>Yes, but if anything, the document should recommend not to use online
>DNSSEC signing for _openpgpkey zones. It would be a prime attack vector.
>By using offline signing, no one can ever forge an OPENPGPKEY even if
>they own the DNS server or the Mail server.

There's some assumptions here I'd like to unpack.

One is the assumption that keys are all very valuable.  Sure, some of
them are, but some aren't.  As an extreme example, consider something
like [email protected], addresses intended to be used a few times
and then discarded, where every address has little value and the
associated keys would't be worth much either.

Also, a rule like this doesn't help interoperation -- nobody talking
to a DNS server can tell whether it's doing online or offline signing.
DNSSEC allows online signing, it's going to continue to happen, and
it's up to the server managers to assess their security issues, of
which potential theft of DNSSEC keys is only one of many.  I'd be more
worried about users getting phished and bad guys using their
credentials to upload PGP keys, replacing the users' own in the zone
to be signed.

Most important, there's the scale issue.  Reports say that Yahoo has
over 300,000,000 active mailboxes and Gmail has over 500,000,000.  I
gather the goal here is to make publishing your key cheap and easy, so
let's posit modest success and say that 20% of Gmail users have keys.
It looks to me like a typical PGP key is about 1.5K, so that's 100M
keys at 1.5K or a zone file of about 150 gigabytes.  The largest
signed zone I'm aware of is .COM which as of yesterday is a little
under 10GB before signing.

Is it really plausible that anyone is going to generate and sign and
serve static zones more than an order of magnitude bigger than .COM?
That seems like a stretch.

On the other hand, with base32 coding and the option of online
signing, it should scale OK since the records in the zone are
generated from the user database and signed as needed.

R's,
John

_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane

Reply via email to