[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-dukhovni-dane-ops) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 RFC 7671

DANE                                                         V. Dukhovni
Internet-Draft                                              Unaffiliated
Intended status: Best Current Practice                       W. Hardaker
Expires: July 19, 2014                                           Parsons
                                                        January 15, 2014


           DANE TLSA implementation and operational guidance
                         draft-ietf-dane-ops-02

Abstract

   This memo provides guidance to server operators to help ensure that
   clients will be able to authenticate a server's certificate chain via
   published TLSA records.  Guidance is also provided to clients for
   selecting reliable TLSA record parameters and using them for server
   authentication.  Finally, guidance is given to protocol designers who
   wish to make use of TLSA records when securing protocols using a
   combination of TLS and TLSA.

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 July 19, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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



Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  DANE TLSA record overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Example TLSA record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  General DANE Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  TLS Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  DANE DNS Record Size Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Certificate Name Check Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Service Provider and TLSA Publisher Synchronization . . .   8
     3.5.  TLSA Base Domain and CNAMEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.6.  Interaction with Certificate Transparency . . . . . . . .  10
     3.7.  Design Considerations for Protocols Using DANE  . . . . .  11
     3.8.  TLSA Records and Trust Anchor Digests . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.9.  Trust anchor public keys  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.  Certificate Usage Specific DANE Guidelines  . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.1.  Certificate Usage DANE-EE(3) Guidelines . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.2.  Certificate Usage DANE-TA(2) Guidelines . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.3.  Certificate Usage PKIX-EE(1) Guidelines . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.4.  Certificate Usage PKIX-TA(0) Guidelines . . . . . . . . .  15
   5.  Note on DNSSEC security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Introduction

   Section 2 of [RFC6698] specifies a new "TLSA" DNS resource record
   which associates with a TLS transport endpoint the corresponding
   trusted leaf or issuing authority certificates or public keys.
   DNSSEC-validated DANE TLSA records can be used to augment or replace
   the trust model of the existing public CA PKI.

   [RFC6698] defines 24 combinations of TLSA record parameters.
   Additional complexity arises when the TLS transport endpoint is
   obtained indirectly via SRV, MX and CNAME records or other mechanisms
   that map an abstract service domain to a concrete server domain.
   With service indirection there are multiple potential places for
   clients to find the relevant TLSA records.  Service indirection is
   often used to implement "virtual hosting", where a single Service



Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


   Provider transport endpoint simultaneously supports multiple hosted
   domains.  With services that employ TLS, such hosting arrangements
   may require the Service Provider to employ multiple pairs of private
   keys and certificates with TLS clients signalling the desired domain
   via SNI ([RFC6066], section 3).  This memo provides operational
   guidelines intended to maximize interoperability between DANE TLS
   clients and servers.

   In the context of this memo, channel security is assumed to be
   provided by TLS or DTLS.  The Transport Layer Security (TLS) and
   Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocols provide secured
   TCP and UDP communication over the Internet Protocol.  By convention,
   "TLS" will be used throughout this document and, unless otherwise
   specified, the text applies equally well to the DTLS protocol.  Used
   without authentication, TLS provides protection only against
   eavesdropping.  With authentication, TLS also provides protection
   against man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks.

1.1.  Terminology

   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 [RFC2119].

   The following terms are used throughout this document:

   Service Provider:  A company or organization that offers to host a
      service on behalf of a Customer Domain.  The original domain name
      associated with the service often remains under the control of the
      customer.  Connecting applications are directed to the Service
      Provider via a redirection resource record.  Example redirection
      records include MX, SRV, and CNAME.  The Service Provider
      typically provides services for many customers and must carefully
      manage any TLS credentials offered to connecting applications to
      ensure name matching is handled easily by the applications.

   Customer Domain:  Customers that make use of a Service Provider to
      outsource their services will be referred to as "Customer
      Domains".

   TLSA Publisher:  The entity responsible for publishing a TLSA record
      within a DNS zone.  This zone will be considered DNSSEC-signed and
      validatable to a trust anchor, unless otherwise specified.  If the
      Customer Domain is not outsourcing their DNS service, the TLSA
      Publisher will be the customer themselves.  Otherwise the TLSA
      Publisher may be the operator of the outsourced DNS service.





Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


   public key:  The term "public key" will be an informal short-hand for
      the subjectPublicKeyInfo component of a PKIX certificate.

   SNI:  "Server Name Indication", or SNI, describes the TLS protocol
      extension by which a TLS client requests to connect to a
      particular service name of a TLS server ([RFC6066], section 3).
      Without this TLS extension, a TLS server has no choice but to
      offer a PKIX certificate with a default list of server names,
      making it difficult to host multiple Customer Domains at the same
      TLS service endpoint (secure virtual hosting).

