[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 RFC 7672
DANE V. Dukhovni
Internet-Draft Unaffiliated
Intended status: Experimental W. Hardaker
Expires: April 11, 2014 Parsons
October 08, 2013
SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS
draft-ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane-00
Abstract
This memo describes a protocol for opportunistic TLS security based
on the DANE TLSA DNS record. The protocol is downgrade resistant
when the SMTP client supports DANE TLSA and the server domain
publishes TLSA records for its MX hosts. This enables an incremental
transition of the Internet email backbone (MTA to MTA SMTP traffic)
to TLS encrypted and authenticated delivery.
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 April 11, 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
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. SMTP Channel Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Hardening Opportunistic TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. TLS discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. MX resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2. TLSA record lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. DANE authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1. TLSA certificate usages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.2. Certificate matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Opportunistic TLS for Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Mandatory TLS Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
Lacking verified DNS and "Server Name Indication" (SNI), there has
historically been no scalable way for SMTP server operators to
provide certificates which match a trustable identifier. It's only
with the deployment of DNSSEC and DANE that authenticated TLS for
SMTP to MX becomes possible between parties that have not already
established an identity convention out-of-band.
1.1. Background
The Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) add data origin
authentication and data integrity to the Domain Name System. DNSSEC
is defined in [RFC4033], [RFC4034] and [RFC4035].
As described in the introduction of [RFC6698], TLS authentication via
the existing public Certificate Authority (CA) Public Key
Infrastructure (PKI) suffers from an over-abundance of trusted
certificate authorities capable of issuing certificates for any
domain of their choice. DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities
(DANE) leverages the DNSSEC infrastructure to publish trusted keys
and certificates for use with TLS via a new TLSA record type. With
DANE, the public CA PKI can be augmented or replaced by DNSSEC
validated TLSA records.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
The Transport Layer Security (TLS [RFC5246]) protocol enables secure
TCP communication. In the context of this memo, channel security is
assumed to be provided by TLS. Used without authentication, TLS
protects only against eavesdropping. With authentication, TLS also
protects against man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks.
1.2. SMTP Channel Security
The Simple Mail Transport Protocol (SMTP) ([RFC5321]) is multi-hop
store & forward, while TLS security is hop-by-hop. The number of
hops from the sender's Mail User Agent to the recipient mailbox is
rarely less than 2 and is often higher. Some hops may be TLS
protected, some may not. The same SMTP TCP endpoint can serve both
TLS and non-TLS clients, with TLS negotiated via the SMTP STARTTLS
command ([RFC3207]). DNS MX records abstract the next hop transport
end-point. SMTP addresses are not transport addresses and are
security agnostic. Unlike HTTP, there is no URI scheme for email
addresses to designate whether the SMTP server should be contacted
with or without security.
A Mail Transport Agent (MTA) may need to forward a message to a
particular email recipient <user@example.com>. To deliver the
message, the MTA needs to retrieve the MX hosts of example.com from
DNS, and then deliver the message to one of them. Absent DNSSEC, the
MX lookup is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle and cache poisoning
attacks. As a result, secure verification of MX host certificates is
not possible without DNSSEC, as an active attacker can forge DNS
replies with fake MX records, and can direct traffic to a server of
their choice. A man-in-the-middle can also suppress the MX host's
STARTTLS EHLO response, convincing the client that communication over
TLS is unavailable.
One might try to harden STARTTLS with SMTP against DNS attacks by
requiring each MX host to posess an X.509 certificate for the
recipient domain that is obtained from the message envelope and is
not subject to DNS reply forgery. Unfortunately, this is
impractical, as email for many domains is handled by third parties,
which are not in a position to obtain certificates for all the
domains they serve. Deployment of SNI (see [RFC6066] Section 3.1) is
no panacea, since the key management is operationally challenging at
large scale unless the email service provider is also the domain's
registrar and its certificate issuer; this is rarely the case for
email.
Since the recipient domain name cannot be used as the SMTP server
authentication identity, nor can the MX hostname without DNSSEC,
large scale deployment of authenticated TLS for SMTP requires secure
DNS. At this time, DNSSEC is not yet widely deployed and MTA to MTA
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
traffic between Internet connected organizations rarely uses TLS at
all, or simply uses TLS opportunistically without authentication and
protects against only passive eavesdropping attacks.
The only exceptions are cases in which the sending MTA is statically
configured to use TLS for mail sent to specific selected peer domains
and is configured with appropriate names (or content digests) to
expect in the presented MX host certificates of those domains. Such
statically configured SMTP secure channels are also used rarely, and
only between domains that make bilateral arrangements with their
business partners. Internet email, on the other hand, requires
contacting many new domains for which security configurations can not
be established in advance.
Note, the above does not apply to mail submission [RFC6409], where a
mail user agent is pre-configured to send all email to a fixed Mail
Submission Agent (MSA). Submission servers usually offer TLS and the
Mail User Agent (MUA) can be statically configured to require TLS
with its chosen MSA. The situation changes when submission servers
are configured dynamically via SRV records (see [RFC6186] Section 6,
although this is not yet widely deployed). Applications to
submission via SRV records will be discussed later in this memo.
