IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DNSCurve vs. DNSSEC - FIGHT!

Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> Fri, 26 February 2010 09:29 UTC

Return-Path: <fweimer@bfk.de>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498FC3A85EB for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:29:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.684
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.684 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.435, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4dc6S2JhGPoF for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:29:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx01.bfk.de (mx01.bfk.de [193.227.124.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5774E3A7D1E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:29:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx00.int.bfk.de ([10.119.110.2]) by mx01.bfk.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1NkwXb-0002eV-DP; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:31:23 +0000
Received: by bfk.de with local id 1NkwXd-0002EX-Qu; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:31:25 +0000
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: DNSCurve vs. DNSSEC - FIGHT!
References: <874c02a21002231826y613b9f97ya83740ba240f7bf9@mail.gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D02C29D87@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <a123a5d61002240700i4a68367tf901b91265f79da1@mail.gmail.com> <1267039830.9710.11106.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1002242049510.16971@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <p06240819c7ab46c7fbf9@[10.20.30.158]> <4B859F15.9080106@acm.org> <4B85B7E5.1000104@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <201002242347.o1ONlt7L023898@drugs.dv.isc.org> <4B85BF52.7030004@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <82fx4po0nb.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4B87930B.2070400@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:31:25 +0000
In-Reply-To: <4B87930B.2070400@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> (Masataka Ohta's message of "Fri\, 26 Feb 2010 18\:23\:23 +0900")
Message-ID: <82zl2wgx76.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:29:19 -0000

* Masataka Ohta:

> Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>>>As DNSCurve protection is like DH, it is subject to MitM attacks,
>>>which is no different from simple nonce.
>
>> I think the expectation is that you learn the server names (and hence
>> their keys) of child zones from parents, under DNSCurve's
>> cryptographic protection.  This is slightly different from plain DH.
>
> No, it is not expected that gtld servers will become
> "???????????????????????????????????????????????????.gtld-servers.net",
> only to cause message size overflow.

Wouldn't compression kick in if they shared keys (assuming that
DNSCurve doesn't sift the key from only the first label), making the
overhead negligible?

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer@bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email