2.  DANE TLSA record overview

   DANE TLSA [RFC6698] specifies a protocol for publishing TLS server
   certificate associations via DNSSEC.  The DANE TLSA specification
   defines multiple TLSA RR types via combinations of 3 numeric
   parameters.  The numeric values of these parameters were later given
   symbolic names in [I-D.ietf-dane-registry-acronyms].  These
   parameters are:

   The TLSA Certificate Usage field:  Section 2.1.1 of [RFC6698]
      specifies 4 values: PKIX-TA(0), PKIX-EE(1), DANE-TA(2), and DANE-
      EE(3).  There is an additional private-use value: PrivCert(255).
      All other values are reserved for use by future specifications.

   The selector field:  Section 2.1.2 of [RFC6698] specifies 2 values:
      Cert(0), SPKI(1).  There is an additional private-use value:
      PrivSel(255).  All other values are reserved for use by future
      specifications.

   The matching type field:  Section 2.1.3 of [RFC6698] specifies 3
      values: Full(0), SHA2-256(1), SHA2-512(2).  There is an additional
      private-use value: PrivMatch(255).  All other values are reserved
      for use by future specifications.

   We may think of TLSA Certificate Usage values 0 through 3 as a
   combination of two one-bit flags.  The low-bit chooses between trust
   anchor (TA) and end entity (EE) certificates.  The high bit chooses
   between public PKI issued and domain-issued certificates:

   o  When the low bit is set (PKIX-EE(1) and DANE-EE(3)) the TLSA
      record matches an EE (commonly referred to as a leaf or server)
      certificate.

   o  When the low bit is not set (PKIX-TA(0) and DANE-TA(2)) the TLSA
      record matches a trust anchor (a certificate authority) that
      issued one of the certificates in the server certificate chain.




Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


   o  When the high bit is set (DANE-TA(2) and DANE-EE(3)), the server
      certificate chain is domain-issued and may be verified without
      reference to any pre-existing public certificate authority PKI.
      Trust is entirely placed on the content of the TLSA records
      obtained via DNSSEC.

   o  When the high bit is not set (PKIX-TA(0) and PKIX-EE(1)), the TLSA
      record publishes a server policy stating that its certificate
      chain must pass PKIX validation [RFC5280] and the DANE TLSA record
      is used to constrain the server certificate chain to contain the
      referenced CA or EE certificate.

   The selector field specifies whether the TLSA RR matches the whole
   certificate (Cert(0)) or just its subjectPublicKeyInfo (SPKI(1)).
   The subjectPublicKeyInfo is an ASN.1 DER encoding of the
   certificate's algorithm id, any parameters and the public key data.

   The matching type field specifies how the TLSA RR Certificate
   Association Data field is to be compared with the certificate or
   public key.  A value of Full(0) means an exact match: the full DER
   encoding of the certificate or public key is given in the TLSA RR.  A
   value of SHA2-256(1) means that the association data matches the
   SHA2-256 digest of the certificate or public key, and likewise
   SHA2-512(2) means a SHA2-512 digest is used.  Of the two digest
   algorithms, for now only SHA2-256(1) is mandatory to implement.
   Clients SHOULD implement SHA2-512(2), but servers SHOULD NOT
   exclusively publish SHA2-512(2) digests.  A digest algorithm agility
   protocol is proposed in section 2.3.3 of
   [I-D.ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane] that SHOULD be used by clients to
   decide how to process TLSA RRsets that employ multiple digest
   algorithms.  Server operators MUST publish TLSA RRsets that are
   compatible with digest algorithm agility.

2.1.  Example TLSA record

   In the example TLSA record below:

     _25._tcp.mail.example.com. IN TLSA 2 0 1 (
                                   E8B54E0B4BAA815B06D3462D65FBC7C0
                                   CF556ECCF9F5303EBFBB77D022F834C0 )

   The TLSA Certificate Usage is DANE-TA(2), the selector is Cert(0) and
   the matching type is SHA2-256(1).  The rest of the record is the
   certificate association data field, which is in this case the
   SHA2-256 digest of the server certificate.

3.  General DANE Guidelines




Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


   These guidelines provide guidance for using or designing protocols
   for DANE, regardless of what sort of TLSA record will be used.

3.1.  TLS Requirements

   TLS clients that support DANE/TLSA MUST support at least TLS 1.0 and
   SHOULD support TLS 1.2.  TLS clients and servers using DANE SHOULD
   support the "Server Name Indication" extension of TLS.

3.2.  DANE DNS Record Size Guidelines

   Selecting a combination of TLSA parameters to use requires careful
   thought.  One important consideration to take into account is the
   size of the resulting TLSA record after its parameters are selected.

3.2.1.  UDP and TCP Considerations

   Deployments SHOULD avoid TLSA record sizes that cause UDP
   fragmentation.

   Although DNS over TCP would provide the ability to transfer larger
   DNS records between clients and servers, it is not universally
   deployed and is still blocked by some firewalls.  Clients that
   request DNS records via UDP typically only use TCP upon receipt of a
   truncated response in TCP.

3.2.2.  Packet Size Considerations for TLSA Parameters

   Server operators SHOULD NOT publish TLSA records using both a TLSA
   Selector of Cert(0) and a TLSA Matching Type of Full(0), as even a
   single certificate is generally too large to be reliably delivered
   via DNS over UDP.  Furthermore, two TLSA records containing full
   certificates may need to be published during certificate rollover.

   While TLSA records using a TLSA Selector of SPKI(1) and a TLSA
   Matching Type of Full(0), publishing full public keys without the
   full X.509 wrapping, are generally more compact, these too should be
   used with caution as they are still larger than necessary.  Rather,
   servers SHOULD make use of the digest-based TLSA Matching Types
   within TLSA records.  The complete corresponding certificate should,
   instead, be transmitted to the client in-band during the TLS
   handshake.

   In summary, the use of a TLSA Matching Type of Full(0) is NOT
   RECOMMENDED and the use of SHA2-256(1) and SHA2-512(2) is strongly
   preferred.





Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


3.3.  Certificate Name Check Conventions

   Certificates presented by a TLS server will generally contain a
   Common Name (CN) element in the subject distinguished name (DN) and/
   or a subjectAltName (SAN) extension.  The server's DNS hostname
   should be published within these elements, ideally within the
   subjectAltName extension as use of the CN field for this purpose is
   deprecated.  Name checks SHOULD NOT consider the subject CN when SAN
   values of type 'dns' are present.

   When a server hosts multiple domains at the same transport endpoint,
   the server's ability to respond with the right certificate chain is
   predicated on correct SNI information from the client.  DANE clients
   MUST send the SNI extension with a HostName value of the base domain
   of the TLSA RRset.

   Except with TLSA Certificate Usage DANE-EE(3), where name checks are
   not applicable (see Section 4.1), DANE clients MUST verify that the
   client has reached the correct server by checking that the server
   name is listed in the server certificate.  The server name used for
   this comparison SHOULD be the base domain of the TLSA RRset.
   Additional acceptable names may be specified by protocol-specific
   DANE standards.  For example, with SMTP both the destination domain
   name and the MX host name are acceptable names to be found in the
   server certificate (see [I-D.ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane]).

   It is the responsibility of the service operator in coordination with
   the TLSA Publisher to ensure that at least one of the TLSA records
   published for the service will match the server's certificate chain
   (either the default chain or selected based on the SNI information
   from the client).  With certificate usage values other than DANE-
   EE(3) the server leaf (EE) certificate MUST include the TLSA base
   domain as one of its names, or else if other acceptable names are
   specified by a protocol-specific DANE standard, one of those can be
   used in place of the TLSA base domain.

   Given the DNSSEC validated DNS records below:

     example.com. IN MX 0 mail.example.com.
     _25._tcp.mail.example.com. IN TLSA 2 0 1 (
                                   E8B54E0B4BAA815B06D3462D65FBC7C0
                                   CF556ECCF9F5303EBFBB77D022F834C0 )

   the TLSA base domain is "mail.example.com" and this MUST be the
   HostName in the client's SNI extension.  The server certificate chain
   MUST be signed by a trust anchor with the above certificate SHA2-256
   digest.  One of the DNS names in the server certificate MUST be
   either "mail.example.com" or "example.com".



Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


3.4.  Service Provider and TLSA Publisher Synchronization

   Complications arise when the TLSA Publisher is not the same entity as
   the Service Provider.  In this situation, the TLSA Publisher and the
   Service Provider must cooperate to ensure that TLSA records published
   by the TLSA Publisher don't fall out of sync with the server
   certificate configuration used by the Service Provider.

   Whenever possible, the TLSA Publisher and the Service Provider should
   be the same entity.  Otherwise changes in the service certificate
   chain must be carefully coordinated between the parties involved.
   Such coordination is difficult and outages will result when the
   process fails.

