Re: rdns, past and future
Dameon Wagner <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.encryption.kerberos.general |
|---|---|
| Organization | University of Oxford IT Services |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, May 26 2020 at 18:59:23 -0400, Jeffrey Altman scribbled in "Re: rdns, past and future": > On 5/26/2020 6:31 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 3:58 PM Jeffrey Altman > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> 2. Before the existence of DNS SRV records, CNAME records were the > >> only method of offering a service on multiple hosts. However, > >> its a poor idea to share the same key across all of the hosts. > > > > I'm curious about this. What makes it a poor idea? > > > > It seems like a very convenient way to scale a service up and down > > dynamically quickly when you share a key among all instances. > > Because if you hack into one of the hosts you now have the key for > all of the hosts. The holder of the key can forge tickets for any > user. Since the key isn't unique the entire distributed service has > to be shutdown to address the vulnerability. It is also much harder > to trace where the key was stolen from. Also, as another simpler example, it can make key management more involved, rather than more convenient: Moving and sharing sensitive material around is awkward, but running `ktadd` on a new cluster member is trivial -- but if you're using a shared key across all cluster members, you've broken them all except the newest member (as `ktadd` does an implicit randkey). I've seen too many fresh sysadmins break things that way... Cheers. Dameon. -- ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ooOoo <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< Dr. Dameon Wagner, Unix Platform Services IT Services, University of Oxford ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ooOoo <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< ________________________________________________ Kerberos mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos