IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Dave Singer <singer@apple.com> Wed, 31 August 2005 22:07 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAajV-0003Nw-Fx; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:07:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAajT-0003Nf-J4 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:06:59 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18948 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:06:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail-out4.apple.com ([17.254.13.23]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EAalH-0004GV-GO for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:08:53 -0400
Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7VM6mVS009861 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay3.apple.com (relay3.apple.com [17.128.113.33]) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with ESMTP id <T73197c2edd118064e198c@mailgate1.apple.com> for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:06:47 -0700
Received: from [17.202.35.52] (singda.apple.com [17.202.35.52]) by relay3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7VM6lAd029480 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06230956bf3bd9a4992d@[17.202.35.52]>
In-Reply-To: <DAC3FCB50E31C54987CD10797DA511BA1096B57F@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.n tdev.microsoft.com>
References: <DAC3FCB50E31C54987CD10797DA511BA1096B57F@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.n tdev.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:06:12 -0700
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

I'm a by-stander on this discussion, maybe off-base or out of it -- 
but something other than the undesirable traffic struck me.

Isn't it also true that I might *deliberately break* all sorts of 
things by introducing 'blocking' names into DNS responses, so that an 
LLMNR request is never issued.  So an ISP could 'grab' traffic that 
the users thought was local, by replying to a DNS request in a proxy 
(or converting a negative reply into an answer).

Also, ISPs might be tempted to start turning around DNS requests in 
their proxies for names that they *think* should be answered by 
LLMNR, returning resolution failure, so as not to send too much 
traffic outbound.  This pre-empts the real DNS from ever actually 
replying.

The whole idea that 'real DNS' can arbitrarily pre-empt local name 
resolution seems, well, wrong, and needs serious study for security 
implications for the services using those names, no?

-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email