   Even when the TLSA RRset must be published in the Customer Domain's
   DNS zone, it is possible to employ CNAME records (see Section 3.5) to
   delegate the content of the TLSA RRset to a domain operated by the
   Service Provider.  Having the master TLSA record in the Service
   Provider's zone avoids the complexity of bilateral coordination of
   server certificate configuration and TLSA record management.
   Certificate name checks generally constrain the applicability of TLSA
   CNAMEs across organizational boundaries to Certificate Usages DANE-
   EE(3) and DANE-TA(2):

   Certificate Usage DANE-EE(3):  In this case the Service Provider can
      publish a single TLSA RRset that matches the server certificate or
      public key digest.  The same RRset works for all Customer Domains
      because name checks do not apply with DANE-EE(3) TLSA records.  A
      Customer Domain can create a CNAME record pointing to the TLSA
      RRset published by the Service Provider.

   Certificate Usage DANE-TA(2):  When the Service Provider operates a
      private certificate authority, the Service Provider is free to
      issue a certificate bearing any customer's domain name.  Without
      DANE, such a certificate would not pass trust verification, but
      with DANE, the customer's TLSA RRset aliased to the provider's
      TLSA RRset can grant legitimacy to the provider's CA for the
      service in question!  The Service Provider can generate
      appropriate certificates for each customer and use SNI to select
      the right certificate chain to present to each client.

   Below are example DNS records that illustrate both of of the above
   cases in the case of an HTTPS service whose clients all support DANE
   TLS.







Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


     ; Hosted web service redirected via a CNAME alias.
     ; Associated TLSA RRset redirected via a CNAME alias.
     ;
     ; Single certificate at provider works for all Customer Domains
     ;
     www1.example.com. IN CNAME www311.example.net.
     _443._tcp.www3.example.com. IN CNAME _443._tcp.www311.example.net.
     _443._tcp.www311.example.net. IN TLSA 3 1 1 (
                                   8A9A70596E869BED72C69D97A8895DFA
                                   D86F300A343FECEFF19E89C27C896BC9 )
     ;
     ; CA at provider can issue certificates for each Customer Domain.
     ;
     www2.example.com. IN CNAME www201.example.net.
     _443._tcp.www2.example.com. IN CNAME _443._tcp.www201.example.net.
     _443._tcp.www201.example.net. IN TLSA 2 0 1 (
                                   C164B2C3F36D068D42A6138E446152F5
                                   68615F28C69BD96A73E354CAC88ED00C )

   With protocols that support explicit transport redirection via DNS MX
   records, SRV records, or other similar records, the TLSA base domain
   is based on the redirected transport end-point, rather than the
   origin domain.  With SMTP for example, when email service is hosted
   by a Service Provider, the Customer Domain's MX hostnames will point
   at the Service Provider's SMTP hosts.  When the Customer Domain's DNS
   zone is signed, the MX hostnames can be securely used as the base
   domains for TLSA records that are published and managed by the
   Service Provider.  For example:

     ; Hosted SMTP service
     ;
     example.com. IN MX 0 mx1.example.net.
     example.com. IN MX 0 mx2.example.net.
     _25._tcp.mx1.example.net. IN TLSA 3 1 1 (
                                   8A9A70596E869BED72C69D97A8895DFA
                                   D86F300A343FECEFF19E89C27C896BC9 )
     _25._tcp.mx2.example.net. IN TLSA 3 1 1 (
                                   C164B2C3F36D068D42A6138E446152F5
                                   68615F28C69BD96A73E354CAC88ED00C )

   If redirection to the Service Provider's domain (via MX or SRV
   records or any similar mechanism) is not possible, and aliasing of
   the TLSA record is not an option, then more complex coordination
   between the Customer Domain and Service Provider is required.  Either
   the Customer Domain periodically provides private keys and a
   corresponding certificate chain to the Provider after making
   appropriate changes in its TLSA records, or the Service Provider
   periodically generates the keys and certificates and must wait for



Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


   matching TLSA records to be published by its Customer Domains before
   deploying newly generated keys and certificate chains.

3.5.  TLSA Base Domain and CNAMEs

   When the protocol does not support service location indirection via
   MX, SRV or similar DNS records, the service may be redirected via a
   CNAME.  A CNAME is a more blunt instrument for this purpose, since
   unlike an MX or SRV record, it remaps the origin domain to the target
   domain for all protocols.

   The complexity of coordinating key rollover is largely eliminated
   when DANE TLSA records are found in the Service Provider's domain, as
   discussed in Section 3.4.  Therefore, DANE TLS clients connecting to
   a server whose domain name is a CNAME alias SHOULD follow the CNAME
   hop-by-hop to its ultimate target host (noting at each step whether
   the CNAME is DNSSEC-validated), and use the final target host as the
   base domain for TLSA lookups.

