Re: [dns-privacy] Starting call for adoptions for the 3 documents

2015-04-13 Thread Paul Wouters
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: i think most people consider DHCP configuration to be at best minimally useful for DPRIVE -- it leaves you vulnerable at network connection time, but then protects you against subsequent attacks. *shrug* If you have an attacker on the last

Re: [dns-privacy] Starting call for adoptions for the 3 documents

2015-04-13 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On Thu 2015-04-09 10:36:17 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: As I see it, there are two sub-problems: 1) How does a client discover and establish a binding to a DPRIV service? 2) What transport/sessions(s) are supported for queries? Before answering either, I think it is pretty clear that

Re: [dns-privacy] Starting call for adoptions for the 3 documents

2015-04-13 Thread Paul Wouters
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, Daniel Migault wrote: Just for information, what are the technical reasons IPsec has not been considered at all for providing DNS privacy. People can already use an IPsec VPN and a remote DNS server without anything new from IETF? I think additionally, IPsec has a

Re: [dns-privacy] Starting call for adoptions for the 3 documents

2015-04-13 Thread Warren Kumari
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote: On Thu 2015-04-09 10:36:17 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: As I see it, there are two sub-problems: 1) How does a client discover and establish a binding to a DPRIV service? 2) What transport/sessions(s) are

Re: [dns-privacy] Starting call for adoptions for the 3 documents

2015-04-13 Thread Stephen Farrell
Hi Paul, I'm not sure if your point was meant to relate only to DHCP setting the DNS server IP, but if not then I have a question... On 13/04/15 21:21, Paul Wouters wrote: If you have an attacker on the last mile, there is nothing you can do. Passive only protection against the last mile is a

Re: [dns-privacy] Considering DHCP

2015-04-13 Thread Zhiwei Yan
Hi, all, Then why not consider the DHCP? DHCP can support client authentication and can be used to configure the RS key on the authenticated client. Do you think this will help? Zhiwei Yan 2015-04-14 Zhiwei Yan 发件人: Daniel Migault 发送时间: 2015-04-14 07:20:47 收件人: Paul Wouters 抄送:

Re: [dns-privacy] Considering IPsec

2015-04-13 Thread Paul Wouters
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, Daniel Migault wrote: Just for information, what are the technical reasons IPsec has not been considered at all for providing DNS privacy. People can already use an IPsec VPN and a remote DNS server without anything new from IETF?   I

Re: [dns-privacy] Considering DHCP

2015-04-13 Thread Paul Wouters
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, Zhiwei Yan wrote: Hi, all, Then why not consider the DHCP? DHCP can support client authentication and can be used to configure the RS key on the authenticated client. Do you think this will help? How do you know the DHCP server is not a rogue attacker? How does the

Re: [dns-privacy] Considering IPsec

2015-04-13 Thread Daniel Migault
Hi Paul, Thanks for the response. I am just initiating a new tread to avoid mixing conversations. On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, Daniel Migault wrote: Just for information, what are the technical reasons IPsec has not been

Re: [dns-privacy] Considering DHCP

2015-04-13 Thread Zhiwei Yan
RFC 3118 provides a scheme for this issue: http://www.rfc-base.org/txt/rfc-3118.txt 2015-04-14 Zhiwei Yan 发件人: Paul Wouters 发送时间: 2015-04-14 11:04:58 收件人: Zhiwei Yan 抄送: dns-privacy 主题: Re: [dns-privacy] Considering DHCP On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, Zhiwei Yan wrote: Hi, all, Then

Re: [dns-privacy] Starting call for adoptions for the 3 documents

2015-04-13 Thread Warren Kumari
[ Top post ] What do other think here -- do we want to decide on the discovery and binding problem first, or do we think that we should choose a document and start working on that (and possibly add in discovery / binding later)? no-hats I'd personally like to start working on a document - i