Actually it does buy us some trust but as the roots aren't signed it's
fairly moot.
On 21/11/2009, Nigel Jones <dev(a)nigelj.com> wrote:
At the moment? Nothing.
On 21/11/2009, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath(a)redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Mike McGrath
<mmcgrath(a)redhat.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > So, for example 'fedoraproject.org' wouldn't be signed,
but
>> >> > 'us.fedoraproject.org' would be? I *think* that's
possible but I
>> >> > haven't
>> >> > gotten it to work. If I can get that to work though I guess that
>> >> > makes
>> >> > sense because A) it'd work for now and B) I'm sure over
time pdns's
>> >> > dnssec
>> >> > will continue to mature.
>> >>
>> >> No, that wouldn't really work, because then you couldn't trust
>> >> lookups
>> >> from the
fedoraproject.org zone, which would include delegations to
>> >> the subdomains, the main website itself, MX records, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> > But if
fedoraproject.org pointed to some place that wasn't signed or
>> > was
>> > signed incorrectly, wouldn't that fail?
>>
>>
fedoraproject.org can't be a CNAME because it has other records like
>> MX, NS, SOA, etc. We'd have to switch to using
>> 'www.fedoraproject.org' which could be a CNAME into an unsigned
>> subzone.
>>
>> But then you'd still have the problem of relying on an unsigned zone
>> serving up DNS data, eventually no one is going to trust it.
>>
>
> At this very moment, what is dnssec buying us?
>
> -Mike
--
Sent from my mobile device
-- Nigel Jones