   Implementations failing to find a TLSA record using a base name of
   the final target of a CNAME expansion SHOULD issue a TLSA query using
   the original destination name.  That is, the preferred TLSA base
   domain should be derived from the fully expanded name, and failing
   that should be the initial query name.

   Protocol-specific TLSA specifications may provide additional guidance
   or restrictions when following CNAME expansions.

   Though CNAMEs are illegal on the right hand side of most indirection
   records, such as MX and SRV records, they are supported by some
   implementations.  For example, if the MX or SRV host is a CNAME
   alias, some implementations may "chase" the CNAME.  They SHOULD use
   the target hostname as the preferred TLSA base domain as well as the
   HostName in SNI, provided the CNAME RR is found to be "secure" at
   each step in the CNAME expansion.

3.6.  Interaction with Certificate Transparency

   [RFC6962] Certificate Transparency, or CT for short, defines an
   approach to mitigate the risk of rogue or compromised public CAs
   issuing unauthorized certificates.  This section clarifies the
   interaction of CT and DANE.  CT is a protocol and auditing system
   that applies only to public CAs, and only when they are free to issue
   unauthorized certificates for a domain.  If the CA is not a public
   CA, or a DANE-EE(3) TLSA RR directly specifies the end entity
   certificate, there is no role for CT, and clients need not apply CT
   checks.




Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


   When a server is authenticated via a DANE TLSA RR with TLSA
   Certificate Usage DANE-EE(3), the domain owner has directly specified
   the certificate associated with the given service without reference
   to any PKIX certificate authority.  Therefore, when a TLS client
   authenticates the TLS server via a TLSA certificate association with
   usage DANE-EE(3), CT checks SHOULD NOT be performed.  Publication of
   the server certificate or public key (digest) in a TLSA record in a
   DNSSEC signed zone by the domain owner assures the TLS client that
   the certificate is not an unauthorized certificate issued by a rogue
   CA without the domain owner's consent.

   When a server is authenticated via a DANE TLSA RR with TLSA usage
   DANE-TA(2) and the server certificate does not chain to a known
   public root CA, CT cannot apply (CT logs only accept chains that
   start with a known, public root).  Since TLSA Certificate Usage DANE-
   TA(2) is generally intended to support non-PKIX trust anchors, TLS
   clients SHOULD NOT perform CT checks with usage DANE-TA(2) using
   unknown root CAs.

   A server operator who wants clients to perform CT checks should
   publish TLSA RRs with usage PKIX-TA(0) or PKIX-EE(1).

3.7.  Design Considerations for Protocols Using DANE

   When a TLS client goes to the trouble of authenticating a certificate
   chain presented by a TLS server, it should not continue to use that
   server in the event of authentication failure, or else authentication
   serves no purpose.  Servers publishing TLSA records MUST be
   configured to allow correctly configured clients to successfully
   authenticate their TLS certificate chains.

   A service with DNSSEC-validated TLSA records implicitly promises TLS
   support.  When all the TLSA records for a service are found
   "unusable", due to unsupported parameter combinations or malformed
   associated data, DANE clients cannot authenticate the service
   certificate chain.  When authenticated TLS is dictated by the
   application, the client SHOULD NOT connect to the associated server.
   If, on the other hand, the use of TLS is "opportunistic", then the
   client SHOULD generally use the server via an unauthenticated TLS
   connection, but if TLS encryption cannot be established, the client
   MUST NOT use the server.  Standards for DANE specific to the
   particular application protocol may modify the above as appropriate
   to specify whether the connection should be established anyway
   without relying on TLS security, with only TLS encryption but not
   authentication, or whether to refuse to connect entirely.  Protocols
   must choose whether to prioritize security or robustness.





Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


3.7.1.  Design Considerations for non-PKIX Protocols

   For some application protocols (such as SMTP to MX with opportunistic
   TLS), the existing public CA PKI is not a viable alternative to DANE.
   For these (non-PKIX) protocols, new DANE standards SHOULD NOT suggest
   publishing TLSA records with TLSA Certificate Usage PKIX-TA(0) or
   PKIX-EE(1), as TLS clients cannot be expected to perform [RFC5280]
   PKIX validation or [RFC6125] identity verification.

