On Wed, 21 May 2025, Wes Hardaker wrote:

Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[email protected]> writes:

        Zone owners currently making use of SHA-1 based algorithms should
        immediately switch to algorithms

I would use "should immediately rollover to algorithms" to avoid the illusion
some inexperienced DNS admins might have that they can just "switch" the
algorithm without proper prep work of doing a real roll over.

I changed to "roll" instead as "rollover" is kinda an odd term (though
heavily used by investment firms).

Sounds good.

       As a result, SHA-1 is no longer fully interoperable in the context of
       DNSSEC. As adequate alternatives exist, the use of SHA-1 is no longer
       advisable.

That should be, "SHA-1 as part of a signature algorithm". Because the document
isn't obsoleting SHA-1 from DS hashing algorithms right?

Fair point, done.

Thanks.

In the Operational Considerations, one could add a sentence about the
difference of not supporting SHA-1 versus having a system that does not support
SHA-1. The first results in an insecure validation, which is okay. The second
can result in ServFail, which is not okay. Something along the lines of:

      When not supporting or disabling SHA-1, care should be given by
      implementers that the DNS software itself is made aware not to consume
      SHA-1. For example, disabling SHA-1 at the Operating System level could
      result in SHA-1 cryptographic failures within the DNS system, which would
      result in those zones failing, instead of the zones being treated as
      unsigned/insecure

I'm not sure that fully works.  I'd rather not try to find all the right
lines where SHA-1 could be implemented and/or removed.  It is certainly
possible, for example, for the OS to have removed SHA-1 but the
application itself has its own implementation that it brings in.  In
fact, in Net-SNMP we do just this: we have a portion of openssl with
just the algorithms we need in the code base that can be enabled with a
flag to specifically avoid linking to a bunch larger library with a
bunch of stuff we don't need.

How about:

 Implementations following this advice need to ensure the associated
 operating system and software libraries they depend upon have SHA-1
 support.

Though I'm not sure how much that is actually adding. But it does warn
about the odd situation of today's environment I suppose.

or:

   Care should be taken that DNS software supporting algorithms that the
   operating system or cryptographic libraries have disabled can cause DNS
   resolution failures, as opposed to DNS software that knowingly
   disables an algorithm and treats those algoritms as not present,
   resulting in resolution as if the zone was not signed.

Paul

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to