Seems to be a typo and their signer (PowerDNS) correctly ignored it and
used the correct value of 1.

Daniel

On 28.04.16 12:11, Daniel Stirnimann wrote:
> The NSEC3 record contains the hash algorithm type 1
> 
> 4c82sp2ag0m9hm9lfkb6d141t4qclui8.gmx.ch. 556 IN       NSEC3 1 0 350 -
> 5AEHEF49CLPKJ5CHHRCND7VKKM7MKMJ4 CNAME RRSIG
> 
> So, it's only the NSEC3PARAM Hash Algorithm which confuses me.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 28.04.16 11:45, Daniel Stirnimann wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> I noticed that web.de uses a NSEC3 Hash Algorithm Type 8.
>>
>> But 8 is not assigned:
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/dnssec-nsec3-parameters/dnssec-nsec3-parameters.xhtml#dnssec-nsec3-parameters-3
>>
>> ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> web.de NSEC3PARAM +noall +answer
>> ;; global options: +cmd
>> web.de.                      600     IN      NSEC3PARAM 8 0 333 -
>>
>> ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> gmx.ch NSEC3PARAM +noall +answer
>> ;; global options: +cmd
>> gmx.ch.                      600     IN      NSEC3PARAM 8 0 350 -
>>
>> On a related note, I'm also confused why the browser plugin from
>> https://www.dnssec-validator.cz/ does not recognize that gmx.ch is
>> DNSSEC signed. It works for web.de though!
>>
>> Any idea?
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> On 25.04.16 05:48, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 04:28:51PM +0000, Gumprich, Mario wrote:
>>>
>>>> We from Unitymedia has enabled DANE outbound a couple of month ago.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>
>>>> Today’s list of DANE inbound enabled domains / MX-IPs extracted from logs.
>>>> mail.lux01.de[194.117.254.21]
>>>> ...
>>>> uhura.unitymedia.de[80.69.97.11]
>>>>
>>>> Pretty cool, the list grows from month to month.
>>>
>>> Do you ever run into any of the domains whose TLSA records are
>>> incorrect, or whose DNS servers fail authenticated denial of
>>> existence?  In other words, is there any mail you bounce because
>>> of DANE that you might otherwise have delivered?
>>>
>>> Today's stats are:
>>>
>>> ~280000 DNSSEC domains that could have an MX host with TLSA RRs.
>>>   15097 domains with valid TLSA RRs
>>>     245 of those have 1+ MX hosts sans TLSA RRs (partial deployment)
>>>     227 domains with DNSSEC problems when doing TLSA lookups
>>>      56 domains with TLSA records that don't match the cert
>>>
>>> Given that the problem domans are rather few, perhaps you've never
>>> run into them?
>>>
>>> Of the ~15k, 56 domains that have at some point in the last ~2
>>> years appeared in the Google email transparency report dataset.
>>> Of these 30 are in the most recent report:
>>>
>>>   gmx.at
>>>   conjur.com.br
>>>   registro.br
>>>   gmx.ch
>>>   gmx.com
>>>   mail.com
>>>   bayern.de
>>>   bund.de
>>>   gmx.de
>>>   jpberlin.de
>>>   lrz.de
>>>   posteo.de
>>>   ruhr-uni-bochum.de
>>>   tum.de
>>>   unitymedia.de
>>>   web.de
>>>   octopuce.fr
>>>   comcast.net
>>>   dd24.net
>>>   gmx.net
>>>   t-2.net
>>>   xs4all.net
>>>   xs4all.nl
>>>   debian.org
>>>   freebsd.org
>>>   gentoo.org
>>>   ietf.org
>>>   openssl.org
>>>   samba.org
>>>   torproject.org
>>>
>>> I'm still waiting for icann.org to show up on the list, and ideally
>>> a few prominent ".edu" domains that have gone to all the trouble
>>> of deploying DNSSEC, but have not yet published SMTP TLSA records.
>>> The ones from Gmail's transparentcy report would be:
>>>
>>>   berkeley.edu
>>>   fhsu.edu
>>>   iastate.edu
>>>   indiana.edu
>>>   iu.edu
>>>   iupui.edu
>>>   nau.edu
>>>   stanford.edu
>>>   temple.edu
>>>   ucdavis.edu
>>>   ucr.edu
>>>   uiowa.edu
>>>   umbc.edu
>>>   yale.edu
>>>
>>> None of these have made the leap as yet.  It is possible, though
>>> not very likely that  some departments have, I only scan domains
>>> directly delegated from public suffixes.
>>>
>>> A substantial outlier with problem TLSA records is ".br".  The
>>> registry/sole-registrar provides a web interface for adding TLSA
>>> records, but no API for keeping them up to date.  As a result, a
>>> large fraction of ".br" domains with TLSA RRs have invalid records,
>>> or related issues.  Many don't promptly/ever act on email notices
>>> (at least in English).  It may be wise to not enable DANE for ".br"
>>> domains.
>>>
>>>   .BR TLSA records don't match reality:
>>>
>>>     allispdv.com.br
>>>     bebidaliberada.com.br
>>>     giantit.com.br
>>>     idsys.com.br
>>>     lojabrum.com.br
>>>     netlig.com.br
>>>     prodnsbr.com.br
>>>     simplesestudio.com.br
>>>     solucoesglobais.com.br
>>>     ticketmt.com.br
>>>     twsolutions.net.br
>>>
>>>   .BR DNSSEC lookup problems:
>>>
>>>     bb.b.br
>>>     dpf.gov.br
>>>     pf.gov.br
>>>     justicaeleitoral.jus.br
>>>     tre-al.jus.br
>>>     tre-ce.jus.br
>>>     tre-ma.jus.br
>>>     tre-mg.jus.br
>>>     tre-ms.jus.br
>>>     tre-mt.jus.br
>>>     tre-pa.jus.br
>>>     tre-pb.jus.br
>>>     tre-pe.jus.br
>>>     tre-pi.jus.br
>>>     tre-pr.jus.br
>>>     tre-rn.jus.br
>>>     tre-rr.jus.br
>>>     tre-sp.jus.br
>>>     m3ganet.net.br
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dane mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
>>
> 

-- 
SWITCH
Daniel Stirnimann, SWITCH-CERT
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
phone +41 44 268 15 15, direct +41 44 268 16 24
[email protected], http://www.switch.ch

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

Reply via email to