351,1505779200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="42168"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Nov 2017 05:12:22 +0000
Received: from [10.61.224.245] ([10.61.224.245]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vA65CLlQ030457; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 05:12:21 GMT
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: "doh@ietf.org" <doh@ietf.org>
References: <78BA4BE2-1475-4F36-B735-FF6EAF0B594B@vpnc.org> <459AFD25-B3FB-4FD2-A688-2380CB0AC6D3@icann.org> <76b12c4d-dbd5-d5bb-9c68-6b36b280f0ae@cisco.com> <CE272411-48EE-4614-BD86-ABD5BBE32089@icann.org> <0208f6a7-f9a7-ade5-2eac-18de4d678116@nostrum.com> <B3A9EF7A-A81A-4134-A79B-CE71343B6D0A@icann.org>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <29fcdcc6-2644-6014-fc05-04289f4f2ea3@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 06:12:12 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B3A9EF7A-A81A-4134-A79B-CE71343B6D0A@icann.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="b9cKKL3suhNa6LTRCgIjSDpSqwQOePLSo"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/wtCg01OMf0vz7Hmp2huTgg7Alpk>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] DOH bypassing protection mechanisms
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 05:12:25 -0000

On 11/5/17 8:58 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> They are not restricted to web clients (I was careful not to say "browsers"), but I don't expect current DNS clients to add DOH capabilities any time in the near future. We have had approximately zero success in getting stub resolvers deployed with DNS-over-TLS (RFC 7858), and getting them to do that would be easier than DNS-encoded-in-HTTP-over-TLS. DNS clients are a use case listed in Section 3 of the draft, but not one that we've heard much interest in.
>

Indeed.  That is why I suggested some practical approaches that do
consider browsers.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email