Skip to content

For DNSSEC and Why DANE Is Needed

blog.technitium.com
29 pointsztgasdf4 comments
On HN

Comments

Thank you for sharing about DANE, I never heard of it before. It's an interesting alternative to PKI.

In my devops engineering team, a great deal of our time is passed managing and troubleshooting certificates setup (either getting them from letsencrypt, buying them from real CAs, setup local hashicorp vault as a local CA, or sharing/installing self-signed certificates).

By being able to generate "self-signed" cert ourselves and just having to setup a DNS record instead of having to have to request everyone to install it, it could free a great deal of our time. (If I understood it well)

Waiting on Route53 to offer TLSA records so I can implement DANE across the domains I’m responsible for.

DANE would be a huge improvement toward enabling TLS for resource-constrained appliance-like devices. Right now, getting TLS on a BMC or an IoT-like device or a network switch or anything similar is utterly miserable. With DANE, the device could serve up a self-signed certificate with no expiration (what’s the point of expiring it anyway?) and the DNS zone could make it trusted using DANE.

Dane seems cool

But nobody supports it

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.