Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution

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

 



>Has anyone laid out the perceived dangers in an easily digestible 
>format? I would be interested to see that discussion.

See the discussion on this list in the first LC.  I tried to sum them
up in one message about a week before the end.

>Given that the DNS RR in question is something the end user has to 
>explicitly request, ...

Uh, what?  The DNS is under control of the domain owner, not the end
users.  If I'm running mitmmail.com, I can publish keys for all of my
users that I can decode on the way in.  If I'm that kind of MITM I
might even re-encode the mail with the users' real keys if I know what
they are, perhaps from the traditional PGP key servers.

This points out one of the problems with this draft: there's no
security model beyond the implicit DANE model that anything that's
signed with DNSSEC must be true.

R's,
John




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