Re: [websec] HSTS at DNS level

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 30 October 2014 05:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6C71AD00A for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 5az6vvNa8k35 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x233.google.com (mail-wg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C68A1ACFA5 for <websec@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id l18so4832449wgh.10 for <websec@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=PomMUnt9QQTjsPe4ujfXAN2ovIuw5ums6MUPk5IB+Kw=; b=mh62BPmzk8GTWakpnPnafXhSaN6YGN3HIFOBXsFDHfwJr77Qltf1/GmzMjcla533By E61MWEhb/AKvYnPSnWiCrSIQC/wz9F8zPzL5rk2o6xPq+BNlvQ125A9zF0wkhcweIdHa xm7PBa8m2klVzaFMJH1oXfaJ7HJq5D3i5nA1L8Wq2xhF2eVNSVtBGADIYKxlFazzDE37 uhsiqgG4ZFa3C0GdVwIr7pVidc2CQgpR3ZsLeNrYgSe1eicVM6GeiS/KEbcoMZgYyGuE x1+vGebubOHLg72dljNlbo3Hvqd7NL35ne0OH8uUurzv2qZ8QQIg82bvOJNZZnhyWE5i d/Lw==
X-Received: by 10.194.235.132 with SMTP id um4mr17272008wjc.91.1414647211284; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.104] (IGLD-84-228-87-161.inter.net.il. [84.228.87.161]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fu5sm7416060wjb.26.2014.10.29.22.33.30 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADnb78icRLaiLur1e+=0dTBxwm5kP3jaspK-CvJfdrS0-+snww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 07:33:29 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EA6EE5E2-8523-453E-9BC9-548A041B14BD@gmail.com>
References: <CADnb78icRLaiLur1e+=0dTBxwm5kP3jaspK-CvJfdrS0-+snww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/websec/9i7nMXRd2dDQsOalNVerngf0LHE
Cc: websec <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] HSTS at DNS level
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:33:34 -0000

In the early days of WebSec there was such a goal. That is why HSTS begins with an “H”. It differentiates it with the DSTS that is based on DNS. 

Nobody ever got around to writing a DSTS draft. HPKP does have a DNS equivalent - it’s DANE. 

Yoav

> On Oct 29, 2014, at 8:55 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>; wrote:
> 
> Is there some way we could add an annotation to DNS that makes it
> clear a given domain for the purposes of HTTP is only available over
> port 443 using TLS? DNS can be easily spoofed of course so you also
> want HSTS, but perhaps it would be sufficient to be able to disable
> port 80 entirely.
> 
> 
> -- 
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> websec mailing list
> websec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec