Slashdot Mirror


DNS Inventor Tackles Flaw

nk497 writes "Dr Paul Mockapetris is looking to fix the flaws in the Domain Name System he helped invent. 'It was never meant to be the only security mechanism for naming data on the internet, but was intended for additional security measures to be added to it later.' The flaws, first uncovered by security researcher Dan Kaminsky over the summer, lets attackers redirect genuine URLs to malicious ones — a problem Mockapetris believes could be solved using digital signatures."

13 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm... by tripdizzle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but was intended for additional security measures to be added to it later

    Ok, so this approach where you release something half-way done and fix it later is much older than I thought.

    --
    "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
    1. Re:Hmm... by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but was intended for additional security measures to be added to it later

      Ok, so this approach where you release something half-way done and fix it later is much older than I thought.

      Well, yeah. Here's the first instance I know of:

      Carl: Hey, I just figured out that by attaching a piece of slate and some handles to this thing I call the "wheel", I can haul around deer carcasses much more easily than my previous method of throwing them over my shoulder and crawling. I call this new contraption the "wheelbarrow".

      Lenny: That's great! I think that I'll use it to haul home my fiance after I propose by clubbing her over the head. When I'm moving people around with it, I'll call it a "car". Of course, if anyone wanted to use the "car" for frequent trips or moving multiple people around, they'd have to make significant improvements.

      Homer: Your car sucks. Why in the hell did you design it like this? This thing looks like it was made to haul around deer carcasses, not people! This is obviously an incomplete solution - Why did you show it to us without perfecting it first!?! You're an idiot.

      Preemptive retort to silly overly-critical responses: I agree, it is a deeply flawed analogy. It's primary intent was humor while only lightly relating to the incomplete implementation of the DNS system.

      Cheers.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  2. I tried to RTFA... by dkf · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... but it seems that a DNS attack redirected it to a fluff piece without any useful content.

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  3. Re:Law is only way by howdoesth · · Score: 5, Funny

    You always have the option to boycott that ISP, but if you live somewhere like I do, you only have one broadband option.

    I see you're using the sense of "always" that means "occasionally" or even "very rarely."

  4. Mockapetris by Detritus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mockapetris wrote a nice book on the ideas behind the domain naming system, which is sadly long out of print. One statement that he made has always stuck in my mind, "names are not routes are not addresses". Keeping those things distinct and well-defined avoids many problems.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  5. Hm, that and DNSsec sucks ass by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 3, Informative

    Look at the history of DNSsec; the specs have been done and redone several times over, there is no consensus, and it looks like it would be a bitch to admin.

    1. Re:Hm, that and DNSsec sucks ass by Ed+Avis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can someone explain what is the point of DNSsec? An https website already has its own certificate which authenticates you are talking with the right person, and https is designed to be secure without trusting DNS. If DNSsec had been widely implemented twenty years ago then secure protocols might have evolved in a different direction, but given where we are now, what problem does DNSsec solve?

      Similarly if you use ssh then the server authenticates to you with its own keypair. You don't need to trust that DNS gives the right answer.

      Is DNSsec just to stop denial of service attacks on the DNS infrastructure and trivial hijacking of insecure protocols like telnet and http?

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    2. Re:Hm, that and DNSsec sucks ass by Charlotte · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Can someone explain what is the point of DNSsec? An https website already has its own certificate

      DNS is a naming service, but it was never designed to be a trustworthy naming service. If it was, then DNS spoofing would have been impossible. Another reason why, currently, SSL certificates are needed is IP address spoofing. But if your certificate is embedded in a DNS entry then there is no reason for anyone to need a third-party-signed certificate at all. All you really need is a single source of trust. Right now we have 2: the root nameservers and the root SSL certificate authorities.

      So if we fix DNS then we can skip SSL root CAs entirely and just go with DNS. But SSL certs are a lucrative business, which is why Verisign et. al. don't want DNS to be fixed. It would be the end of their best cash cow. But fixing it is necessary for the internet to become a truly trustworthy place of business.

      The article, BTW, strikes me as odd. Isn't it Paul Vixie who has been campaigning for DNSSEC for ages now? He isn't even mentioned.

  6. Re:Law is only way by tripdizzle · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not really, you do not need the internet to survive, its a luxury.

    --
    "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
  7. Re:We'll add security later by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not really. Back when DNS was invented (1982) pretty much everything connected to the Internet was essentially a trusted machine. Arguably that was almost true until the Morris worm in 1988. Of course you could never truly trust them, but the idea was that if someone did something silly other people would phone them and then they would stop. Essentially it was an anarchy populated by non malicious people.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  8. Re:Law is only way by Cerberus7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    True enough, but the Almighty Invisible Hand of the Free Market isn't taking care of this, either.

    --
    I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
  9. No need to fix this problem by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ICANN is going to start selling new gTLDs that will turn the current DNS system into arbitrary mish-mash anyways. Just wait until we start seeing links to .cheapdrugs domains, and we try to find the DNS info for that.

    Then we'll find ourselves longing for the current DNS problem.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  10. Re:Law is only way by zacronos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if your internet at home went down, would you wither up and die?? Or just a little inside?

    No, but considering the fact that I live over 1,500 miles from the office where I work, it is not merely a luxury that I telecommute. If I can't have broadband Internet, I'll need to quit my job and find another, convince my wife to quit her job and sell our house during the housing market slump so we can move (either somewhere I *can* have broadband Internet, or somewhere within driving distance of my company's office), or leave my wife behind so I can move. I can't simply boycott the only broadband ISP in my area on a whim, as you suggest -- it is a much, much bigger issue for me.

    You're creating the false dichotomy that everything which is not necessary to survive is a luxury. I agree that I do not strictly need broadband Internet to survive, but disagree that the Internet is a luxury, for me at least. Perhaps you would have no problem boycotting utility companies if you felt they were doing something irresponsible, since after all electricity, water, natural gas, etc are not necessary for survival (and in fact many people in the world do not have these things), but most people in the US would argue that they are more than luxuries. Maybe you are lucky enough to have well or cistern water, and live in a climate where winter heating isn't necessary for survival, or perhaps you have a wood-burning stove/fireplace that could heat your house if you don't have electricity or natural gas -- but that doesn't mean that they are luxuries for everyone, irrespective of the circumstances of that person's life.

    Those are more extreme examples, but the fact is that my life is currently based around having broadband at home, and although I could do without it (just as I could do without electricity, natural gas, and city water), I would need to make very large changes to my life to do so.