Commit 1d24d9f5 authored by Mark Andrews's avatar Mark Andrews
Browse files

new draft

parent ff48eb47
This diff is collapsed.
This diff is collapsed.
This diff is collapsed.
Network Working Group S. Weiler
Internet-Draft SPARTA, Inc
Updates: 4034, 4035 (if approved) J. Ihren
Expires: November 13, 2005 Autonomica AB
May 12, 2005
Minimally Covering NSEC Records and DNSSEC On-line Signing
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 13, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document describes how to construct DNSSEC NSEC resource records
that cover a smaller range of names than called for by RFC4034. By
generating and signing these records on demand, authoritative name
servers can effectively stop the disclosure of zone contents
otherwise made possible by walking the chain of NSEC records in a
signed zone.
Weiler & Ihren Expires November 13, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon May 2005
Changes from weiler-01 to ietf-00
Inserted RFC numbers for 4033, 4034, and 4035.
Specified contents of bitmap field in synthesized NSEC RR's, pointing
out that this relaxes a constraint in 4035. Added 4035 to the
Updates header.
Changes from weiler-00 to weiler-01
Clarified that this updates RFC4034 by relaxing requirements on the
next name field.
Added examples covering wildcard names.
In the 'better functions' section, reiterated that perfect functions
aren't needed.
Added a reference to RFC 2119.
Weiler & Ihren Expires November 13, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon May 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Minimally Covering NSEC Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Better Increment & Decrement Functions . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 10
Weiler & Ihren Expires November 13, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon May 2005
1. Introduction and Terminology
With DNSSEC [1], an NSEC record lists the next instantiated name in
its zone, proving that no names exist in the "span" between the
NSEC's owner name and the name in the "next name" field. In this
document, an NSEC record is said to "cover" the names between its
owner name and next name.
Through repeated queries that return NSEC records, it is possible to
retrieve all of the names in the zone, a process commonly called
"walking" the zone. Some zone owners have policies forbidding zone
transfers by arbitrary clients; this side-effect of the NSEC
architecture subverts those policies.
This document presents a way to prevent zone walking by constructing
NSEC records that cover fewer names. These records can make zone
walking take approximately as many queries as simply asking for all
possible names in a zone, making zone walking impractical. Some of
these records must be created and signed on demand, which requires
on-line private keys. Anyone contemplating use of this technique is
strongly encouraged to review the discussion of the risks of on-line
signing in Section 5.
The technique presented here may be useful to a zone owner that wants
to use DNSSEC, is concerned about exposure of its zone contents via
zone walking, and is willing to bear the costs of on-line signing.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [4].
2. Minimally Covering NSEC Records
This mechanism involves changes to NSEC records for instantiated
names, which can still be generated and signed in advance, as well as
the on-demand generation and signing of new NSEC records whenever a
name must be proven not to exist.
In the 'next name' field of instantiated names' NSEC records, rather
than list the next instantiated name in the zone, list any name that
falls lexically after the NSEC's owner name and before the next
instantiated name in the zone, according to the ordering function in
RFC4034 [2] section 6.2. This relaxes the requirement in section
4.1.1 of RFC4034 that the 'next name' field contains the next owner
name in the zone. This change is expected to be fully compatible
with all existing DNSSEC validators. These NSEC records are returned
whenever proving something specifically about the owner name (e.g.
that no resource records of a given type appear at that name).
Weiler & Ihren Expires November 13, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon May 2005
Whenever an NSEC record is needed to prove the non-existence of a
name, a new NSEC record is dynamically produced and signed. The new
NSEC record has an owner name lexically before the QNAME but
lexically following any existing name and a 'next name' lexically
following the QNAME but before any existing name.
The generated NSEC record's type bitmap SHOULD have the RRSIG and
NSEC bits set and SHOULD NOT have any other bits set. This relaxes
the requirement in Section 2.3 of RFC4035 that NSEC RRs not appear at
names that did not exist before the zone wsa signed.
The functions to generate the lexically following and proceeding
names need not be perfect nor consistent, but the generated NSEC
records must not cover any existing names. Furthermore, this
technique works best when the generated NSEC records cover as few
names as possible.
An NSEC record denying the existence of a wildcard may be generated
in the same way. Since the NSEC record covering a non-existent
wildcard is likely to be used in response to many queries,
authoritative name servers using the techniques described here may
want to pregenerate or cache that record and its corresponding RRSIG.
For example, a query for an A record at the non-instantiated name
example.com might produce the following two NSEC records, the first
denying the existence of the name example.com and the second denying
the existence of a wildcard:
exampld.com 3600 IN NSEC example-.com ( RRSIG NSEC )
).com 3600 IN NSEC +.com ( RRSIG NSEC )
Before answering a query with these records, an authoritative server
must test for the existence of names between these endpoints. If the
generated NSEC would cover existing names (e.g. exampldd.com or
*bizarre.example.com), a better increment or decrement function may
be used or the covered name closest to the QNAME could be used as the
NSEC owner name or next name, as appropriate. If an existing name is
used as the NSEC owner name, that name's real NSEC record MUST be
returned. Using the same example, assuming an exampldd.com
delegation exists, this record might be returned from the parent:
exampldd.com 3600 IN NSEC example-.com ( NS DS RRSIG NSEC )
Like every authoritative record in the zone, each generated NSEC
record MUST have corresponding RRSIGs generated using each algorithm
(but not necessarily each DNSKEY) in the zone's DNSKEY RRset, as
described in RFC4035 [3] section 2.2. To minimize the number of
Weiler & Ihren Expires November 13, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon May 2005
signatures that must be generated, a zone may wish to limit the
number of algorithms in its DNSKEY RRset.
