[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <D72EF68265B1D23E7BC988E8@Macintosh.local>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:46:57 -0500
From: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@...rr.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: DNS Cache Dan Kamikaze (Actual Exploit
Discussion)
--On July 16, 2008 11:17:07 AM +1000 Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@....org>
wrote:
>
>> The real problem isn't signing or resigning zones, or even
>> successfully=20 completing the original configuration (although those
>> are not trivial for=20 the average person trying to setup their own
>> dns). It's the trust=20 anchors. Until the root is signed, trust
>> anchors are a PITA. And until=20 the root is signed, why should anyone
>> believe that DNSSEC will achieve=20 wide adoption?
>
> Well there are a number of ccTLD's that are already signed.
> RIPE sign their part of the reverse space. ORG is in the
> process of getting signed. It's happening.
>
> There are existing solutions to dealing with lack of support
> in the infrastructure zones (includes the root). You let
> someone you trust collect the trust anchors for you then
> incorporate them on a regular basis.
>
> We effectively do this everyday with https but for some
> reason people are scared to do the same thing with dns
> despite private parts of the keys never being available to
> the entity doing the certification. With https the certifying
> authority can spoof any site they certify.
>
Perhaps that's because a cert problem on a web server breaks a single
webserver. A cert problem with dns breaks an entire domain.
Paul Schmehl
If it isn't already obvious,
my opinions are my own and not
those of my employer.
Content of type "application/pkcs7-signature" skipped
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists