[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-forgery-resilience-01.txt





--On 18 November 2007 14:29:48 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:

* -01 says "TBD: Do we need to talk about stub resolvers?  Does this
draft apply to them?" I believe that the answer is yes. A typical stub
resolver cannot receive unexpected answers (it typically does not
listen for ever on the network) but it still can be fooled when
listening for a reply. In addition, a typical stub resolver should
listen only to the answers coming from the nameservers listed in its
configuration (/etc/resolv.conf on Unix) but I'm not sure they all
do and, anyway, it is not sufficient, the other countermeasures
mentioned in section 9 all apply.

And about this issue? Everybody agrees?

Yes, though I am not sure the "In addition" bit adds anything. Either it
means it should only listen to answers with the IP source address of those
nameservers (which I am pretty sure is taken care of in the normal rules
for any query originating host unless I am missing something), or it means
they should somehow be able to determine whether the answers /actually/
come from those nameservers and are thus not spoofed (which is not
possible).

Alex

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>