With little opportunity to use TLS authentication, MX hosts that
support STARTTLS often use self-signed or private-CA issued X.509
certificates. Sending systems are rarely configured with a
comprehensive list of trusted CAs and do not check CRLs or implement
OCSP. In essence, they don't and can't reply on the existing public
CA PKI. This is not simply a result of complacency on the part SMTP
server administrators and MTA developers. Nor is it just a result of
the relative maturity of the SMTP infrastructure when TLS was
introduced. Rather, the abstraction of the SMTP transport endpoint
via DNS MX records, often across organization boundaries, limits the
use of public CA PKI with SMTP to a small set of sender-configured
peer domains.
This does not mean, however, that the Internet email backbone cannot
benefit from TLS. The fact that transport security is not explicitly
specified in either the recipient address or the MX record means that
new protocols can furnish out-of-band information to SMTP, making it
possible to simultaneously discover both which peer domains support
secure delivery via TLS and how to verify the authenticity of the
associated MX hosts. The first such mechanism that can work an
Internet scale is DANE TLSA, but use of DANE TLSA with MTA to MTA
SMTP must be cognizant of the lack of any realistic role for the
existing public CA PKI.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
1.3. 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].
2. Hardening Opportunistic TLS
This section describes opportunistic SMTP over TLS security, where
traffic from DANE TLSA aware SMTP clients to domains that implement
DANE TLSA records in accordance with this memo is secure. Traffic to
other domains continues to be sent in the same manner as before
(either manually configured for security or unencrypted and
unauthenticated). It is hoped that, over time, more domains will
implement DNSSEC and publish DANE TLSA records for their MX hosts.
This will enable an incremental transition of the email backbone to
authenticated TLS delivery.
Since email addresses and MX hostnames (or submission SRV records)
neither signal nor deny support for TLS by the receiving domain, it
is possible to use DANE TLSA records to securely signal TLS support
and simultaneously to provide the means by which SMTP clients can
successfully authenticate legitimate SMTP servers.
2.1. TLS discovery
As noted previously (Section 1.2), opportunistic TLS with SMTP
servers that advertise TLS support via STARTTLS is subject to a man
in the middle downgrade attack. Some SMTP servers erroneously
advertise STARTTLS in default configurations that are not in fact TLS
capable, and clients need to be prepared to retry plaintext delivery
after STARTTLS fails. A downgrade resistant mechanism for a server
to advertise TLS support based on DANE TLSA records is specified
below. DNSSEC validated TLSA records are unlikely to be accidentally
published for servers that do not in fact support TLS, and thus
clients can safely interpret their presence as a commitment by the
server operator to implement STARTTLS.
SMTP is a store & forward protocol. An MTA that is not the final
destination for a message recipient forwards the message one hop
closer to the recipient's mailbox. To do so, it must determine the
appropriate next-hop destination.
Typically, the next-hop destination defaults to the domain part of
the recipient address, which is then subject to MX resolution. The
next-hop destination may also be configured by the MTA administrator
to be a next-hop destination host (explicitly exempt from MX
resolution), or a next-hop destination domain (subject to MX
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
resolution) which takes the place of the domain part of the recipient
address. In the language of [RFC5321] Section 5.1, we'll refer to
this next-hop destination host or domain as "the initial name".
2.1.1. MX resolution
If the initial name is a next-hop domain subject to MX resolution, a
DNSSEC validated "MX" lookup is performed, to obtain the list of
associated MX hosts. If no MX records are found, or if the initial
name is a next-hop host not subject to MX resolution, it is resolved
to one or more network addresses, by performing DNSSEC validated "A"
and/or "AAAA" lookups.
Following [RFC5321] Section 5.1, if the "A", "AAAA" or "MX" lookup of
the initial name yields a CNAME, we replace it with the resulting
name as if it were the initial name and try the same lookup again
with the new name. MTAs typically support limited recursion in CNAME
expansion so this replacement is performed recursively. If
initially, or at any stage of recursion, the response is "bogus", MX
resolution fails with a temporary error. Mail delivery SHOULD either
be deferred or attempted via any alternative delivery channel
configured by the MTA administrator (which may also employ
opportunistic DANE TLS).
With a next-hop destination domain subject to MX resolution which has
MX records, if at least one lookup in the (possibly empty) chain of
CNAMEs leading to the MX RRset is "insecure", opportunistic DANE TLS
is not applicable, and mail delivery may proceed with pre-DANE
opportunistic TLS (subject to its various MITM attacks).
With a next-hop destination host not subject to MX resolution or a
domain with no MX records, if at least one lookup in the (possibly
empty) chain of CNAMEs leading to the A or AAAA RRset is "insecure",
the TLSA base domain is the initial next-hop name, and opportunistic
DANE TLS is applicable only when a "secure" TLSA RRset is found at
that base domain.
Otherwise, if at each and every stage of CNAME expansion the DNS
response is "secure", and either the initial name is a next-hop host
name not subject to MX resolution or no MX records are found, the
resulting final name becomes the next-hop destination and is the base
domain for TLSA record lookup. In summary, the TLSA base domain is
the fully CNAME expanded name that is "secure" or else is the initial
name.
