News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:For DNSSEC by StuntPope on Thursday August 06, 2015 @04:28PM (#10019195)
What do you mean?
Re:For DNSSEC by indolering on Thursday August 06, 2015 @04:39PM (#10019288)
Signing DNS records using a machine connected to the internet, instead of passing the zone files to an air-gapped signing machine over a sneakernet. Eventually, you run into the issue of updating the "offline" machine and many places just have an "online" machine that gets the zone files through a highly restricted interface.
Re:For DNSSEC by realityking on Thursday August 06, 2015 @06:48PM (#10019936)
We're currently working on providing DNSSEC for our customers. The problem with only signing is that we really don't want all the keys to be physically present on our DNS servers, as many of them are hosted in other companies data centres.

Having a central online signing server is bad for availability, as DNS down time is really not acceptable.

That basically only leaves offline signing.

Re:For DNSSEC by Habbie on Tuesday August 11, 2015 @01:23PM (#10042784)
So have three online signers.
Re:For DNSSEC by yuhong on Thursday August 13, 2015 @03:36AM (#10052720)
Yea, HSMs are not that expensive I think.
Re:For DNSSEC by yuhong on Thursday August 06, 2015 @04:29PM (#10019200)
DNSSEC has several problems some of which is in the design, as tptacek likes to mention.
Re:For DNSSEC by indolering on Thursday August 06, 2015 @04:41PM (#10019302)
This post directly addresses each point that Ptacek raised in his "Against DNSSEC" blogpost and FAQ.
Re:For DNSSEC by feld on Thursday August 06, 2015 @06:59PM (#10019997)
Poorly and unconvincingly addresses. Same argument we've seen over and over -- now in a nice clean FAQ!

Doesn't change the design problems. Just tries to hide them behind half-truths and "but there's nothing better..."

Re:For DNSSEC by StuntPope on Thursday August 06, 2015 @04:32PM (#10019227)
But what do you mean by "online signing" ?
Re:For DNSSEC by yuhong on Thursday August 06, 2015 @04:33PM (#10019236)
One of the problems is that it exposed DNS zone information, and one of the reason it did that was it was designed to require signing only once and after that the private key didn't have to be used again until the zone info changes.
Re:For DNSSEC by indolering on Thursday August 06, 2015 @04:40PM (#10019294)
Are you talking about zone enumeration? That's covered in the article.
Re:For DNSSEC by geofft on Thursday August 06, 2015 @06:59PM (#10019995)
Can you provide an NSEC white-lie response to an arbitrary query without an online key?

(I'm not sure if this is what was being asked, but I'm curious about the answer to that, either way.)

Re:For DNSSEC by Habbie on Tuesday August 11, 2015 @01:24PM (#10042797)
No, not in the narrowest way. You can go 'somewhere in between' at the cost of blowing up your zone size tremendously, but it's not worth it.
Re:For DNSSEC by yuhong on Thursday August 06, 2015 @07:01PM (#10020007)
Don't think so.
Re:For DNSSEC by indolering on Thursday August 06, 2015 @08:03PM (#10020248)
I believe so: http://dankaminsky.com/2011/01/05/djb-ccc/#whitelies

(Phreebird is an online signer, but I don't see why an offline signer couldn't generate these proofs.)

Re:For DNSSEC by tptacek on Sunday August 09, 2015 @09:32PM (#10032251)
Because you can't predict offline which names you need to obscure with fake NSEC records.

If there is any company in the world actually using Phreebird in production, I'd --- for more than one reason --- like to know about it.

Re:For DNSSEC by Habbie on Tuesday August 11, 2015 @01:18PM (#10042742)
I don't know of any either, but there are plenty running PowerDNS in online 'white lies' signing mode. And then, of course, there is Cloudflare.

(And indeed, it cannot be done offline - although doing much narrower NSEC/NSEC3 ranges than 'normal' could be done offline).