[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                      S. Bortzmeyer
Internet-Draft                                                     AFNIC
Intended status: Informational                         December 17, 2013
Expires: June 20, 2014

                Possible solutions to DNS privacy issues


   This document describes some possible solutions to the DNS privacy
   issues described in [I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy].

   Discussions of the document should currently take place on the dnsop
   mailing list [dnsop].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 20, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Bortzmeyer               Expires June 20, 2014                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        Enhancements to DNS privacy          December 2013

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction and background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Possible technical solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  On the wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.1.  Reducing the attack surface . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.2.  Encrypting the DNS traffic  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  In the servers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.1.  In the resolvers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.2.  In the authoritative name servers . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.3.  Rogue servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction and background

   The problem statement is exposed in
   [I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy].  The terminology here is also
   defined in this companion document.

2.  Possible technical solutions

   We mention here only the solutions that could be deployed in the
   current Internet.  Disruptive solutions, like replacing the DNS with
   a completely new resolution protocol, are interesting but are kept
   for a future work.  Remember that the focus of this document is on
   describing the threats, not in detailing solutions.  This section is
   therefore non-normative and is NOT a technical specification of
   solutions.  For the same reason, there are not yet actual
   recommendations in this document.

   Raising seriously the bar against the eavesdropper will require
   SEVERAL actions.  Not one is decisive by itself but, together, they
   can have an effect.  The most important suggested here are:

      qname minimization,

      encryption of DNS traffic,

      padding (sending random queries from time to time).

   We detail some of these actions later, classified by the kind of
   observer (on the wire, in a server, etc).  Some actions will help

Bortzmeyer               Expires June 20, 2014                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        Enhancements to DNS privacy          December 2013

   against several kinds of observers.  For instance, padding, sending
   gratuitous queries from time to time (queries where you're not
   interested in the replies, just to disturb the analysis), is useful
   against all sorts of observers.  It is a costly technique, because it
   increases the traffic on the network but it seriously blurs the
   picture for the observer.

2.1.  On the wire

2.1.1.  Reducing the attack surface

   See Section 2.2.1 since the solution described there apply against
   on-the-wire eavesdropping as well as against observation by the

2.1.2.  Encrypting the DNS traffic

   To really defeat an eavesdropper, there is only one solution:
   encryption.  But, from the end user point of view, even if you check
   that your communication between your stub resolver and the resolver
   is encrypted, you have no way to ensure that the communication
   between the resolver and the autoritative name servers will be.
   There are two different cases, communication between the stub
   resolver and the resolver (no caching but only two parties so
   solutions which rely on an agreement may work) and communication
   between the resolver and the authoritative servers (less data because
   of caching, but many parties involved, so any solution has to scale
   well).  Encrypting the "last mile", between the user's stub resolver
   and the resolver may be sufficient since the biggest danger for
   privacy is between the stub resolver and the resolver, because there
   is no caching involved there.

   The only encryption mechanism available for DNS which is today an
   IETF standard is IPsec in ESP mode.  Its deployment in the wide
   Internet is very limited, for reasons which are out of scope here.
   Still, it may be a solution for "the last mile" and, indeed, many VPN
   solutions use it this way, encrypting the whole traffic, including
   DNS to the safe resolver.  In the IETF standards, a possible
   alternative could be DTLS [RFC6347].  It enjoyed very little actual
   deployment and its interaction with the DNS has never been
   considered, studied or of course implemented.  There are also non
   standard encryption techniques like DNScrypt [dnscrypt] for the stub
   resolver <-> resolver communication or DNScurve [dnscurve] for the
   resolver <-> authoritative server communication.  It seems today that
   the possibility of massive encryption of DNS traffic is very remote.

   A last "pervasive encryption" solution for the DNS could be the
   promising [I-D.wijngaards-dnsop-confidentialdns].

Bortzmeyer               Expires June 20, 2014                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        Enhancements to DNS privacy          December 2013

   Another solution would be to use more TCP for the queries, together
   with TLS [RFC5246].  DNS can run over TCP and it provides a good way
   to leverage the software and experience of the TLS world.  There have
   been discussions to use more TCP for the DNS, in light of reflection
   attacks (based on the spoofing of the source IP address, which is
   much more difficult with TCP).  For instance, a stub resolver could
   open a TCP connection with the resolver at startup and keep it open
   to send queries and receive responses.  The server would of course be
   free to tear down these connections at will (when it is under stress,
   for instance) and the client could reestablish them when necessary.
   Remember that TLS sessions can survive TCP connections so there is no
   need to restart the TLS negociation each time.  This DNS-over-TLS-
   over-TCP is already implemented in the Unbound resolver.  It is safe
   only if pipelining multiple questions over the same channel.  Name
   compression should also be disabled, or CRIME-style [crime] attacks
   can apply.

   Encryption alone does not guarantee perfect privacy, because of the
   available metadata.  For instance, the size of questions and
   responses, even encrypted, provide hints about what queries have been
   sent.  (DNScrypt uses random-length padding, and a 64 bytes block
   size, to limit this risk, but this raises other issues, for instance
   during amplification attacks.  Other security protocols use similar
   techniques, for instance ESPv3.)  Observing the periodicity of
   encrypted questions/responses also discloses the TTL, which is yet
   another hint about the queries.  Non-cached responses are disclosing
   the RTT between the resolver and authoritative servers.  This is a
   very useful indication to guess where authoritative servers are
   located.  Web pages are made of many resources, leading to multiple
   requests, whose number and timing fingerprint which web site is being
   browsed.  So, observing encrypted traffic is not enough to recover
   any plaintext queries, but is enough to answer the question "is one
   of my employees browsing Facebook?".  Finally, attackers can perform
   a denial-of-service attack on possible targets, check if this makes a
   difference on the encrypted traffic they observe, and infer what a
   query was.

2.2.  In the servers

2.2.1.  In the resolvers

   It does not seem there is a possible solution against a leaky
   resolver.  A resolver has to see the entire DNS traffic in clear.

Bortzmeyer               Expires June 20, 2014                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        Enhancements to DNS privacy          December 2013

   The best approach to limit the problem is to have local resolvers
   whose caching will limit the leak.  Local networks should have a
   local caching resolver (even if it forwards the unanswered questions
   to a forwarder) and individual laptops can have their very own
   resolver, too.

   One mechanism to potentially mitigate on the wire attacks between
   stub resolvers and caching resolvers is to determine if the network
   location of the caching resolver can be moved closer to the end
   user's computer (reducing the attack surface).  As noted earlier in
   [I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy], if an end user's computer is
   configured with a caching resolver on the edge of the local network,
   an attacker would need to gain access to that local network in order
   to successfully execute an on the wire attack against the stub
   resolver.  On the other hand, if the end user's computer is
   configured to use a public DNS service as the caching resolver, the
   attacker needs to simply get in the network path between the end user
   and the public DNS server and so there is a much greater opportunity
   for a successful attack.  Configuring a caching resolver closer to
   the end user can also reduce the possibility of on the wire attacks.

2.2.2.  In the authoritative name servers

   A possible solution would be to minimize the amount of data sent from
   the resolver.  When a resolver receives the query "What is the AAAA
   record for www.example.com?", it sends to the root (assuming a cold
   resolver, whose cache is empty) the very same question.  Sending
   "What are the NS records for .com?"  would be sufficient (since it
   will be the answer from the root anyway).  To do so would be
   compatible with the current DNS system and therefore could be
   deployable, since it is an unilateral change to the resolvers.

