Re: Install DNS mappings based on TLS/IPsec?

On 2-aug-04, at 15:45, Joe Touch wrote:

> the use of the DNS for forward and reverse lookups is often to provide 
> confirmation of identity.

Yes.

> To that end, DNSSEC is useful,

Sure, but that's not the point. The point is that requiring the 
presence of a working DNS is dangerous. Obviously the set of working 
DNSSEC implementations is smaller than the set of working DNS 
implementations so adding DNSSEC only makes this part worse.

> IKE relies either on X.509 keys (a different hierarchy) or preshared 
> secrets. At best, all this does is move the problem (DNSSEC 
> certificate hierarchy -> X.509 certificate hierarchy);

This is an improvement as the X.509 hierarchy doesn't have to be 
traversed in real time (barring caching).

> at worst, it exposes the endpoint to assuming identity when the 
> pre-shared key could be open (compromised, or deliberate).

> I.e., it would be necessary (IMO) to limit this to identities 
> exchanged by IKE/TLS based on CAs, not based on preshared keys. That 
> may not be feasible.

I disagree. The ability to configure trust manually is very useful. 
Obviously when trust is configured using a preshared key this means 
only the configured identity must be injected into what the application 
thinks is the DNS, not any arbitrary value the remote side comes up 
with.

>> - the DNS is often insecure, so let the TLS or IKE derived 
>> information override it to increase security

> The more independent trust mechanisms there are the less trust that 
> results, IMO.

That depends on whether you do "or" or "and". Unfortunately, if you 
want to optimize for avalability you need to do "or" rather than "and".