Re: [dnsext] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-18

"Blacka, David" <davidb@verisign.com> Mon, 30 July 2012 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <davidb@verisign.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 B195411E8163; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gyVP6L9mU55i; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og102.obsmtp.com (exprod6og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1701311E8133; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob102.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUBbvBS3GDgnPkJ9RoxJeKOZ64e2FUqVa@postini.com; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:31:12 PDT
Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q6UKUobn024875 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:30:51 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:30:51 -0400
From: "Blacka, David" <davidb@verisign.com>
To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-18
Thread-Topic: [dnsext] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-18
Thread-Index: AQHNTcEBiArox8QTa0KZinofYFCgT5dCliyAgAA1yYA=
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:30:49 +0000
Message-ID: <DA020552-9B8C-45FF-8D89-41894D2C4410@verisign.com>
References: <EBFB2D2E-78FF-46D6-B4FF-1F57FB8D769B@bbn.com> <20120619021211.GI32683@crankycanuck.ca> <9A7F5D7E-C3A8-4118-ADA1-C9CB814CDF72@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <9A7F5D7E-C3A8-4118-ADA1-C9CB814CDF72@bbn.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <69AE58FA13615E4B8B754C07B1BF039F@verisign.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:56:17 -0700
Cc: "<draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates@tools.ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "<ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org>, "<dnsext@ietf.org>" <dnsext@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:31:13 -0000

On Jul 30, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:

>>> 
>>> MAJOR:
>>> 
>>> 4.1.  
>>> It's not clear what the threat model is that this section is
>>> designed to address.  If the zone operator is malicious, then it can
>>> simulate the necessary zone cut and still prove the non-existence of
>>> records in the child zone.
>> 
>> The problem here is not a malicious parent operator, but "an NSEC or
>> NSEC3 RR from an ancestor zone".  In the original specification, an
>> attacker could use such an RR to prove the non-existence of some name
>> in a subordinate zone.  That was the problem.  (Remember, in DNS there
>> is a good chance that you are not talking to an authoritative server.)
>> If you have suggestions on ways to make that clearer, it'd be welcome.
>> The editors tried to come up with compact examples that would be
>> anything other than mystifying, and were unsuccessful.  
> 
> I guess I still don't understand this.  Aren't ancestors the only people that can generate a valid, signed NSEC or NSEC3 RR?  So if there were a bad NSEC[3], wouldn't it be the ancestor's fault?

This isn't about "bad NSEC[3]" RRs.  It is about an attacker (think "man-in-the-middle") using the valid, completely correct NSEC[3] RR from the parent zone in an inappropriate context.

> If the provisioning is *intentional*, then as I noted before, then there's not really anything to be done, since the ancestor can provide whatever information he wants for the child zones (as above).  So are you worried about *inadvertent* provisioning of these bad records?  

Again, the record isn't "bad", but being used in the wrong context (either via a software bug or on purpose as an attack).  This section isn't about malicious zone operators at all.

I still don't have any great ideas for how to change the text to make this more clear, however.

--
David Blacka                          <davidb@verisign.com> 
Principal               Verisign Infrastructure Engineering