3. Better Increment & Decrement Functions
Section 6.2 of RFC4034 defines a strict ordering of DNS names.
Working backwards from that definition, it should be possible to
define increment and decrement functions that generate the
immediately following and preceding names, respectively. This
document does not define such functions. Instead, this section
presents functions that come reasonably close to the perfect ones.
As described above, an authoritative server should still ensure than
no generated NSEC covers any existing name.
To increment a name, add a leading label with a single null (zero-
value) octet.
To decrement a name, decrement the last character of the leftmost
label, then fill that label to a length of 63 octets with octets of
value 255. To decrement a null (zero-value) octet, remove the octet
-- if an empty label is left, remove the label. Defining this
function numerically: fill the left-most label to its maximum length
with zeros (numeric, not ASCII zeros) and subtract one.
In response to a query for the non-existent name foo.example.com,
these functions produce NSEC records of:
fon\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255
\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255
\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255
\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255
\255.example.com 3600 IN NSEC \000.foo.example.com ( NSEC RRSIG )
)\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255
\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255
\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255
\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255
\255\255.example.com 3600 IN NSEC \000.*.example.com ( NSEC RRSIG )
The first of these NSEC RRs proves that no exact match for
foo.example.com exists, and the second proves that there is no
wildcard in example.com.
Both of these functions are imperfect: they don't take into account
constraints on number of labels in a name nor total length of a name.
As noted in the previous section, though, this technique does not
depend on the use of perfect increment or decrement functions: it is
sufficient to test whether any instantiated names fall into the span
Weiler & Ihren Expires November 13, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon May 2005
covered by the generated NSEC and, if so, substitute those
instantiated owner names for the NSEC owner name or next name, as
appropriate.
4. IANA Considerations
Per RFC4041, IANA should think carefully about the protection of
their immortal souls.
5. Security Considerations
This approach requires on-demand generation of RRSIG records. This
creates several new vulnerabilities.
First, on-demand signing requires that a zone's authoritative servers
have access to its private keys. Storing private keys on well-known
internet-accessible servers may make them more vulnerable to
unintended disclosure.
Second, since generation of public key signatures tends to be
computationally demanding, the requirement for on-demand signing
makes authoritative servers vulnerable to a denial of service attack.
Lastly, if the increment and decrement functions are predictable, on-
demand signing may enable a chosen-plaintext attack on a zone's
private keys. Zones using this approach should attempt to use
cryptographic algorithms that are resistant to chosen-plaintext
attacks. It's worth noting that while DNSSEC has a "mandatory to
implement" algorithm, that is a requirement on resolvers and
validators -- there is no requirement that a zone be signed with any
given algorithm.
The success of using minimally covering NSEC record to prevent zone
walking depends greatly on the quality of the increment and decrement
functions chosen. An increment function that chooses a name
obviously derived from the next instantiated name may be easily
reverse engineered, destroying the value of this technique. An
increment function that always returns a name close to the next
instantiated name is likewise a poor choice. Good choices of
increment and decrement functions are the ones that produce the
immediately following and preceding names, respectively, though zone
administrators may wish to use less perfect functions that return
more human-friendly names than the functions described in Section 3
above.
Another obvious but misguided concern is the danger from synthesized
NSEC records being replayed. It's possible for an attacker to replay
an old but still validly signed NSEC record after a new name has been
Weiler & Ihren Expires November 13, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon May 2005
added in the span covered by that NSEC, incorrectly proving that
there is no record at that name. This danger exists with DNSSEC as
defined in [-bis]. The techniques described here actually decrease
the danger, since the span covered by any NSEC record is smaller than
before. Choosing better increment and decrement functions will
further reduce this danger.
6. Normative References
[1] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
"DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033,
March 2005.
[2] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
"Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034,
March 2005.
[3] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
"Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4035, March 2005.
[4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Authors' Addresses
Samuel Weiler
SPARTA, Inc
7075 Samuel Morse Drive
Columbia, Maryland 21046
US
Email: weiler@tislabs.com
Johan Ihren
Autonomica AB
Bellmansgatan 30
Stockholm SE-118 47
Sweden
Email: johani@autonomica.se
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Many individuals contributed to this design. They include, in
addition to the authors of this document, Olaf Kolkman, Ed Lewis,
Weiler & Ihren Expires November 13, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon May 2005
Peter Koch, Matt Larson, David Blacka, Suzanne Woolf, Jaap Akkerhuis,
Jakob Schlyter, Bill Manning, and Joao Damas.
The key innovation of this document, namely that perfect increment
and decrement functions are not necessary, arose during a discussion
among the above-listed people at the RIPE49 meeting in September
2004.
Weiler & Ihren Expires November 13, 2005 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon May 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Weiler & Ihren Expires November 13, 2005 [Page 10]
DNS Extensions Working Group J. Schlyter
Internet-Draft August 24, 2004
Expires: February 22, 2005
Internet-Draft May 19, 2005
Expires: November 20, 2005
RFC 3597 Interoperability Report
draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-01.txt
draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3667.
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 22, 2005.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 20, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
......@@ -49,11 +49,9 @@ Abstract
Schlyter Expires November 20, 2005 [Page 1]