Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT

On 10 May 2014 22:31, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 May 2014, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>  On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The simplest way to align things is to simply have a certificate
>>>> issued for the DNSSEC zone KSK and plop that in the log as normal.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, each zone acts as a CA for its children.  That works, I think.
>>>
>>
> The problem with that approach is that it does not make DNSSEC distinct
> from the existing CA PKI. It will also not remove the cost factor of
> getting a DNSSEC "certificate" from a "certified" CABforum member.

I think you're reading too much into "acts as a CA" ... it is a matter of
fact that the parent zone signs for its children.

>  I have previously had some discussions about including DNSSEC / DANE /
>> self signed certs -- one of the objections / concerns was the threat
>> of someone DoSing the logs by making up data (there is a cost to a CA
>> cert, but I can create an infinite number of TLSA records or self
>> signed certs).
>>
>
> Cost should IMHO not become a verification factor. That's the whole
> reason https hasn't been universally deployed to begin with. We should
> not make the same mistake with DNSSEC.
>
>
>  The main incentive (that I can see) to DoS the logs would be for the
>> lolz[0], and so (IMO) the protection does not need to be very strong -
>> having someone have to solve a captcha or make a small payment (could
>> become a donation) would be enough.
>>
>
> Or just say that anyone who puts in more than X amount of DNSSEC CT
> entries underneath themselves must run a public CT node themselves. So
> if nohats.ca want to get more then X entries, or one of their
> subzones/customers wants more than X entries, either they or their
> subzone/customer will have to run a fully functional CT node. And if
> the node goes down, their new entries will be refused.

Yes, exactly. +1

>
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Trans mailing list
> Trans@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
>

-- 
Certificate Transparency is hiring! Let me know if you're interested.