We're sorry but this page doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.
Feedback

The Different Ways of Minimizing ANY

Formale Metadaten

Titel
The Different Ways of Minimizing ANY
Serientitel
Anzahl der Teile
490
Autor
Lizenz
CC-Namensnennung 2.0 Belgien:
Sie dürfen das Werk bzw. den Inhalt zu jedem legalen Zweck nutzen, verändern und in unveränderter oder veränderter Form vervielfältigen, verbreiten und öffentlich zugänglich machen, sofern Sie den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen.
Identifikatoren
Herausgeber
Erscheinungsjahr
Sprache

Inhaltliche Metadaten

Fachgebiet
Genre
Abstract
The DNS Protocol has features that have grown to become liabilities. The query type "ANY" is one. Earlier this year a published RFC document describes how a DNS server may respond to such queries while reducing the liability. But the document does not define a definitive means for a server to signal that it is differing from the original protocol. This presentation measures of the impact of having no definitive means specified and examines the "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" of lacking explicit signals. The "minimal ANY responses" RFC (Providing Minimal-Sized Responses to DNS Queries That Have QTYPE=ANY, a.k.a. RFC 8482) results in about 1% of the TLD nameservers indicating they are minimizing ANY responses. That's (only) about 250 cases. What is troubling is that there are about 9 different responses observed to indicate the response is "minimized" 9 different ways in just 250 samples, "fuzzing" the protocol The morale of this tale is that "fuzzying" the protocol is worrisome. (Not that minimizing ANY is a bad thing.)