On 9 Jan 2019, at 12:42 pm, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
<giri(_at_)dombox(_dot_)org> wrote:
You just invalidated all my arguments even though I provided sources.
So let me try in a different way.
If you think DNSSEC is so simple and not controversial, why do we need
MTA-STS?
The simple answer is WE DO NOT *NEED* MTA-STS. Additionally it can be spoofed
without DNSSEC. The only thing it does is reduce the number of players involved
if you are not self hosting.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, 7:02 AM Mark Andrews <marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org wrote:
On 9 Jan 2019, at 11:30 am, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
<giri(_at_)dombox(_dot_)org> wrote:
@Mark Andrews
First, When I mentioned "The former requires a HTTPS server and the latter
requires DNSSEC.", I didn't mean DNSSEC is HARD to implement. I meant
DNSSEC is CONTROVERSIAL
Read some of these articles.
https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/01/15/against-dnssec/
A whole heap of half truths and poor analysis. If that was presented as a
peer reviewed article it would not be published. You have been had if you
believe that blog post.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/23/dnssec_more_problem_than_solution/
“Oh Dear, Big Responses, The World is Going To End!!!!!”. This is click bait
journalism. We have standard track RFCs which provide the equivalent of
TCP’s three way handshake for DNS/UDP. This has been deployed for 4+ years
now along with other measures for clients that don’t implement the RFC. 8%
of the TLD servers currently implement that RFC. It is on by default in all
current implementations of BIND (both client and server side) and with the
exception of a handful of (non RFC compliant) servers it causes no issues.
Second, unless top domains like Google, Facebook etc. start to use DNSSEC,
you are gonna see questions like this.
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/21121/if-dnssec-is-so-useful-why-is-its-deployment-non-existent-for-top-domains
28171 of 895949 zones which gave good answers from the alexa to 1M are signed
based on the run I started 2018-12-23T00:00:05Z. The EDNS compliance testing
I do also reports whether the returned result is signed (ok,yes) or not (ok).
% awk '$13 ~ /signed=ok,yes/ {yes[$1] = 1} $13 ~ /signed=ok/ { ok[$1] = 1}
END { print length ( yes ) , length ( ok ) } '
reports/alexa1m.2018-12-23T00:00:05Z
28171 895949
%
So if you wanna convince others to use DNSSEC, you should start with big
brothers like Google.
Third, Yes DNSSEC is HARD. Maybe not for you. [You seem like a person who
knows your stuff]
No it isn’t. In Unbound it is a checkbox where the server generates the
DNSKEYs and choosing the algorithm. Are you saying ticking a checkbox is
HARD? There TLD’s with +70% of the delegated zones signed. You don’t get to
that level with “DNSSEC is HARD”. The only reason DNSSEC is not deployed
more is COMPLACENCY and FEAR OF SOMETHING NEW.
Neither if these reasons == HARD.
We are talking about mail servers here. Many of these users are non-tech
savvy users who depends on third-party mail hosting services like G-Suite.
Which almost certainly are using STARTTLS today and maybe using DANE today as
well on the outbound side.
As an engineer you can do those stuffs easily. But a doctor can't do that.
Just because he can't configure DNSSEC doesn't mean he don't deserve
security
And he can get DNSSEC today. There are DNS hosting providers that will do
DNSSEC. Almost all the
TLDs support DNSSEC. There are DNS hosting providers that turn DNSSEC ON BY
DEFAULT. Arguing that you can’t deploy a DNSSEC signed zone today even as a
lay person doesn’t bear up to scrutiny.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp