Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> AS I have been saying for over a decade security is risk
> management, not risk elimination.


I fully agree with you that there ain't no such thing as
cryptographical security.

> The point you make is not new, Bruce Scheneir made it together with
> Carl Ellison in a paper some years back. He was wrong then and
> Secrets and Lies is essentially explaining why.


Hugh?

You failed to deny my point that DNSSEC and plain DNS are equally secure.

> Most cases of administrative incompetence will result in a complete
> loss of service. DNSSEC does not add a significant number of new
> ways to screw up and the remedy is exactly the same.


Complex protocols are more complex to implement and operate and,
thus, insecure.

For example, it is a lot more likely that DNSSEC software has
buffer overflow valunerability than plain DNS software.

> The cases where administrative incompetence leads to a security
> breach are not as likely as direct attack and in any case very
> difficult to exploit successfully without inside knowledge that
> allows for more powerful attacks.


I'm not sure what you mean "direct attack" but I understand that
you failed to make a point on the merits of deploying DNSSEC.

Masataka Ohta


--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: