[ksk-rollover] ICANN board meeting result and the Current status of KSK-Rollover

Carlos M. Martinez carlosm3011 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 18 14:24:58 UTC 2018

+1 to both of Paul’s points.

1- splitting the keys is good
2- rolling (semi)anually seems a good thing too, prevents people from 
becoming complacent

On 18 Sep 2018, at 11:22, Paul Wouters wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
>> Do we really still need spliting KSK/ZSK?
> Yes we do. The number of KSK private key access should be kept at a
> minimum and all of them audited. If you remove the split, any 
> operations
> person can create secret ZSKs to be used in targeted attacks. It might
> be very unlikely but I think we need the insurance.
>> On 9/18/18 3:46 PM, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
>>>  I think we should set an "intense" schedule (twice per year? once 
>>> per
>>>  year?) _beforehand_, to send the message that "there is no relief 
>>> after
>>>  this, there is only more pain ahead ... unless you automate!" to 
>>> the DNS
>>>  software community. There must be no way to hardcode the KSK in 
>>> code.
>>>  This will continue to be this painful until that message is 
>>> received and
>>>  understood.
> I agree doing this annually would prevent hardcoding in software. I
> think that is a great discussion to start a week after this roll :)
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> ksk-rollover mailing list
> ksk-rollover at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ksk-rollover

More information about the ksk-rollover mailing list