Re: Quic: the elephant in the room

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Fri, 23 April 2021 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047993A0E31 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 N9feX6aLJ4JY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x935.google.com (mail-ua1-x935.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::935]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CFCE3A0E30 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x935.google.com with SMTP id r1so3309580uat.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8LH1284MMhrHQHSj5eiKNB9C3LUc66ea8DhlIA+0yFY=; b=MOxvsQPbAjDsHpKt5u2LJ9NPmra0Zu080mriYnW/9X4XVFOfj6R47Wrcy+j64edFdu 0Q9GqTej8kiI8jPWfdLzcmlqqKas4a23has2v+uh9ll4mSRZx+C3qmmfEVOwNnGBtvBE IpVFAVEFWT4VweZ9psJq+JiEiHHuY36G2WsZ6A00ceVVTvdKW7xljO/iNkAXjH23RtoV QFgNK+BnRUn1wpWlGTYWk0BNX+Tu+DXzNHyqVcvTuMPsI3CpCyQuHySBPp7Ow4+co7D0 mH7oh9rgeE/lm61vjqVf7XSeRkCRNIjs/Ghiyqv4LGDeBEg3YXu77Z0m8GS/gra+lCNT p13Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8LH1284MMhrHQHSj5eiKNB9C3LUc66ea8DhlIA+0yFY=; b=ZGQ4sS6PnbW+1NRW48KhRJLki4H9OCX9C40hPnek7S93M2xwXJhZCSUz2pmKPyMekM T3qi6QLNKdmey7W7Z6Ej09XGH81cX7z1kwmyeJWfVy8n79SZxHzlVDa/KQskca4jxbyV ThrlXL/WKr0FjVp7kkDuV2eQFvmoo3uTN1TOqomN02hBkni5Qj7WcUmoom8+STpXbmC7 B93n+OpdudL5I/vsoAAmEJX6exBK16liStrY7EBUcD9zb5w1u9L6ezzvkcw8da0ifoff tDEf7sAZ20y9iAf3Tjrxi+pnX7CpqciDuUmAPRJY7by15c6G8amafbtsFxJOvCODX7X3 8uJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ZwkeZz4JZlobPWBw84utuif8roDfJv00okLAUKLQDG6ON3ggI WLZx0QvOUVANdIeUBjQl306pIHk2RqaJFxGqvFQw4IRFKzk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx4qPez1QVEq4tterTic5ug9OUzymg9c5+SdeOJhLgr9BH9msqhOC/3xovZwR9Pbam5K095x2mWfAr7Klgq8NM=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:21d1:: with SMTP id u17mr3443533uan.22.1619188764312; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3b25c77d-e721-e86d-6c34-a90039aab0e2@mtcc.com> <CAMm+Lwhi8xwFgZJL7jod2g4urZt_f+dm0tNi+3y1osqOfch2mQ@mail.gmail.com> <3593a01f-73f4-7d03-a85b-dff64a8b070e@mtcc.com> <CABrd9STZXonBDvWB7Z36H2mD20Juubc01TUmEvpfWkvJggQVOQ@mail.gmail.com> <ab6bcbf0-646c-9f2d-5f98-fdc3e9ba27bf@mtcc.com> <CABrd9STEqvgexYKTUdFqn1zu=U2+h92_aDS6rM=8xcwibNJM3A@mail.gmail.com> <562b6592-9b8f-a590-4c5c-495d79048f09@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <562b6592-9b8f-a590-4c5c-495d79048f09@mtcc.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:39:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CABrd9STzv+gM83p0fNk2skXg0-5ZyewRR_P0E305gEGaOLB6PA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Quic: the elephant in the room
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001fa89405c0a4c3e5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GhyF9Pj84x8UglKhHdbbRUf45BE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:39:31 -0000

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 at 16:42, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> On 4/11/21 7:34 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 at 18:04, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4/10/21 2:29 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 at 00:35, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 4/9/21 4:26 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>>
>>> It is only a 'three packet handshake' if you ignore the off path
>>> interactions with the DNS service. The timeout on DNS tens to be rather
>>> smaller than that most would be comfortable with for crypto.
>>>
>>> I don't see why it can't be long lived, but even normal TTL's would get
>>> amortized over a lot of connections. Right now with certs it is a 5 message
>>> affair which cannot get better. But that is why one of $BROWSERVENDORS
>>> doing an experiment would be helpful.
>>>
>>
>> When I was designing Certificate Transparency, Chrome ruled out any side
>> channel communications requirement during handshake. Given that DNS is
>> required anyway, perhaps this would be different. However, the other
>> problem is introducing DNS as a trust root - the DNS hierarchy is
>> considerably less secure than CAs were even before CT but now it's really a
>> very poor option in comparison.
>>
>> Could be fixed with DNS Transparency, of course.
>>
>>
>> DNS is the natural trust anchor for the internet. And I don't know what
>> "considerably less secure" means. If you mean that DNSSec is broken, then
>> you should say that. If you mean that DNSsec deployment is thin, that is
>> quite another thing, and that is all about the incentives to deploy. I
>> don't consider a plethora of CA's of varying security responsibility to be
>> a feature and in fact is a bug.
>>
> What I mean is that the authorities for DNS get compromised far more often
> than CAs do. Also, DNS has the same plethora of authorities with varying
> security responsibility.
>
> Huh? Source?
>

I'm afraid my source is my own experience (Google has a *lot* of domains).