Re: Quic: the elephant in the room
Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Sat, 10 April 2021 17:57 UTC
Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 BCB8D3A1719 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 10:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 UedqSc-J5qpZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 10:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bee.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (bee.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75C6E3A16D2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 10:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70F7C1E25D3; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:57:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a31.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-27-157.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.27.157]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 32BEA1E2724; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:57:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a31.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.27.157 (trex/6.1.1); Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:57:20 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Wiry-Fumbling: 5e0ae89c1f7a13ec_1618077440296_714050259
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1618077440295:630111919
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1618077440295
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a31.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a31.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F067F7E638; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 10:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=KKXONX3nQjhlpC m3554Ve+6Ktww=; b=B8cjwRdj7lJqgC5BpUdVOLUcgcqLsZHnneCoEZmHnnrXae aPdoF9A0UVrDq2W4DzLFlxAeynShx96mRGRTKpeywfROXvuKRtl6zI/cmtb0rh51 esZjVXtmiTkMUy+hJ0HUv0WisNJHzssPh3wUWMEZY60gAyzHz1hEG2vio212g=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a31.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8CEB7F0E6; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 10:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 12:57:13 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a31
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Ben Laurie <benl=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Quic: the elephant in the room
Message-ID: <20210410175712.GF9612@localhost>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABrd9STZXonBDvWB7Z36H2mD20Juubc01TUmEvpfWkvJggQVOQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XSfabTRviI0u4xZkKeVCTDqmf0k>
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: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:57:27 -0000
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 10:29:42AM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote: > 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. I disagree with that last sentence. First, having a PKI with hard naming constraints and a single root (though with alternatives supported) is considerably better than WebPKI, which has neither of those. This alone is not enough because resolvers generally send the full qname to every DNS server on the resolution path, so . and ccTLDs get a chance to impersonate if they want to, but... ...second, using qname minimization makes it very difficult for root zone or ccTLD operators to mount impersonation attacks because they can't know the full qname, so if they want to impersonate, they have to impersonate all qnames you end up asking for, not just the one target. It can be done, of course. I imagine something like a stingray device that is preloaded with .'s signing keys and so can MITM everything, though that would be an enormous risk to the device's operators. I expect an objection about how many round trips qname minimization adds. Though if you're not hitting caches then you have those extra round trips anyways, and recursive caching resolvers should get the full qname, so maybe qname minimization is not a performance disaster. > Could be fixed with DNS Transparency, of course. Well, yes, that could and should be done. Nico --
- Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Ben Laurie
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Ben Laurie
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Nico Williams
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: DNS vs PKI, was Quic: the elephant in the room John Levine
- Re: DNS vs PKI, was Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Nico Williams
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Nico Williams
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Ben Laurie
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Ben Laurie
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Ben Laurie
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Nico Williams
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Nico Williams
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Salz, Rich
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Nico Williams
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Salz, Rich
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Ben Laurie
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Ben Laurie
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Ben Laurie
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room David Conrad
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room David Conrad
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Viktor Dukhovni
- DNSSEC architecture vs reality (was: Re: Quic: th… Keith Moore
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality (was: Re: Quic… Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Nico Williams
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Salz, Rich
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Nico Williams
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality (was: Re: Quic… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Andrew McConachie
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Keith Moore
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Petite Abeille
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Salz, Rich
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Salz, Rich
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Marco Davids
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Salz, Rich
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Nico Williams
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Nico Williams
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Nico Williams
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Nico Williams
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Michael Thomas
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Salz, Rich
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Nico Williams
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Salz, Rich
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Salz, Rich
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Michael Thomas
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Nico Williams
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Michael Thomas
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Nico Williams
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Michael Thomas
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Nico Williams
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Michael Thomas
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality John C Klensin
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Keith Moore
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Michael Thomas
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Michael Thomas
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Keith Moore
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Nico Williams
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Michael Thomas
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality John C Klensin
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Keith Moore
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Michael Thomas
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Nico Williams
- Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reali… John Levine
- Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reali… Mark Andrews
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Petite Abeille
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Petite Abeille
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Andrew McConachie
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Patrik Fältström
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Eliot Lear
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Patrik Fältström
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Patrik Fältström
- Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reali… John R Levine
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Nico Williams
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Nico Williams
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Jim Fenton
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Masataka Ohta
- Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality Petite Abeille
- Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reali… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reali… Nico Williams
- Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reali… Donald Eastlake
- Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reali… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reali… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reali… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reali… Vittorio Bertola
- Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reali… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Fwd: Quic: the Elephant in the Room Michael Thomas
- Fwd: Quic: the Elephant in the Room Lars Eggert
- RE: Fwd: Quic: the Elephant in the Room Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Ben Laurie
- Re: Quic: the elephant in the room Phillip Hallam-Baker