I am taking this thread on the fly and I do have a number of concerns with what 
I read and I align with Paul Vixie here.

First I disagree with Ben on “I don’t see any reason why an enterprise, etc.” … 
I DO see reasons here confirmed in a campaign of discussions about ECH with no 
less than 70 organisations in the Fortune 150 in the past 18 months
I learnt tons of things and in particular the pressure for them to control 
their Resolver to be able to strip the ECH RR
Secondly this was not even our idea, this was Eric’s idea in the difficult side 
meeting of IETF 115 in London I believe
Third we started to document all of this in an internet draft on ECH deployment 
considerations 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-campling-ech-deployment-considerations/>
 which is in development
4 use cases are covered 
and for example for enterprise use cases you can look at 5.3.2. 
I left an editor note to properly describe how to do it properly as there are 
some intricacies in practical terms
Here is the extract with 5 main issues that represent a risk for Enterprises

"As some Browser makers made the use of ECH optional, this gives a
   first approach for enterprises to disable ECH for their employees.

   However this doesn't provide an holistic solution.  Indeed
   enterprises will need to consider a number of issues:

   *  Browsers which do not offer an option to disable ECH

   *  Browsers that will make ECH non optional in the future

   *  Non-browsers applications which are designed to use libraries
      enforcing ECH, without any option to disable it

   *  All the range of BYOD use cases where enterprises do not control
      the endpoint

   *  Adversaries leveraging ECH e.g. to hide their command and control
      communications, e.g. in Ransomware cases.

   Whilst, disabling ECH wherever possible provides one approach to
   mitigate ECH deployment issues, as per above, other mitigations
   approaches need to be offered to enterprises. 

(Editor's note: we need to describe how to strip the RRs to force a
   global disabling of ECH, yet mindful it might not be sufficient if an
   adversary finds a way to not use the enterprise DNS resolver)"

> On 2 Oct 2024, at 06:10, Paul Vixie <paul=40redbarn....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Deirdre Connolly wrote on 2024-09-30 10:59:
>> > We could add a recommendation like "Clients using ECH SHOULD select a DNS 
>> > resolver that they trust to preserve the confidentiality of their queries 
>> > and return authentic answers, and communicate using an authenticated and 
>> > confidential transport", but this draft seems like an odd place for that 
>> > text.
>> I support this more than the DNSSEC recommendation
> 
> i would not. much of the world now relies upon inauthentic dns responses for 
> defense against bad actors. here's how US NCCIS puts it:
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2021/03/04/joint-nsa-and-cisa-guidance-strengthening-cyber-defense-through&source=gmail-imap&ust=1728447124000000&usg=AOvVaw3xnckupAXvxa8aiLvQayh4
> 
> it is precisely to prevent protective dns from being bypasses that many of us 
> block all off-net DNS including off-net HTTPS to known DoH services. 
> malicious insiders, intruders, malware, and poisoned supply chains do not 
> want their DNS lookups to be monitored or blocked.
> 
> we can argue about where the advice should and shouldn't appear, but we 
> mustn't appeal to "response authenticity" when recommending a recursive DNS 
> service. response authenticity is what our attackers need.
> 
> -- 
> P Vixie
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org


-- 
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
destroy any printed copy of it.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to