The difference is that DoH protects transactions and DNSSEC protects the authenticity of records. It's perfectly possible for a DoH server to feed you bogus cached records; you have to trust the DoH server you're talking to, where you wouldn't have to do that if all the records on the chain of lookups you're doing are signed with DNSSEC, and you're running DNSSEC on your local system rather than a stub resolver than talks to full resolver server you have to trust (this is an uncommon set of circumstances and in practice you have exactly the same server trust problem with DNSSEC that you do with DoH).
Muddying the waters further, the attacks DNSSEC protects against overlap with the ones DoH protects again, so that if the whole Internet managed to switch to DoH, you'd have bottom-up built 95% of the security feature DNSSEC is attempting to provide (DoH has massively better deployment stats than DNSSEC, so this is plausible).
It's better to think of DoH as one of a catalog of different arguments that together make a clear case for sticking a fork in DNSSEC and calling it done.
Is this actually true where it matters? (i.e. the root servers and authoritative servers for TLDs)?
Thus, I really care about LE getting the right IP, I don't care about random users' DNS getting hijacked because their browser will reject the missing/invalid certificate.
The right way to think about this CA issue is this:
* The largest, best-funded, savviest security teams in tech are, like the rest of tech, not signing their domains; the major TLDs are overwhelmingly not signed (there is low single digit uptake in .COM for instance, and what's there is overwhelmingly not big companies but rather random domains signed by registrars that auto-sign). Nobody who's actually targeted for CA misissuance attacks uses DNSSEC to mitigate that threat.
* The WebPKI already has a system in place to guard against misissuance that, unlike DNSSEC, actually does work: Certificate Transparency. So if you're actually concerned about CAs not issuing bogus certs for you, match your revealed preferences to your stated ones and set up CT monitoring.
I would appreciate it if you would update your other comments in this thread clarifying that, as we both now agree they are incorrect.
Meanwhile if DNSSEC's vision is ever fully realized, you will lose that control entirely. There is no CT there, and even if it was build somehow it will be useless as it has no "teeth".
This is a false dichotomy. DNSSEC secures DNS records, it doesn't prevent logging certificate issuance.
That matters because, as the person you were replying to explained, there’s no plausible way to build such a thing. We have CT because the browser developers insisted on it and they control the clients but DNSSEC doesn’t have an equivalent party with that kind of leverage.
This is particularly true if your security model also includes things like TLS to secure your communications with whatever domain you just resolved. In that scenario, the features DoH provides that DNSSEC does not (e.g. lookup confidentiality) are still quite useful, while the 5% of DNSSEC use-cases that DoH doesn't cover are essentially redundant if not better provided elsewhere in your protocol stack.
A reminder that DNSSEC's "cryptographic security" coalesces to the single AD=true bit in the DNS header by the time DNS responses hit your browser; DNSSEC is a server-to-server protocol. So in almost all cases, save those in which nerds have run full recursers on their desktops, the server trust situation with DNSSEC is largely the same as that of DoH.
According to the original DNSSEC RFC, RFC2065, the purpose of DNSSEC is to provide data origin integrity and authentication. It also states "In addition, no effort has been made to provide for any confidentiality for queries or responses. (This service may be available via IPSEC [RFC 1825].)" IPSEC didn't end up providing that role but DoH does. It doesn't address the issue of data origin integrity though.
With DNSSEC, I know that anyone asking for IP addresses of my web server will get the correct address, and in the future it may be possible to use TLSA records (and/or HTTPS records) so that the user’s web browser can be certain that it is connecting to the correct site, with the correct key. The only weak point is that the user might be using a DNS resolver which may be correctly checking the DNSSEC signatures, but the DNS replies, sent from the resolver to the user, are not signed, only “authenticated” by the AD bit. (This is where DoT – or even, blech, DoH – might actually help.) Or the user could run their own local resolver with no untrusted path between their device and their resolver, closing the gap completely.
Contrast that with using no DNSSEC, only DoH (or DoT). The user asks the resolver for the IP address (and possibly HTTPS/TLSA records), and the resolver asks the authoriative DNS server for the information. But the whole conversation between the resolver and the authoritative DNS server is completely unsigned, and can be manipulated at will by any middlemen. Also, it is not even TCP (which is hard, but not impossible) to manipulate as a man-in-the-middle, but DNS is most often UDP. But let’s say there is no manipulation here. How do you trust the resolver? Because they have a nice certificate from “Honest Achmed's Used Cars and Certificates”¹, which says they they are indeed the DoH resolver the user has configured? And the same problem applies to the web site certificate; how can you trust it, when any CA in the world can issue any certificate at will?
Which is where you get to the crunch point though: this is not a digital problem, it's a social problem. The way you establish trust is by generating a suitable preponderance of evidence that someone is who they say they are.
On the internet we outsourced this to a couple of big players who broadly benefit from decent standards, but the ultimately it is just "might makes right" - Google says they don't like you, your business ceases to exist.
The trouble is some of our standards in this area are complete junk and so widely implemented they're near impossible to change - i.e. why CA certificates don't have a limited domain scope (technically yes, they can, but it's an extension and a lot of implementations don't check it to the point you can't rely on it at all).
IMO this is where open-source and it's anti-government bent has to some extent done a huge disservice to the internet. The vast majority of internet traffic people need to be "no questions secure" is traffic that interacts with government or government-recognized entities and their associated legal systems. The identity people are trying to establish is most frequently "Are you under a legal jurisdiction providing me recourse if dealt with unfairly, and honestly representing yourself?"
Which incidentally is why I wish like hell the Signal project would create a paid enterprise offering to fund itself. I want my bank to use Signal to send me things, and I want some assurances around proving that's who it is.