Re: [DNSOP] Stupid thought: why not an additional DNSKEY record flag: NSEC* only...

2017-01-05 Thread Matthäus Wander
* Mukund Sivaraman [2017-01-04 19:24]: > Assume an attacker is able to spoof answers, which is where DNSSEC > validation helps. If a ZSK is leaked, it becomes a problem only when an > attacker is able to spoof answers (i.e., perform the attack). > > What you're saying is that with a special NSEC3-

Re: [DNSOP] Stupid thought: why not an additional DNSKEY record flag: NSEC* only...

2017-01-05 Thread Paul Hoffman
On 4 Jan 2017, at 9:33, Nicholas Weaver wrote: Any system which prevents zone enumeration requires online signing, https://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe/papers/nsec5faq.html That statement isn't really supported by the text on the page. Depending on the zone, using pre-signed NSEC3 prevents varying a

Re: [DNSOP] Stupid thought: why not an additional DNSKEY record flag: NSEC* only...

2017-01-05 Thread Matthäus Wander
* Paul Hoffman [2017-01-05 18:05]: >> NSEC3 lies work today, but people worry that NSEC3 might have server >> compromise compromise the ZSK. > > NSEC3 lies can also be created with pre-computing, but at a cost of > greatly increasing the size of the zone. NSEC/NSEC3 lies prevent enumeration effec

Re: [DNSOP] Stupid thought: why not an additional DNSKEY record flag: NSEC* only...

2017-01-05 Thread Paul Hoffman
On 5 Jan 2017, at 11:27, Matthäus Wander wrote: * Paul Hoffman [2017-01-05 18:05]: NSEC3 lies work today, but people worry that NSEC3 might have server compromise compromise the ZSK. NSEC3 lies can also be created with pre-computing, but at a cost of greatly increasing the size of the zone.

Re: [DNSOP] Stupid thought: why not an additional DNSKEY record flag: NSEC* only...

2017-01-05 Thread Matthäus Wander
Paul Hoffman wrote on 2017-01-05 20:44: >> A pre-computed chain does not provide the same benefit. It increases the >> enumeration cost in terms of network queries (CPU time is of less >> importance here because the collection process is network-bound except >> for the very last few NSEC3 records)

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update

2017-01-05 Thread Tim Wicinski
All Since we're having so much fun on adopting work, let's have another one. We discussed this work in Seoul, and there was a solid hum on adopting this work. This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf

Re: [DNSOP] Stupid thought: why not an additional DNSKEY record flag: NSEC* only...

2017-01-05 Thread Ólafur Guðmundsson
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Nicholas Weaver wrote: > Any system which prevents zone enumeration requires online signing, > https://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe/papers/nsec5faq.html > > But NSEC5 is almost certainly not going to be adopted, simply because of > the partial deployment problem. > > NSE

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wkumari-dnsop-ttl-stretching-00.txt

2017-01-05 Thread Warren Kumari
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 6:10 AM Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > Hi Warren > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 02:05:31PM +0900, Warren Kumari wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have just submitted "Stretching DNS TTLs" > > (draft-wkumari-dnsop-ttl-stretching-00). > > > > The very high level overview is: > > If you a