Zash has DANE working for Prosody now. It looks like Tigase has something on the horizon: https://projects.tigase.org/issues/1626. Anyone know about Ejabberd or MongooseIM or Openfire?
Zash
Need to write a proper DANE+XMPP draft
simon
Zash: Do you have some setup instructions lurking anywhere?
Zash
simon: For the Prosody DANE plugin, DNS setup or bot?
Zash
both*
m&m
Zash: would be acceptable to put the XMPP-specific parts of DANE into draft-ietf-xmpp-dna, or does it really require a standalone draft?
simon
The plugin looks pretty straight forward. But for the DNS setup. All the guides I've read are quite complex and assume a massive rollout... Well it would be nice to have a simple setup guide. Does such a thing exist?
Zash
m&m: Would probably be fine to have it in DNA-DANE
m&m
Zash: patches welcome (-:
Zash
Maybe, once I recover from the meeting I had this entire weekend.
m&m
ouch
m&m
working on that is third on my TODO
fippo
DNA-DANE-POSH maybe
fippo
we still need to define what DNA is actually ;-)
m&m
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/DNA
Zash
My code is currently diverging from the DANE-SRV stuff
simon
Zash: how does it diverge?
Zash
It looks up _xmpp-server.example.com IN TLSA instead of _$port._tcp.your-srv-target.example.com
m&m
I doubt that TLSA for _xmpp-server.example.com would get published
Zash
Hm?
simon
what's your thinking on using xmpp-server instead of _$port._tcp.your-srv-target.example.com?
Zash
simon: https://www.zash.se/dane-s2s-client.html
simon
I love it when someone can point to a webpage to answer questions!
m&m
the problem here is that it assumes a level of micro-coordination between the owning domain and the hosting provider that is only really possible for stand-alone servers
Zash
Basically, it's easier, especially for validating incoming connections.
Zash
m&m: CNAME :P
m&m
/-:
m&m
\-:
m&m
requiring CNAME to deploy seems like a Really Bad Idea™.
m&m
and again requires the owning domain and hosting provider to be in sync on DNS updates
simon
It's bad enough getting people setting up SRV records... (SRV what?)
ralphm
also, is this format for TLSA even valid?
m&m
ralphm: it's not prohibited, but it's not documented anywhere
ralphm
simon: strongly disagree. I wish SRV was used more. Like in HTTP.
m&m
RFC 6698 documents using _$port._tcp.hosting.example.net
Zash
ralphm: The qname has nothing to do with the TLSA format, that's just an example convention.
m&m
ralphm: wishing something were so and reality are often in conflict (-:
simon
Ralphm: I agree- wish they were used more too. But I have to explain why they are awesome every single bloody time.
m&m
and how 5222 and 5269 are not "proprietary ports"
ralphm
simon: write a web page to point to.
Zash
m&m: Incoming s2s connection, I wanna validate the client cert without doing over 9000 lookups.
m&m
ralphm: at that point, I might as well use .well-known and host metadata d-:
Zash
And SRV records might not even point to servers doing outgoing connections.
ralphm
m&m: I mean a web page explaining SRV
m&m
Zash: I understand your desire, but I think you're going to have to suck it up and deal with the extra lookups
intosi
You're going to do a million lookups anyway, because of DNSSEC.
ralphm
+1 sucking it up
intosi
m&m: +1
Zash
intosi: The dns library handles that for me.
m&m
Zash: it's not a ton of lookups, but n*2 (n == count of SRV RRs)
m&m
well, 3*n if you do both A and AAAA and TLSA
simon
One million lookups http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090506185112/uncyclopedia/images/f/fa/Dr_evil_one_million_dollars.jpg
intosi
And you probably will want to look up / have looked up the SRV records for the domain in question.
m&m
but really, anything that relies on the source domain holding information on the keying material severely constrains hosting deployments
Zash
intosi: Not for incoming connections with bidi
ralphm
I don't want to promote any non-standard use of existing DNS RRs. There are a few to choose from for pointing to things, all with their own uses. TXT, CNAME, SRV, TLSA, PTR. Please, just use them appropriately.
Leonidashas joined
Leonidashas left
Leonidashas joined
ralphm
I remember a recent discussion with simon on this for BC.
simon
Go PTR!
Zash
I remember a recent discussion with DANE people at IETF that this made more sense than the _port way.
m&m
if it wasn't Viktor Dukonvni or Wes Hardraker, then it probably wasn't with people actually deploying things (-:
m&m: that's one of the most pleasant to read RFCs. Nice job btw.
m&m
Zash: /sigh … this is after spending about 2 minutes trying explain XMPP S2S to someone unfamiliar with XMPP
ralphm
woooosh
m&m
for actual XMPP clients, this might be ok, although I still doubt the actual deployability of true client certs
m&m
for servers, I think you'll have to do the SRV and TLSA lookups, or you could be getting false negatives
m&m
particularly for hosting providers that have separate certs for each individual end-point
m&m
simon: we try (-:
Zash
false negatives?
m&m
for instance, let's say hobbiton.example is hosted at a large provider with 6 s2s end-points(im1.middle-earth.example, im2.middle-earth.example, im3.middle-earth.example, im4.middle-earth.example, im5.middle-earth.example, im6.middle-earth.example)
m&m
you get an incoming connection from one of these, and you do a IN TLSA _xmpp-server.hobbiton.example
Zash
I get 6 records back, find at least one matching and then I'm happy.
m&m
if that resulted in 6 different TLSA RRs, then you'll probably be fine unless im3.middle-eath.example had to rotate keys
m&m
but if you relied on your CNAME, well things get a lot messier
Zash
Because?
m&m
if you did the SRV then TLSA lookups, you'd get a whole lot closer to reality
m&m
CNAME to multiple records are messy
Zash
Is it?
m&m
that's what I've been told at least (-:
Neustradamushas left
m&m
plus, you're requiring the owning domain and possibly hosting provider to make sure extra records are in sync, which increases the likelihood of failure
m&m
doing the same SRV + TLSA dance for incoming connections as outgoing minimizes the number of records operators have to publish (reducing the bugs)
ralphm
also, you can't point to CNAMEs with SRV
m&m
ralphm: you can have CNAME _xmpp-server._tcp.example.com
ralphm
I'm sure that goes for other record types, too
ralphmcries
Zash
ralphm: Not relevant.
m&m
ralphm: it also turns out the vast majority of resolvers don't really care where the CNAME/DNAME records are in the chain )-:
ralphm
CNAMEs only exist because there wasn't anything better
m&m
the other thing with doing the SRV + TLSA dance on incoming is that you'll almost always have cached records for the outgoing (or almost always have cached on your outgoing before you got the incoming)
simon
Ralphm: kinda like MX too?
ralphm
simon: well, yeah, MX is just e-mail specific SRV
stpeterhas joined
m&m
ralphm: kind of (-: It turns out to be more complicated than that, mixing MSA (Mail Submission Agents) and MTA (Mail Transfer Agents)
simon
I'm still watching this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14328
simon
one can have hope...
ralphm
m&m: arguably, e-mail now has different services for submission and transfer
ralphm
the fact that people still submit on 25 is, well, backwards
ralphm
(so _smtp vs. _submission)
Neustradamushas left
simonhas left
Leonidashas left
fippo
m&m: almost always, unless you're the receiving server. but then you need to outgoing dance soon anyway ;-)
m&m
fippo: that's my point (-:
m&mgoes back to cooking jose
Zash
I thougt people agreed with this already..
Zashhas left
Tobiashas left
Zashhas joined
winfriedhas left
Leonidashas joined
Lloydhas left
Neustradamushas left
Neustradamushas joined
Tobiashas joined
winfriedhas joined
Santiago26has joined
martin.hewitt@surevine.comhas left
Leonidashas left
Santiago26has left
Santiago26has left
martin.hewitt@surevine.comhas joined
Santiago26has joined
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
martin.hewitt@surevine.comhas left
martin.hewitt@surevine.comhas joined
Simonhas joined
Santiago26has left
Santiago26has left
Simon
Quick question before send out an email to the list about the <potential> DNSSEC grant: Who is it from?
Santiago26has joined
stpeter
um?
stpeter
the Internet Society are the folks we'd ask to fund this
Simon
Thanks. That's what I needed.
Simon
Doing my board task from last week - email about how we get most bang-for-buck from it.
martin.hewitt@surevine.comhas left
Laurahas left
dwdhas left
stpeter
Simon: thanks!
Santiago26has left
Santiago26has left
Santiago26has joined
Santiago26has left
Simonhas left
Simonhas joined
Santiago26has left
martin.hewitt@surevine.comhas joined
Leonidashas joined
martin.hewitt@surevine.comhas left
winfriedhas left
Simonhas left
martin.hewitt@surevine.comhas joined
Simonhas joined
martin.hewitt@surevine.comhas left
Neustradamus
Have you planned an article for the next Security Test Day? "March 22, 2014 - third test day"
Ashhas left
winfriedhas joined
Ashhas joined
Simon
Neustradamus: I'm working on that.
Santiago26
I'm going to write an article for Russian speaking audience. You may know, we have a pretty large community, including ejabberd developers, but still no one takes part in the test days. I'll try to fix this. Just FYI:)
Simon
Hi Santiago26. Which are the big XMPP servers in Russia?
martin.hewitt@surevine.comhas joined
Neustradamus
Simon: :)
Santiago26
Hi. Ya.ru (by yandex.ru search engine), qip.ru (QIP IM) — millions of users, hundreds of thousands online daily
…and jabber.ru is the godfather, but it has not so many users
Simon
Santiago26. Thanks. Do you have any way to track down the admins for those servers? It would be great to shoot them a private message from either you or myself with a quick heads-up.
Tobias
also wondering why qip.ru runs a quite old version of ejabberd
Santiago26
I think that yandex.ru admins are not accessible for me (us), qip.ru have some problems with their bosses, but we are discussing this idea, and i've tried to discuss Manifesto with zinid and ermine from jabber.ru and have no answer.
Santiago26
Tobias: It is custom version of ejabberd, forked at 2.0.3, I think.