NSEC3 salt lifetime (and some other DNSSEC params): sane value?
dougb at dougbarton.us
Wed Sep 22 02:14:42 UTC 2010
On 9/21/2010 7:46 AM, Kalman Feher wrote:
> It may well be analogous to that (though I disagree), but the quote does not
> substantiate why knowing public information is bad. In the example above,
> you've simply saved your switchboard and the caller some time. If you don't
> want someone to know it, don't make it public (at the very least).
> You'll have to accept that no matter what steps you take, your public
> information will be available to those who wish to find it. Taking steps to
> prevent that is likely to waste more of your time than it will of those
When this topic first came up 12+ years ago I (and others) said that
DNSSEC would never see wide deployment unless the ability to walk the
zone was eliminated. We were all poo-pooed at the time with lots of
"security through obscurity, LOL" type arguments. Development of DNSSEC
specs continued to ignore the need to eliminate zone-walking for almost
a decade until finally a consortium of folks more influential than I put
their foot down and hammered out the NSEC3 spec (abridging the history
here for the sake of a good story).
My point being, it really doesn't matter if you agree with the reasoning
or not, whether you understand the use case(s) or not, or whether you
ever deploy NSEC3 or not. The fact is that there are a non-trivial
number of organizations who will not deploy DNSSEC without it, so
attempting to convince people not to use it is pointless.
Doug (... and it annoys the pig)
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
More information about the bind-users