On Wed 2019-07-03 16:01:21 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> It doesn't take much to encourage me so I just
> pushed out that idea in I-D form:-) [1]
 […]
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-tls-wkesni-00

Thanks for this (and for the -01 update for the draft).  I like this
work, and i think we should pursue it in the WG.

A couple notes/questions:

 - Clients might use this, not just "zone factories".  For instance,
   consider a client with limited access to the DNS that makes an
   initial direct connection to the hidden host, leaking SNI.  If, in
   that connection, it also fetches this record, it could use that to
   bootstrap future connections to the host, right?

   The draft currently contemplates this briefly for followup queries
   for some clients, but it doesn't go into it in more detail.

 - Why is it hosted on the cover server, instead of on the hidden
   server?  is that just so that the zone factory doesn't leak $HIDDEN
   to the network?

   Surely on a zone factory update, the zone factory already knows the
   eSNI for $HIDDEN so it could make the request with eSNI to
   https://$HIDDEN/.well-known/esni/$HIDDEN.json rather than to
   https://$COVER/.well-known/esni/$HIDDEN.json

   At the same time, for $COVER to publish this information potentially
   puts $COVER at more risk, right?  And, a $COVER could *claim* to be a
   cover for $HIDDEN without approval of the $HIDDEN site by publishing
   these records; if anyone believes that claim, it could cause traffic
   to be re-routed through the ersatz $COVER.  If it's going to be
   hosted at $COVER and not $HIDDEN, we should be explicit about what
   defends against such an attack.

   There could be an "obvious" reason for the choice of hosting it at
   $COVER instead of at $HIDDEN, but it should be spelled out in the
   draft.

 - If this is treated as a separate/independent source of authority
   about ESNI data for a host from the DNS (e.g. in the client examples
   contemplated in my first point above, not just the "zone factory"),
   then the draft probably needs some text discussing what to do when
   discovering a discrepancy between what's in the DNS and what's found
   at .well-known.

Regards,

        --dkg

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Reply via email to