On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 02:00:16PM +0000, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote a message of 241 lines which said:
> - Is there any (good) literature on related mechanisms that one > might use to further increase the difficulties of traffic analysis > based on DNS traffic? I'm thinking about synthetic cover traffic or > of adding jitter to the timing of requests, but there could be other > things one might do. Even if we aren't in a position to provide > experimental recommendations about such things, (I'd be happy if we > were), it'd be good to at least add a mention and some references if > we could. While such work could be done later and in a separate > specification, it is pretty closely related to this so would also > fit nicely in here if we had good text to add. (I don't have text to > offer, sorry.) I suggest an appendix "Besides padding" with: It is possible that there are other mechanisms that one might use to further increase the difficulties of DNS traffic analysis. For instance, gratuitous queries and/or answers could be added to cover the real traffic. Or jitter could be added, with a random delay before replying. We currently don't have enough theoretical analysis or experimental data to recommend one of these mechanisms. > - There's no way to know (for sure) which padding scheme a peer is > using I think? Local decision, indeed. > If so, would there be any benefit in making that possible? I think > the answer is that's there's not enough to gain by doing so. And it's complicated: there are several policies, each with several parameters. It would require the standardization of a mini-language, and of an IANA registry of padding policies. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
