Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> DNSsec is very important for other reasons, such as the current 
> pharming attacks.  The risks have been known in the security community 
> since at least 1991, and publicly since at least 1995.  The long-
> predicted attacks are now happening.  We really need to get DNSsec
> deployed, independent of mDNS or LLMNR.  Given that there is now some 
> forward progress on DNSsec, it's not at all unreasonable for either or 
> both of those specs to rely on it to solve some of their particular 
> security risks.

Couldn't agree more.  But if I'm not mistaken, the current DNSSEC 
specifications do not mandate that DNS stub resolvers be DNSSEC-aware 
validating, which is what would be required for use in a peer-to-peer name 
resolution protocol.  There is also the DNSEXT WG edict that mDNS/LLMNR 
not share a cache with DNS, which makes it difficult for mDNS/LLMNR to 
utilize trust anchors or acquired keys present in the DNS cache. 

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]