nanog mailing list archives

Re: hat tip to .gov hostmasters


From: Florian Weimer <fweimer () bfk de>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:20:18 +0200

* Keith Medcalf:

Correct, you need a validating, security-aware stub resolver, or the
ISP needs to validate the records for you.

That would defeat the entire purpose of using DNSSEC.  In order for
DNSSEC to actually provide any improvement in security whatsoever,
the ROOT ZONE (.) needs to be signed, and every delegation up the
chain needs to be signed.  And EVERY resolver (whether recursive or
local on host) needs to understand and enforce DNSSEC.

Either the resolver needs to enforce, or the host.  It's not necessary
to do both.  It's also not strictly necessary that the root is signed,
provided that there is some way to manage the trust anchors (either
through software updates, like it is done for the browser CA list, or
through regular DNS management at the ISP resolver).

If even one delegation is unsigned or even one resolver does not
enforce DNSSEC, then, from an actual security perspective, you will
be far worse off than you are now.

Why?

Until such time as EVERY SINGLE DOMAIN including the root is signed
and every single DNS Server and resolver (including the local host
resolvers) understand and enforce DNSSEC you should realize that
DNSSEC does nothing for you whatsoever except give the uneducated a
false sense of "security".

DNSSEC is totally invisible to the end user.  There won't be any
browser icon that says "it's okay to enter your PII here because the
zone is DNSSEC-signed".  It's purely an infrastructure measure, like
physically securing your routers.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer () bfk de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99


Current thread: