nanog mailing list archives
Re: DNSSEC Best Practices
From: Tony Finch <dot () dotat at>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 10:51:39 +0100
Arne Jensen <darkdevil () darkdevil dk> wrote:
RFC8624 "Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC" -> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8624What algorithms do you typically sign with (RSASHA256, ECDSAP256SHA256, both, something other)?Those two mentioned are the ones that the vast majority seems to sign with.
Yes. I recommend p256 because the security advantages of p384 are not significant enough to justify the increased costs in space (packet size) and time. If for some terrible reason you need to use RSASHA256, use 2048 bit keys, same as the root zone. In the future when support is widespread enough, ed25519 will be the best choice.
SHA256 and SHA512 have been discussed about vulnerable to length extension attacks, where SHA384 hasn't:
Length extension attacks aren't a problem in this context. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot () dotat at> https://dotat.at/ Lough Foyle to Carlingford Lough: Northerly or northeasterly 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first in far southeast, becoming variable 2 or 3 later. Slight, occasionally moderate at first. Fair at first, then showers. Good.
Current thread:
- DNSSEC Best Practices Eric Germann via NANOG (Apr 27)
- Re: DNSSEC Best Practices Arne Jensen (Apr 27)
- Re: DNSSEC Best Practices Mark Tinka (Apr 28)
- Re: DNSSEC Best Practices Tony Finch (Apr 28)
- Re: DNSSEC Best Practices Mark Tinka (Apr 28)
- Re: DNSSEC Best Practices Robert Story (Apr 28)
- Re: DNSSEC Best Practices Arne Jensen (Apr 27)
- Re: DNSSEC Best Practices Ca By (Apr 27)
- Re: DNSSEC Best Practices Mark Tinka (Apr 28)