If I am not mistaken, this is at least 3rd time this change is proposed. Can somebody post some short summary what was changed, that you believe it will be successful this time? Thx Vít Dne 30.11.2015 v 17:14 Jan Kurik napsal(a): > = Default Local DNS Resolver = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver > > Change owner(s): > * P J P <pjp AT fedoraproject DOT org> > * Pavel Šimerda <pavlix AT pavlix DOT net> > * Tomas Hozza <thozza AT redhat DOT com> > * Petr Špaček <pspacek AT redhat DOT com> > > Plain DNS protocol is insecure and therefore vulnerable from various > attacks (e.g. cache poisoning). A client can never be sure that there > is no man-in-the-middle, if it does not do the DNSSEC validation > locally. > We want to have Unbound server installed and running on localhost by > default on Fedora systems. Where necessary, have also dnssec-trigger > installed and running by default. Unbound and dnssec-trigger will be > properly integrated with the default network configuration manager > (e.g. NetworkManager for Fedora Server and Workstation) and with the > graphical user interface (especially GNOME). The localhost address > will be the only record in /etc/resolv.conf and no other software > except dnssec-trigger will be allowed to change its content. > > > > == Detailed Description == > Plain DNS protocol is insecure and therefore vulnerable from various > attacks (e.g. cache poisoning). DNSSEC is a DNS extension which > enabled the client to verify the DNS query response and make sure > there is no attacker to spoof some records. A user connected to > network usually receives a set of resolvers from DHCP, which should be > used for name resolution. These resolvers may also do the DNSSEC > validation. However a client can never be sure that there is no > man-in-the-middle, if it does not do the DNSSEC validation locally. > Purpose of this Fedora change is to have a validating DNS resolver > installed on Fedora systems by default. This includes necessary > discussions, coordination and integration with other components > installed on Fedora by default. > > There are growing instances of discussions and debates about the need > for a trusted local validating DNS resolver. There are multiple > reasons for having such a resolver, most importantly security and > usability. Security and protection of user's privacy becomes paramount > with the backdrop of the increasingly snooping governments and service > providers world wide. > > People use Fedora on portable/mobile devices which are connected to > diverse networks as and when required. The automatic DNS > configurations provided by these networks are never trustworthy for > DNSSEC validation, as currently there is no way to establish such > trust. > > Apart from trust, these name servers are often known to be flaky and > unreliable which only adds to the overall bad and at times even > frustrating user experience. In such a situation, having a trusted > local validating DNS resolver not only makes sense but is, in fact, > badly needed. It has become a need of the hour. (See: [1], [2], [3]) > > All DNS literature strongly recommends it and amongst all discussions > and debates about the issues involved in establishing such trust, it > is unanimously agreed upon and accepted that having a trusted local > DNS resolver is the best solution possible. It will simplify and > facilitate a lot of other design decisions and application development > in the future. (See: [1], [2], [3]) > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg06469.html > [2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg06658.html > [3] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-April/197755.html > > > > == Scope == > Proposal owners: Proposal owners shall have to > * define the syntax and semantics for new configuration parameters/files. > * properly document how to test and configure the new default setup > * persuade and coordinate with the other package owners to incorporate > new changes/workflow in their applications. > * discuss with WGs in which products the change makes sense and what > are the expectations of WGs for different Fedora products > * resolve interoperability issues for Docker and other containers use-cases > > Other developers: (especially NetworkManager and the likes) > * NetworkManager has to implement notifications on connectivity state changes > * Gnome Shell has to use the connection provided resolvers (fetched > directly from NM) for Hot-Spot login purposes > * Ideally other developers and user should test their software and > application in this setup and verify that it is working as expected > > Release engineering: > * Make sure that the necessary packages (dnssec-trigger, unbound) are > part of the composes for the appropriate Fedora Products. > * Add services needed for the setup into the default presets > (dnssec-triggerd.service) > > Policies and guidelines: > * Any software, including NetworkManager, will have to be configured > to not tamper with the content of '/etc/resolv.conf' by default. The > connection-provided resolver entries should be stored in a separate > configuration file or in memory and accessible via some API. > -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
