Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT
Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> Sun, 11 May 2014 14:40 UTC
Return-Path: <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCE11A025D for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 May 2014 07:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 m0LX7AZE9pvZ for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 May 2014 07:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [209.234.253.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E5D1A0225 for <trans@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 May 2014 07:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.211] (fluxo.info [201.27.11.148]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6657CF984; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:40:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <536F8BC4.5070405@fifthhorseman.net>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 11:40:04 -0300
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
References: <CAK3OfOjiL2DTJPH3CaAjg8YGrrwN56SgQ+DnqPXx4MLbgXQN+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwieij8Tm8V-gpE0eAfwie1dgtFL_Ga8dPkJFKJKLQDAcA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiKjY6YyiyeHiFJrecZfj_uQ-2k+KucKnzb9Yt8VCRPOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iKpN7AXfrH6SzroMukrKTPR5z24U9KfWpVW-F2R_wX3ag@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1405101722240.897@bofh.nohats.ca>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1405101722240.897@bofh.nohats.ca>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6+git0.20140323
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7ICnWfun8VottXnugAD5AbbK8hn8RWAL3"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/mc9I6LZ29__RvZG76GkvWFGWZEQ
Cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 14:40:48 -0000
On 05/10/2014 06:31 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Sat, 10 May 2014, Warren Kumari wrote: >> 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 Do not underestimate the appeal of the lulz for some people. > 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. This sounds expensive to verify, and still a bit unclear to me. do you mean that nohats.ca would need to run its own log for its own zone? At the moment, we're not expecting the authorities to run their own logs -- this seems like a change in semantics and control. clients would also need to know to switch over to another log in that case -- how would that be done? What kind of limits would this architecture place on undetectable misissuance? Or do you mean they would would need to contribute to the CT architecture in some other way? Tthis question is related to the (currently idle) DBOUND discussion [0] and (currently) the public suffix list [1]. If we can draw a line between public registries (which need to be held publicly accountable) and private zones (which in many cases may prefer to avoid full zone enumerability that comes with CT) then we can just ensure that CT-style audit logs apply only to the public registries. Public registries themselves have some interest in limiting pollution, and usually a revenue stream that scales with the size of the registry. These are properties that we might be able to align with a logging infrastructure. So the idea is that for DNSSEC: the root zones and the TLDs (or TLD-equivalents) would get CT-like logging, but children of those zones (as you cross into a private administrative zone) would *not* get CT-like logging. I'd be curious to hear what other folks think about this balance, and what it would take to draw that line cleanly. --dkg [0] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound [1] https://publicsuffix.org/
- [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] EXTERNAL: DNSSEC also needs CT Mehner, Carl
- Re: [Trans] EXTERNAL: DNSSEC also needs CT Tao Effect
- Re: [Trans] EXTERNAL: DNSSEC also needs CT Tao Effect
- Re: [Trans] EXTERNAL: DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Trans] EXTERNAL: DNSSEC also needs CT Tao Effect
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Warren Kumari
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Paul Wouters
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Paul Wouters
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Ben Laurie
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Joseph Bonneau
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Joseph Bonneau
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Salz, Rich
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Joseph Bonneau
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Joseph Bonneau
- [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSEC al… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSE… Dmitry Belyavsky
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Ben Laurie
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Paul Wouters
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- [Trans] ***SPAM*** 8.1 (5) Re: DNSSEC also needs … Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- [Trans] ***SPAM*** 7.971 (5) Re: ***SPAM*** 8.1 (… Ben Laurie
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Ben Laurie
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- [Trans] ***SPAM*** 8.956 (5) Re: ***SPAM*** 8.1 (… Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Paul Wouters
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Ben Laurie
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Paul Wouters
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Ben Laurie
- [Trans] ***SPAM*** 8.1 (5) Re: Re: DNSSEC also ne… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- [Trans] ***SPAM*** 8.956 (5) Re: ***SPAM*** 8.1 (… Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSE… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSE… Dmitry Belyavsky
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Stephen Kent
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Osterweil, Eric
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Osterweil, Eric
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Paul Wouters
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSE… Stephen Kent
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Stephen Kent
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Stephen Kent
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Ben Laurie
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Ben Laurie
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSE… Dmitry Belyavsky
- Re: [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSE… i-barreira
- Re: [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSE… Ben Laurie
- Re: [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSE… Ben Laurie
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Stephen Kent
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Stephen Kent
- Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT Nico Williams
- Re: [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSE… Stephen Kent
- Re: [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSE… Dmitry Belyavsky
- Re: [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSE… Ben Laurie
- Re: [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSE… Dmitry Belyavsky
- Re: [Trans] Volunteer opportunity! (was Re: DNSSE… Ben Laurie
- [Trans] trans doc issues Stephen Kent