3 ms·

Thank you for this clarification. Its definitely an interesting decision. I wouldn't think there is much to gain privacy-wise between cloudflare and FB's DNS se

Thank you for this clarification. Its definitely an interesting decision. I wouldn't think there is much to gain privacy-wise between cloudflare and FB's DNS servers. Without a doubt, as far as security goes, DNSSEC would provide the security side - with DoT being a privacy provider. However, FB doesn't implement DNSSEC. I know there is a LOT of opinions on DNSSEC and I completely understand why they do not implement it. This just leaves me in the dark a bit as to why they did this. Anyone have insights?

ilovecaching 8y ago
> I wouldn't think there is much to gain privacy-wise between cloudflare and FB's DNS servers. You gain everything by this. Encrypting traffic from your stub resolver to the recursive resolver is meaningless if the recursive is going to send your request unencrypted to the authoritative. Recursive resolvers will send ECS data revealing your subnet and fingerprinting information, and open you up to active and passive mitm attacks. > Without a doubt, as far as security goes, DNSSEC would provide the security side You're comparing apple to oranges here, and DNSSEC is a far cry from total security. They are complementary; DoT provides a private and protected path to the authoritative, while DNSSEC proves origin authenticity and response correctness. But you're right in that DNSSEC is controversial and difficult to turn on.
- vavrusa 8y ago
  From operational perspective, it may be easier to maintain a certificate (after all, that's what you already do for an HTTPS service) than a DNSSEC signed zone. It is also easier if you have a multiple DNS providers, since you don't have to coordinate zone resigning. On the other hand, DoT doesn't provide the same properties (like client-side revalidation) as record level DNSSEC. It is undoubtedly an imperfect solution, but better than a perfect solution that isn't deployed. I see the two technologies as complementary, a fairly good DNSSEC deployment at the TLD level can provide a safe way for key discovery at SLD level. There are many facets to this, and it is still fairly early in resolver-to-authoritative DoT standardization process, this is just one of the first steps to show that it's feasible in real world.

ilovecaching 8y ago

> I wouldn't think there is much to gain privacy-wise between cloudflare and FB's DNS servers. You gain everything by this. Encrypting traffic from your stub resolver to the recursive resolver is meaningless if the recursive is going to send your request unencrypted to the authoritative. Recursive resolvers will send ECS data revealing your subnet and fingerprinting information, and open you up to active and passive mitm attacks. > Without a doubt, as far as security goes, DNSSEC would provide the security side You're comparing apple to oranges here, and DNSSEC is a far cry from total security. They are complementary; DoT provides a private and protected path to the authoritative, while DNSSEC proves origin authenticity and response correctness. But you're right in that DNSSEC is controversial and difficult to turn on.

vavrusa 8y ago
From operational perspective, it may be easier to maintain a certificate (after all, that's what you already do for an HTTPS service) than a DNSSEC signed zone. It is also easier if you have a multiple DNS providers, since you don't have to coordinate zone resigning. On the other hand, DoT doesn't provide the same properties (like client-side revalidation) as record level DNSSEC. It is undoubtedly an imperfect solution, but better than a perfect solution that isn't deployed. I see the two technologies as complementary, a fairly good DNSSEC deployment at the TLD level can provide a safe way for key discovery at SLD level. There are many facets to this, and it is still fairly early in resolver-to-authoritative DoT standardization process, this is just one of the first steps to show that it's feasible in real world.