* Tomas Mraz:
On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 10:02 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:38 pm, Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > Not sure if that's compatible with the new split DNS model because
> > VPN1
> > could simply start pushing longer names in the scope of VPN2, thus
> > hijacking internal traffic there (and this sort of hijacking is
> > exactly
> > what a DNS sinkhole against typosquatting would need).
>
> You deserve bonus points for thinking like an attacker and exploring
> the security model, but let's assume the configured VPNs are
> trusted.
> Otherwise the user is screwed no matter what. ;)
Trusted for what? I would expect corporate VPNs doing such tricks to
monitor the user's internet traffic. Which does not mean the user is
fully screwed with such VPN if he for example uses hardcoded
configuration of a caching nameserver.
Yes, what I described was given as a motivation for this change.
I find the response puzzling. I would definitely like to see greater
robustness to hostile networks, but it is a lot of work. Really a lot.
Lots of code to review, and quite a few shell scripts as well.
Thanks,
Florian