This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[dns-wg] Framework for DNSSEC audits
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Framework for DNSSEC audits
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Call for Presentations: RIPE 68, 12-16 May 2014 in Warsaw, Poland
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Matthijs Mekking
matthijs at nlnetlabs.nl
Tue Jan 7 09:23:25 CET 2014
Hi Ralf, On 01/06/2014 05:18 PM, Ralf Weber wrote: > Moin! > > On 06 Jan 2014, at 12:33, Matthijs Mekking <matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl> > wrote: > >> This might be of interest to you. In collaboration with SWITCH, we >> have developed a DNSSEC audit framework: >> >> http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/downloads/publications/dns-audit-framework-1.0.pdf >> >> >> The scope of the framework is largely based on the documents RFC 2870, >> RFC 6841, RFC 6781 and the Secure Domain Name System (DNS) >> Deployment Guide from NIST. >> >> Having this publicly available we believe it will improve the >> deployment of DNSSEC. > I admire your efforts and the document is well written from my quick > glancing over it. But we IMHO need a big boilerplate upfront that > this is not needed for deploying DNSSEC. The document might be good > for TLD and registries/registrars with huge security requirements. > But if we want to get widespread deployment we need to get further > down the tree and wider. And my fear is that such a document can > cause people to delay or not do DNSSEC deployments as the > requirements (based on this document) are huge (none of my currently > signed domains would pass an audit). Yes, the framework is indeed in the first place applicable to TLDs. But also further down the tree people can benefit from this document. Note that this audit framework tries to be complete with respect to all possible controls, but these are not necessarily requirements. There may be controls that are not implemented or implemented differently, and if that is backed up with a managerial decision, the audit of the control may still pass. It is also possible for an auditor to do a partial audit, for example by only looking at the technical controls. > > I will add it to my reading list for a more detailed review. Thanks. We appreciate all feedback and discussion in order to mature this framework. Best regards, Matthijs > > So long -Ralf --- Ralf Weber Senior Infrastructure Architect Nominum > Inc. 2000 Seaport Blvd. Suite 400 Redwood City, California 94063 > ralf.weber at nominum.com > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Framework for DNSSEC audits
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Call for Presentations: RIPE 68, 12-16 May 2014 in Warsaw, Poland
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]