On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Tomas Mraz wrote: > Except nobody says or said that DNS without DNSSEC leads to the > automatic connection with such setting. I answered that multiple times, including today with a vast amount of screen pasting into https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=180277 to show you that DNS without DNSSEC does NOT lead to automatic connection in ANY case other then you already having the key in known_hosts, which is the same behaviour as without any SSHFP record in DNS. > The objection (upstream one that > is) is that setting VerifyHostKeyDNS yes ultimately sets you to depend > on the DNSSEC security for your SSH connection security It does not add any new dependancies. If there is no DNSSEC, you are told the SSHFP is in the DNS, shown the fingerprint like there is no SSHFP record, and asked if you really want to continue. If there is DNSSEC, no entries to known_hosts are added so whenever DNSSEC is not there, you fall back to exactly what you have now. Also, ssh already "depends" on DNSSEC to get a trustworth A/AAAA record with an RRSIG from DNSSEC. The dependancy is there whether upstream likes it or not. > and that is > something we will never make default if upstream does not. If upstream deems this so bad, why does upstream offer the option? I don't see them offering 1des or rot13 cipher either. Apparently, upstream is somewhat divided? > Setting it to 'VerifyHostKeyDNS ask' by default is another matter and I > am OK with that. Thank you, it's good enough for me and a happy end of a 5 year old bug. Paul -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
