On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 09:18:38PM +0200, Michel Le Bihan wrote:

> The Security Problem
> 
> Without DNSSEC (which has very limited deployment according to Cloudflare
> and SIDN statistics),

Global average fraction of DNSSEC signed domains is ~6.5%, it is however
rather unevenly distributed.  The below ccTLDs have 20% or more of their
delegations DNSSEC-signed:

    https://stats.dnssec-tools.org/#/?top=tlds&tld_tab=3

    TLD     #Zones      #Signed     %Signed #DANE   %DANE
    TOTAL   370990810   23951119    6.46    4277775 17.86
    er      53          40          75.47   0       0.00
    dk      1303448     863667      66.26   367844  42.59
    cz      1504173     945604      62.87   137880  14.58
    nl      6109695     3817016     62.47   1054927 27.64
    se      1386049     837283      60.41   338179  40.39
    sk      466674      266802      57.17   22761   8.53
    no      855870      488932      57.13   150899  30.86
    nu      203088      114855      56.55   33337   29.03
    ch      2535106     1325679     52.29   587647  44.33
    li      68737       22104       32.16   7182    32.49
    be      1704076     499395      29.31   143082  28.65
    fo      8414        2465        29.30   233     9.45
    ee      174818      43054       24.63   18794   43.65
    re      39807       9705        24.38   931     9.59
    yt      5453        1179        21.62   214     18.15
    tf      4001        841         21.02   209     24.85
    fr      4256065     887877      20.86   77439   8.72
    br      5501608     1147110     20.85   2494    0.22
    eu      3681490     758904      20.61   115688  15.24

    where the DANE counts are for SMTP (_25._tcp TLSA RRs for the
    domain's MX hosts) and %DANE is as a fraction of the *signed*
    domains.  [ Yes, the .er (Eritrea) outlier is not a compelling data
    point, but that's also not a compelling reason to exclude it. ]

> these SRV-based delegations are vulnerable to DNS spoofing attacks. An
> attacker who can manipulate DNS responses can redirect users to
> malicious servers, potentially intercepting credentials and
> communications.

One obvious suggestion for those facing the issue is to deploy DNSSEC,
which is now a well-established technology.

> I've evaluated several approaches, each with significant drawbacks:
> 
>     DANE (RFC 6698): Requires DNSSEC, which remains impractical due to low
> adoption

Can you explain what makes generally modest adoption rates a barrier for
those who are motivated to take advantage of DANE.

-- 
    Viktor.  🇺🇦 Слава Україні!

_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to