3 ms·

Registrars will do what the registries say. Registries typically implement DNSSEC even w/o state mandates. I expect that root and TLD zones would support SCTs

Registrars will do what the registries say. Registries typically implement DNSSEC even w/o state mandates. I expect that root and TLD zones would support SCTs eventually. I also expect that there are not many MITM attacks in DNSSEC by nation-states. The single most important thing here is QName minimization because it will force MITMing zones to commit to being and staying in the middle early, and that's very risky for them. QName minimization does come at a price: extra DNS round trips, though most of those will be very cacheable and have high cache hit rates, but cold caches hurt.

tptacek 3y ago
Why would .US or .IO support mandatory SCTs? These domains are under de jure control of governments that routinely subvert the DNS for intelligence and criminal justice reasons. It's not like the CA's volunteered to do mandatory CT: they had to get dragged into it, because Mozilla and Chrome could credible threaten to dis-trust them. They can't do that with the DNS.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  Because businesses that don't want those zones to MITM them will move to zones that do support SCTs. It's not as strong a reason as Mozilla and Chrome arm twisting WebPKI CAs, as sovereigns can resist longer, but eventually it will happen.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Just so we're clear, this is like saying that CT would have happened on its own, just because of market pressure from certificate customers, without Mozilla or Google intervening.
    - cryptonector 3y ago
      I'm not sure how CT for DNSSEC would happen. If we had a spec and implementations then we could get market pressure applied. Mozilla and Chrome might have security indicators on their browser that incentivize the use of TLDs that provide better security. And again, I think DNSSEC already has things that WebPKI doesn't have that give it some advantages in terms of security. CT is not a panacea either, since it requires that people pay attention to what CAs issue certificates for.

tptacek 3y ago

Why would .US or .IO support mandatory SCTs? These domains are under de jure control of governments that routinely subvert the DNS for intelligence and criminal justice reasons. It's not like the CA's volunteered to do mandatory CT: they had to get dragged into it, because Mozilla and Chrome could credible threaten to dis-trust them. They can't do that with the DNS.

cryptonector 3y ago
Because businesses that don't want those zones to MITM them will move to zones that do support SCTs. It's not as strong a reason as Mozilla and Chrome arm twisting WebPKI CAs, as sovereigns can resist longer, but eventually it will happen.
- tptacek 3y ago
  Just so we're clear, this is like saying that CT would have happened on its own, just because of market pressure from certificate customers, without Mozilla or Google intervening.
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    I'm not sure how CT for DNSSEC would happen. If we had a spec and implementations then we could get market pressure applied. Mozilla and Chrome might have security indicators on their browser that incentivize the use of TLDs that provide better security. And again, I think DNSSEC already has things that WebPKI doesn't have that give it some advantages in terms of security. CT is not a panacea either, since it requires that people pay attention to what CAs issue certificates for.