[dns-operations] .PL DNSSEC broken again
ietf-dane at dukhovni.org
Mon Jun 17 22:03:27 UTC 2019
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 03:11:37AM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> Perhaps most are like that. It has been 14 years since RFC
> 4033/4034/4035 have been published. DNSSEC is not a separate space - it
> works compatibly within the DNS. So why is adoption low? Is it because
> (a) Complexity of understanding/operating DNSSEC (this has reduced over
> the years)
> (b) Lack of knowledge/interest
> (c) Lack of software implementation
> (d) Risk of operational problems (considered vs. risk of poisoning)
I vote for:
(e) Long capital infrastructure replacement cycles.
The DNS load-balancers that front-end large web "properties" don't
support on-the-fly signing, and have to all be replaced to enable
DNSSEC for these.
> In my slightly dated Alexa top 500 list of domains scanned today, 16
> (3.2%) are signed.
Alexa ranks large web "properties", these are the ones where (e)
is an obstacle.
> Many of the top websites are quick to adopt new
That works provided the technology can be deployed one node or one
service at a time, but signing a domain requires all the nameservers
to be ready.
> It is unlikely the DNS operators managing these zones have
> not heard of DNSSEC, or are incapable of signing them. What is the
> factor that stops them from signing their domains?
See (e). In the mean-time, new infrastructure they're deploying,
(e.g. "cloud.goog", "smtp.goog", ...) are in many cases signed.
> E.g., Google is quick to deploy extensions / new algorithms into its TLS
> support in its web service and Chrome.
That works one node at a time.
> Why, then, has it not signed google.com to lead by example?
It does in "cloud.goog", "smtp.goog", ...
> Mozilla has pushed DoH (something very new) quickly into Firefox.
A retrograde step in the eyes of many.
> an organization, it appears very security and privacy conscious with
> services like the observatory.mozilla.org. Why, then, has it not signed
> mozilla.com to lead by example?
The allizom.org domain is signed.
> It'd be interesting to watch how quickly DNS transport security
> (authoritative) is adopted by operators. The effect of operational
> mistakes may be different and it may have a higher rate of adoption.
I am mostly skeptical about the wisdom of DoT and DoH, they tunnel
DNS queries out of the local network, where there may be good reasons
to use an internal DNS view. They may be OK on networks which just
provide transit, but are not so good on networks (e.g. corporate,
or other private) where the network provides internal services.
More information about the dns-operations