   To do so, the resolver needs to know the zone cut [RFC2181].  There
   is not a zone cut at every label boundary.  If we take the name
   www.foo.bar.example, it is possible that there is a zone cut between
   "foo" and "bar" but not between "bar" and "example".  So, assuming
   the resolver already knows the name servers of .example, when it
   receives the query "What is the AAAA record of www.foo.bar.example",
   it does not always know if the request should be sent to the name
   servers of bar.example or to those of example.  [RFC2181] suggests an
   algorithm to find the zone cut, so resolvers may try it.

   Note that DNSSEC-validating resolvers already have access to this
   information, since they have to find the zone cut (the DNSKEY record
   set is just below, the DS record set just above).

   It can be noted that minimizing the amount of data sent also
   partially addresses the case of a wire sniffer.

Bortzmeyer               Expires June 20, 2014                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        Enhancements to DNS privacy          December 2013

   One should note that the behaviour suggested here (minimizing the
   amount of data sent in qnames) is NOT forbidden by the [RFC1034]
   (section 5.3.3) or [RFC1035] (section 7.2).  Sending the full qname
   to the authoritative name server is a tradition, not a protocol

   Another note is that the answer to the NS query, unlike the referral
   sent when the question is a full qname, is in the Answer section, not
   in the Authoritative section.  It has probably no practical

2.2.3.  Rogue servers

   Traditional security measures (do not let malware change the system
   configuration) are of course a must.  A protection against rogue
   servers announced by DHCP could be to have a local resolver, and to
   always use it, ignoring DHCP.

3.  Security considerations

   Hey, man, the entire document is about security!

4.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Olaf Kolkman and Francis Dupont for the interesting
   discussions, specially about qname minimization.  Thanks to Mohsen
   Souissi for proofreading.

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July


Bortzmeyer               Expires June 20, 2014                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        Enhancements to DNS privacy          December 2013

              Bortzmeyer, S., "DNS privacy problem statement", draft-
              bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy-00 (work in progress),
              November 2013.

5.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2181]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
              Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC
              4033, March 2005.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [RFC5936]  Lewis, E. and A. Hoenes, "DNS Zone Transfer Protocol
              (AXFR)", RFC 5936, June 2010.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.

              Koch, P., "Confidentiality Aspects of DNS Data,
              Publication, and Resolution", draft-koch-perpass-dns-
              confidentiality-00 (work in progress), November 2013.

              Contavalli, C., Gaast, W., Leach, S., and E. Lewis,
              "Client Subnet in DNS Requests", draft-vandergaast-edns-
              client-subnet-02 (work in progress), July 2013.

              Wijngaards, W., "Confidential DNS", draft-wijngaards-
              dnsop-confidentialdns-00 (work in progress), November

   [dnsop]    IETF, , "The dnsop mailing list", October 2013.

              Dagon, D., "Corrupted DNS Resolution Paths: The Rise of a
              Malicious Resolution Authority", 2007.

              Stoner, E., "DNS footprint of malware", October 2010.


Bortzmeyer               Expires June 20, 2014                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        Enhancements to DNS privacy          December 2013

              Lemos, R., "Got Malware? Three Signs Revealed In DNS
              Traffic", May 2013.

              Wikipedia, , "DNSchanger", November 2011.

              Denis, F., "DNSCrypt", .

              Bernstein, D., "DNScurve", .

   [prism]    NSA, , "PRISM", 2007.

   [crime]    Rizzo, J. and T. Dong, "The CRIME attack against TLS",

   [ditl]     , "A Day in the Life of the Internet (DITL)", 2002.

              , "European directive 95/46/EC on the protection of
              individuals with regard to the processing of personal data
              and on the free movement of such data", November 1995.

              Weimer, F., "Passive DNS Replication", April 2005.

              , "DNS leaks in Tor", 2013.

Author's Address

   Stephane Bortzmeyer
   Immeuble International
   Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines  78181

   Phone: +33 1 39 30 83 46
   Email: bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr
   URI:   http://www.afnic.fr/

Bortzmeyer               Expires June 20, 2014                  [Page 8]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/