Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 13 May 2014 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 BBAD61A011D for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 May 2014 08:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 YoJ0FsHIvwoX for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 May 2014 08:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2F761A00B2 for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 May 2014 08:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD7B813B3; Tue, 13 May 2014 11:33:47 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1399995227; bh=VjvVkssJfAdKbHQRS6j0RzJn9ybyZt3+AKKCf7uxpBw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZNFZq1vGJYZEiZv5bTSbAhM6bj9mhPzWsvHlFJKn+XXApLGssOw/xjlIfFei705iX BjodBc3ymLMXoSE90+8EIYGoO+enwz3OIS/36a22WpdQYECPB9WdMMG95TmQBpVcpe C2kFYwRRhSn1bcBUlpBd9M1X0Czkq8odiUEk/pZM=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id s4DFXlu4000636; Tue, 13 May 2014 11:33:47 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:33:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABrd9SSiHfyvPxgYrDZ_idE+UGcUXVFx3BGcc2qp+t+nmuJwLw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1405131128150.25023@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CAK3OfOjiL2DTJPH3CaAjg8YGrrwN56SgQ+DnqPXx4MLbgXQN+A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1405101722240.897@bofh.nohats.ca> <CABrd9ST7K-7RGwGD2G+kDcVSceC2ZJ-5Tz2tdp5NWa3cqBK+-w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOe4Ui=nqmCfjBYNE2CJtEs1jnbavpY4Dv-T3FRDdAwAA2dScg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiYMJkXVR+QsCzEV0ir6u53coJz0b-JdGGD5bTTz5YcMg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOe4Ui=u0fkm9_nuXx_6gpH6jHM5pBvzjzru9O8y3bpLkA0qmw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOi6y=QAMXe_2axiavxwR5nS2Uv8SM4JxQHsvEKbUyNGCA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOe4Uimvc6e6u=fJjM1-iaOTepA33Sx5CBjMV9dB8sSLqtZoWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhdhWdGvvhuaGyE_p5kLy0ZX-V5sAXfoLGP_8d8vPJDgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOe4Uik+fjM4wTVBiFxphVZAwVYBPgd1a9xUyUBMSFy30SWNLg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiC+5+s2UtSEP788W23tHq6VQSQfMsUboUp16L-27zsvQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABrd9STYxmK6gg7a5wDtejdc_Y0aD9hwQkHpFu3HbxVbMZDQHQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1405130948160.25023@bofh.nohats.ca> <CABrd9SSiHfyvPxgYrDZ_idE+UGcUXVFx3BGcc2qp+t+nmuJwLw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/z5s5SqpRP5C70xHH2He2ePACwKk
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: Tue, 13 May 2014 15:33:58 -0000

On Tue, 13 May 2014, Ben Laurie wrote:

> OK, good point: zone cuts need to also be verified.
>
>> The other case is injection of a custom DS RRset. How would we tell the
>> difference between the legitimate zone owner adding a DS record or an
>> attacker/parent zone owner adding one?
>
> The legitimate owner can tell - that's the point, right?

How does that help protect a non-owner user of someone's site being
attacked with a targetted attack? If I don't run victim.com, and I am
just a visitor of victim.com, but only I am given rogue DNSSEC records,
how can I tell something is wrong? I would go to the public log and see
the DS I received is not in there?

(I'm late in this discussion, so I wouldn't know how this gets
  authenticated by the consumer and the victim.com's owner, especially
  if the parent could do a hostile takeover)

Paul