|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful)
> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 17:37:57 -0500 > From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <[email protected]> > To: "You're welcome" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) > [...] > Well, yes, Paul, but unless I misunderstood you, that's exactly the > point. If a client inside a NAT cloud does a DNS lookup to a > supposedly authoritative server outside, and the NAT box is _required_ > to strip off the signature (which it would, because it has to change > the data), then it's not possibile, by definition, for any client > inside such a NAT box to make any use of SecDNS. > > The point is that you _can't_ regenerate the signature, usefully to the > client, anyway, precisely because _it is a signature_. Presumably, the NAT could, o Verify the signature of the DNS responses it receives, and dump any responses that don't meet its [authentication] criteria, or o Sign the the response it creates and let the client verify the NAT's signature. Presumably, the client will trust the NAT. -tjs
|