Ilari Liusvaara <[email protected]> writes:

>> I'll update my position on WG adoption a bit:
>> 
>> I support adopting DNS-over-TLS but urges the WG to adopt DNS-over-DTLS
>> at the same time, and make consistency between them a requirement.
>> Having both with different TLS-related security semantics would be a
>> disaster.  In fact, I would suggest that these two documents are merged
>> into one.  There is (or, rather, should be) more in common between these
>> documents than what separates them.
>
> - Can one resume sessions across protocols (resume UDP session as TCP
>   session or vice versa)?

I don't think anyone has implemented something like that.

> - Does DNS-over-DTLS need some sort of channel identifier in queries
>   (taking place of the 5-tuple)? To deal with things like client IP
>   address/portrange changes or client socket being dropped[1].

If I understand correctly, I don't believe DTLS has this, nor that it is
something you want -- if something is messing with the traffic, you
wan't detect/reject it not work around it.

> - Also, whereas 53/TCP is surprisingly clean[2], 53/UDP has lots of bad
>   stuff going on, sometimes even with packets not destined to the middle-
>   boxes.[3][4] How bad is that problem?

I have no idea.  Isn't that part of the problem?

> Also, some problems with (D)TLS:
> - No length hiding: There is no defined mechanism for length hiding
>   (which is needed unless one can pad at DNS level). I think there
>   have been at least one proposal tho.

(D)TLS has message padding to mitigate packet length analysis.
Addmittedly, you can't pad more than 255 bytes.

> - Complexity: Enormously complicated. TLS libraries are almost
>   invariably junk for one reason or another.
> - Insecure configs: Most of TLS usage is insecure due to usage of
>   legacy junk. One could address this by aggressively profiling
>   down the usage.

Sure, but you could say the same for DNS.  I doubt that we can design a
security protocol better than TLS here though.

/Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

Reply via email to