[Dnsmasq-discuss] [Cerowrt-devel] Problems with DNSsec on Comcast, with Cero 3.10.38-1/DNSmasq 4-26-2014

Anders Kaseorg andersk at mit.edu
Sat Oct 4 22:45:46 BST 2014

On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Anders Kaseorg wrote:
> > secure no DS means that the original unsigned answer should be 
> > accepted, except that it shouldn't. There's no way to distinguish 
> > between secure lack of DS because we've reached an unsigned branch of 
> > the tree, and secure lack of DS because we're not at a zone cut, 
> > except if we know where the zone cuts are, and we don't.
> Having just looked through RFC 5155 for clues: isn’t that the purpose of 
> the NS type bit in the NSEC3 record?  In this example, DS university 
> would give an NSEC3 record with the NS bit clear.  That signals that we 
> should go down a level and query DS campus.  In this case we find a 
> signed DS there.  But if we were to find an NSEC3 with the NS bit set, 
> then we’d know that we’ve really found an unsigned zone and can stop 
> going down.

Aha: and this is exactly the answer given at 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6840#section-4.4 .


More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list