   Protocols designed for non-PKIX use SHOULD choose to treat any TLSA
   records with TLSA Certificate Usage PKIX-TA(0) or PKIX-EE(1) as
   unusable.  After verifying that the only available TLSA Certificate
   Usage types are PKIX-TA(0) or PKIX-EE(1), protocol specifications MAY
   instruct clients to either refuse to initiate a connection or to
   connect via unauthenticated TLS if no alternative authentication
   mechanisms are available.

3.8.  TLSA Records and Trust Anchor Digests

   With TLSA records that match the EE certificate, the TLS client has
   no difficulty matching TLSA records against the server certificate,
   as this certificate is always present in the TLS server certificate
   chain.

   With DANE TLSA records that match the digest of a TA certificate or
   public key, a complication arises when the TA certificate is omitted
   from the server's certificate chain.  This can happen when the trust
   anchor is a root certificate authority, as stated in section 7.4.2 of
   [RFC5246]:

     The sender's certificate MUST come first in the list.  Each
     following certificate MUST directly certify the one preceding
     it.  Because certificate validation requires that root keys be
     distributed independently, the self-signed certificate that
     specifies the root certificate authority MAY be omitted from the
     chain, under the assumption that the remote end must already
     possess it in order to validate it in any case.

   This means that TLSA records that match a TA certificate or public
   key digest are not entirely sufficient to validate the peer
   certificate chain.  If no matching certificate is found in the
   server's certificate chain, the chain may be signed by an omitted
   root CA whose digest matches the TLSA record.  With Certificate Usage
   PKIX-TA(0), this is not a problem, since the client is expected to be
   pre-configured with the issuing TA certificate.

   With TLSA Certificate Usage DANE-TA(2), there is no expectation that
   the client is pre-configured with the trust anchor certificate.



Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


   Rather, with TLSA Certificate Usage DANE-TA(2) clients must be able
   to rely on the TLSA records alone.  But, with a digest in the TLSA
   record, the TLSA record contains neither the full trust anchor
   certificate nor the full public key.  If the TLS server's certificate
   chain does not contain the trust anchor certificate, DANE clients
   will be unable to authenticate the server.

   TLSA Publishers that publish TLSA Certificate Usage DANE-TA(2) with a
   digest (not Full(0)) matching type MUST ensure that the corresponding
   server is configured to also include the trust anchor certificate in
   its TLS handshake certificate chain, even if that certificate is a
   self-signed root CA and would have been optional in the context of
   the existing public CA PKI.

3.9.  Trust anchor public keys

   TLSA records with TLSA Certificate Usage DANE-TA(2), selector SPKI(1)
   and a matching type of Full(0) publish the full public key of a trust
   anchor via DNS.  In section 6.1.1 of [RFC5280] the definition of a
   trust anchor consists of the following four parts:

   1.  the trusted issuer name,

   2.  the trusted public key algorithm,

   3.  the trusted public key, and

   4.  optionally, the trusted public key parameters associated with the
       public key.

   Items 2-4 are precisely the contents of the subjectPublicKeyInfo
   published in the TLSA record, but the issuer name is not included in
   the public key.

   With TLSA Certificate Usage DANE-TA(2), the client may not have the
   associated trust anchor certificate, and cannot generally verify
   whether a particular certificate chain is "issued by" the trust
   anchor described in the TLSA record.  If the server certificate chain
   includes a CA certificate whose public key matches the TLSA record,
   the client can match that CA as the intended issuer.  Otherwise, the
   client can only check that the topmost certificate in the server's
   chain is "signed by" the trust anchor public key in the TLSA record.

   Since trust chain validation via bare public keys rather than trusted
   CA certificates may be difficult to implement using existing TLS
   libraries, servers SHOULD include the trust anchor certificate in
   their certificate chains when the TLSA Certificate Usage is DANE-
   TA(2).



Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


   If none of the server's certificate chain elements match a public key
   specified in full in a TLSA record, clients SHOULD check whether the
   topmost certificate in the chain is signed by the provided public key
   and has not expired, and if that is the case, and the rest of the
   chain passes validation, consider the server authenticated if name
   checks are also successful.

4.  Certificate Usage Specific DANE Guidelines

4.1.  Certificate Usage DANE-EE(3) Guidelines

   Authentication via certificate usage "3" TLSA records involves simply
   checking that the server's leaf certificate matches the TLSA record.
   Other than extracting the relevant certificate elements for
   comparison, no other use is made of the certificate content.
   Authentication via certificate usage "3" TLSA records involves no
   certificate authority signature checks.  It also involves no server
   name checks, and thus does not impose any new requirements on the
   names contained in the server certificate (servers don't depend on
   SNI when the TLSA record matches the server's default certificate).

   Two TLSA records will need to be published before updating a server's
   public key, one matching the currently deployed key and the other
   matching the new key scheduled to replace it.  Once sufficient time
   has elapsed for all DNS caches to expire the previous TLSA RRset,
   which contains only the old key, the server may be reconfigured to
   use the new private key and associated certificate chain.  Once the
   server is using the new key, the TLSA RR that matches the retired key
   can be removed from DNS, leaving only the RR that matches the new
   key.

   TLSA records for servers SHOULD, when possible, be DANE-EE(3),
   SPKI(1), SHA2-256(1) records.  Such "3 1 1" records specify the
   SHA2-256 digest of the public key of the server certificate.  Since
   all DANE implementations are required to support SHA2-256, this
   record works for all clients and need not change across certificate
   renewals with the same key.  With no name checks required, this TLSA
   record type supports hosting arrangements with a single certificate
   matching all client domains!  It is also the easiest to implement
   correctly in the client.

4.2.  Certificate Usage DANE-TA(2) Guidelines

   Some domains may prefer to reduce the operational complexity of
   maintaining a distinct TLSA RRset for each TLS service.  If the
   domain employs a common issuing certificate authority to create
   certificates for multiple TLS services, it may be simpler to publish
   the issuing authority as a trust anchor (TA) for the certificate



Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


   chains of all relevant services.  The TLSA RRs for each service
   issued by the same TA may then be CNAMEs to a common TLSA RRset that
   matches the TA.  This certificate usage also allows Service Providers
   to independently generate appropriate certificates for each Customer
   Domain (see Section 3.4).

   As explained in Section 3.8, servers that employ Certificate Usage
   DANE-TA(2) TLSA records MUST include the TA certificate as part of
   the certificate chain presented in the TLS handshake even when it is
   a self-signed root certificate.  TLSA Publishers should publish
   either "2 1 1" or "2 0 1" TLSA parameters, which specify the SHA2-256
   digest of the trust anchor public key or certificate respectively.
   As with leaf certificate rollover discussed in Section 4.1, two such
   TLSA RRs need to be published to facilitate TA certificate rollover.

4.3.  Certificate Usage PKIX-EE(1) Guidelines

   From a TLSA record perspective this certificate usage is similar to
   DANE-EE(3), but in addition PKIX verification is required.
   Therefore, name checks, certificate expiration, etc., apply as they
   would without DANE.  An attacker who can compromise DNSSEC can
   replace these with usage DANE-EE(3) or DANE-TA(2) TLSA records of his
   choosing and thus bypass the PKIX verification requirements.

   Therefore, in most cases this certificate usage offers only illusory
   incremental security over usage DANE-EE(3).  It provides lower
   reliability than usage 3 since some clients may not be configured
   with the required root CA, the server's chain may be incomplete or
   name checks may fail.  It requires more complex coordination between
   the Customer Domain and the Service Provider in hosting arrangements.
   This certificate usage is not recommended.

4.4.  Certificate Usage PKIX-TA(0) Guidelines

   TLSA Certificate Usage PKIX-TA(0) allows a domain to publish
   constraints on the set of certificate authorities trusted to issue
   certificates for its TLS servers.  Clients must only accept PKIX-
   verified trust chains which contain a match for one of the published
   TLSA records.

   TLSA Publishers may publish TLSA records for a particular public root
   CA, expecting that clients will then only accept chains anchored at
   that root.  It is possible, however, that the client's trusted
   certificate store includes some intermediate CAs, either with or
   without the corresponding root CA.  When a client constructs a trust
   chain leading from a trusted intermediate CA to the server leaf
   certificate, such a "truncated" chain might not contain a trusted
   root published in the server's TLSA records.



Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


   If the omitted root is also trusted, the client may erroneously
   reject the server chain if it fails to determine that the shorter
   chain it constructed extends to a longer trusted chain that matches
   the TLSA records.  This means that, when matching a usage 0 TLSA
   record, a client SHOULD NOT always stop extending the chain when the
   first locally trusted certificate is found.  If no TLSA records have
   matched any of the elements of the chain, it MUST attempt to build a
   longer chain if the trusted certificate found is not self-issued, in
   the hope that a certificate closer to the root may in fact match the
   server's TLSA records.

   An attacker who can compromise DNSSEC can replace these with usage
   DANE-EE(3) or DANE-TA(2) TLSA records of his choosing and thus bypass
   the PKIX verification requirements.  Therefore, in most cases this
   certificate usage offers only illusory incremental security over
   usage DANE-TA(2).  It provides lower reliability than usage 2 since
   some clients may not be configured with the required root CA, and
   requires more complex coordination between the Customer Domain and
   the Service Provider in hosting arrangements.  This certificate usage
   is not recommended.

5.  Note on DNSSEC security

   Clearly the security of the DANE TLSA PKI rests on the security of
   the underlying DNSSEC infrastructure.  While this memo is not a guide
   to DNSSEC security, a few comments may be helpful to TLSA
   implementors.

   With the existing public CA PKI, name constraints are rarely used,
   and a public root CA can issue certificates for any domain of its
   choice.  With DNSSEC, the situation is different.  Only the registrar
   of record can update a domain's DS record in the registry parent zone
   (in some cases, however, the registry is the sole registrar).  With
   gTLDs, for which multiple registrars compete to provide domains in a
   single registry, it is important to make sure that rogue registrars
   cannot easily initiate an unauthorized domain transfer, and thus take
   over DNSSEC for the domain.  DNS Operators SHOULD use a registrar
   lock of their domains to offer some protection against this
   possibility.

   When the registrar is also the DNS operator for the domain, one needs
   to consider whether the registrar will allow orderly migration of the
   domain to another registrar or DNS operator in a way that will
   maintain DNSSEC integrity.  TLSA Publishers SHOULD ensure their
   registrar publishes a suitable domain transfer policy.

   DNSSEC signed RRsets cannot be securely revoked before they expire.
   Operators should plan accordingly and not generate signatures with



Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


   excessively long duration.  For domains publishing high-value keys, a
   signature lifetime of a few days is reasonable, and the zone should
   be resigned every day.  For domains with less critical data, a
   reasonable signature lifetime is a couple of weeks to a month, and
   the zone should be resigned every week.  Monitoring of the signature
   lifetime is important.  If the zone is not resigned in a timely
   manner, one risks a major outage with the entire domain becoming
   invalid.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Phil Pennock for his comments and
   advice on this document.

   Acknowledgments from Viktor: Thanks to Tony Finch who finally prodded
   me into participating in DANE working group discussions.  Thanks to
   Paul Hoffman who motivated me to produce this memo and provided
   feedback on early drafts.  Thanks also to Samuel Dukhovni for
   editorial assistance.

7.  Security Considerations

   Application protocols that cannot make use of the existing public CA
   PKI (so called non-PKIX protocols), may choose not to implement
   certain PKIX-dependent TLSA record types defined in [RFC6698].  If
   such records are published despite not being supported by the
   application protocol, they are treated as "unusable".  When TLS is
   opportunistic, the client may proceed to use the server with
   mandatory unauthenticated TLS.  This is stronger than opportunistic
   TLS without DANE, since in that case the client may also proceed with
   a plaintext connection.  When TLS is not opportunistic, the client
   MUST NOT connect to the server.

   Therefore, when TLSA records are used with protocols where PKIX does
   not apply, the recommended policy is for servers to not publish PKIX-
   dependent TLSA records, and for opportunistic TLS clients to use them
   to enforce the use of (albeit unauthenticated) TLS, but otherwise
   treat them as unusable.  Of course, when PKIX validation is supported
   by the application protocol, clients SHOULD perform PKIX validation
   per [RFC6698].

8.  References









Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


8.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
              RFC 4034, March 2005.

   [RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.

   [RFC4346]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.

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

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.

   [RFC6066]  Eastlake, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions:
              Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, January 2011.

   [RFC6125]  Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
              Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
              within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
              (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, March 2011.

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

   [RFC6698]  Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication
              of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, August 2012.

   [RFC6962]  Laurie, B., Langley, A., and E. Kasper, "Certificate
              Transparency", RFC 6962, June 2013.





Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               DANE operations                January 2014


8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-dane-registry-acronyms]
              Gudmundsson, O., "Adding acronyms to simplify DANE
              conversations", draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-01 (work
              in progress), October 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane]
              Dukhovni, V. and W. Hardaker, "SMTP security via
              opportunistic DANE TLS", draft-ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane-04
              (work in progress), November 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-dane-srv]
              Finch, T., "Using DNS-Based Authentication of Named
              Entities (DANE) TLSA records with SRV and MX records.",
              draft-ietf-dane-srv-02 (work in progress), February 2013.

Authors' Addresses

   Viktor Dukhovni
   Unaffiliated

   Email: ietf-dane@dukhovni.org


   Wes Hardaker
   Parsons
   P.O. Box 382
   Davis, CA  95617
   US

   Email: ietf@hardakers.net



















Dukhovni & Hardaker       Expires July 19, 2014                [Page 19]


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