> On 18 Mar 2015, at 1:49 am, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote:
>>      As per that document, ICANN security team have been among the groups 
>> pressuring to have the local namespaces loophole closed for at least a 
>> couple of years now. And the problem has scuttled some gTLD applications 
>> that are regarded as too tainted by the issue already (e.g. .corp).
> 
> To be clear, the CA stuff isn't the sole reason applied for gTLDs like .corp 
> were 'scuttled' -- the large number of queries for .corp and .home (in 
> particular) seen at the root suggested the risk of name collision was too 
> high (see 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds/ 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds/>).

        Yes, quite right, there are a lot of issues with name collision in 
general, and those three in particular leak a lot. Decision not to delegate was 
wise.

> The risk of information leakage will remain as long as the query leaves the 
> local machine (making the assumption that the local machine can be trusted).  
> This risk will remain as long as APIs/libraries do not consult the Special 
> Names Registry and don't forward names in that registry to the DNS for lookup 
> (read: a very long time). Qname Minimization may help in the future (assuming 
> it moves forward), but given the circumstances of folks who rely on .onion, I 
> don't think that can be relied upon.

        Yes, and in this respect .onion would be no different to other names on 
the Special Use Names list, so the list can be regarded as mitigating the issue 
at best.
        It isn’t the worst information leakage issue for most .onion users, and 
in general those issues, like this one, result from users using services that 
they intended to only access when tor is running when it is not ( e.g. 
associating a P2P GUID with non-TORed IP). There is a limited amount that can 
be done about that. The best communications security is still vulnerable to 
operational security failure. Which is no reason not to try.

        David

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to