Subject: Re: Comments on dr

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:00:25 -0400

Eric Rescorla wrote:

> [... explanations on security model for draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers ...]
> 
> So, in general, I think it's a mistake to have a system where you
> assume that both keys are about equally likely to be
> compromised. Certainly, if you're worried about a computational attack
> and the keys are the same length, then any sane attacker will break
> all the keys before tipping his hand (this is a constant factor). And
> once you have asymmetric lengths, then it's unattractive to use them
> identically. If this is the direction the WG wants to go in,
> I think it would be appropriate to discuss what threat model
> motivates it.
> 

A "threat model" is something seldom discussed in DNSEXT WG /
namedroppers (now that this draft is looked at by a broader audience, it
may become relevant, hinted by your post). A while ago, I thought threat
model explicitness (e.g. in the form of "catastrophic failure mode"
disclosure) would easily be included in the TAK requirements draft
document produced by the wg, but it was not the case.

Accordingly, by default, the wg position would be that threat model
discussion is not a required step for selecting an automated TAK
rollover solution. Personally I disagree, but that seems to me close to
a wg consensus.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada   H2M 2A1

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: [email-masked]

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>