Finally, if at each and every stage the DNS response is "secure", and
and one or more MX records are found, the MX records MUST be sorted
by preference. A better (numerically lower) MX preference for a host
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
that does not support TLS MUST NOT be preempted by a worse
(numerically higher) MX preference for a host that does support TLS.
In other words, avoiding delivery loops trumps any preference for
channel security. In each delivery attempt via a candidate MX host,
the MX host MUST be treated as though it were the initial next-hop
destination host (which is, of course, not subject to further MX
resolution). The associated TLSA base domain is equal to the CNAME
resolved MX exchange name if CNAME expansion of MX exchange names is
supported and all CNAMEs encountered are "secure". Otherwise, the
unexpanded name of the MX exchange is the TLSA base domain.
CNAMEs are not legal in the exchange field of MX records, thus MTAs
MAY skip over MX records in which the MX exchange is a CNAME. There
is some additional risk, in this case, that the MTA may fail to
notice that it is one of the MX hosts for the destination and that it
must skip MX records with equal or worse (numerically higher
precedence). If an MTA does allow CNAMEs to be used in MX records it
SHOULD process them recursively as described above to determine
whether opportunistic DANE TLS is applicable and if so the associated
TLSA RRset base domain.
2.1.2. TLSA record lookup
When all the DNSSEC lookups, "CNAME", "MX", "A" or "AAAA", used to
obtain a given TLSA base domain (one for each candidate MX host if
multiple DNSSEC validated MX hosts were found) are "secure", and the
SMTP client is configured for opportunistic DANE TLS, it SHOULD
locate the TLSA RRset corresponding to this base domain. If, for
example, the base domain is "mail.example.com", the TLSA RRset is
obtained via a DNSSEC query of the form:
_25._tcp.mail.example.com. IN TLSA ?
Typically, the destination TCP port is 25, but this may be different
with custom routes specified by the MTA administrator or when an MUA
connects to a submission server on port 587. The SMTP client MUST
use the appropriate "_<port>" prefix in place of "_25" when the port
number is not equal to 25. The query response may be a CNAME (or a
DNAME + CNAME combination), or the TLSA RRset. DNAME processing with
DNSSEC can be done using standard DNAME resolution techniques and
will not be discussed in detail here. The SMTP client MUST check the
security status of the response.
If the response is "bogus", delivery via the host in question SHOULD
NOT proceed, otherwise the SMTP client is vulnerable to man in the
middle STARTTLS downgrade attacks. If the response is "insecure",
opportunistic DANE TLS is not applicable for the host in question,
and the SMTP client SHOULD proceed with ordinary opportunistic TLS.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
If the response is "secure" and the record is a CNAME or DNAME, the
SMTP client restarts the TLSA query at the target domain, following
CNAMEs as appropriate (such CNAME expansion does not change the SMTP
client's notion of the TLSA base domain).
If, after possible CNAME indirection, the response is "secure" and at
least one TLSA record is found (even if not usable because it is
unsupported by the implementation or administratively disabled) the
next-hop host has committed to TLS support. The SMTP client SHOULD
NOT deliver mail via such a next-hop host unless a TLS session is
negotiated via STARTTLS. This avoids man in the middle STARTTLS
downgrade attacks.
When no TLSA records are found at a CNAME-expanded initial name
(insecure response or no records), the unexpanded initial name MUST
be tried instead. This supports clients of hosting providers where
the provider zone is not DNSSEC validated, but the client has shared
appropriate key material with the hosting provider to enable TLS via
SNI.
When usable TLSA records are available, a client SHOULD NOT deliver
mail via a server that fails to match at least one TLSA record. This
is not a "must" because clients may incrementally deploy
opportunistic DANE TLS only for selected peer domains. At times,
clients may need to disable opportunistic DANE TLS for peers that
fail to interoperate due to misconfiguration or software defects on
either end. For opportunistic DANE TLS to be robust (resistant to
failures), servers MUST live up to the promises stated by the
existence of the TLSA record, but it is not always possible to compel
clients to use a security policy chosen by the server. Given a
robust security protocol, clients will hopefully, over time,
willingly choose to adopt it.
SMTP clients employing opportunistic DANE TLS and TLSA record
publishers for SMTP servers need to follow the guidance outlined in
[I-D.dukhovni-dane-ops]'s "Certificate Name Check Conventions",
"Service Provider and TLSA Publisher Synchronization" and "TLSA Base
Domain and CNAMEs" sections.
2.2. DANE authentication
2.2.1. TLSA certificate usages
As noted in the introduction, the existing public CA PKI is not
viable for the Internet email backbone. TLSA records for MX hosts or
submission servers that are to be found via SRV records SHOULD NOT
include certificate usage "0" or "1", as in both cases SMTP clients
cannot be expected to perform [RFC5280] PKIX validation or [RFC6125]
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
identity verification. Clients MAY treat such TLSA records as
unusable.
SMTP clients may also to the extent possible map these usages to the
corresponding non-PKIX certificate usages (0 to 2 and 1 to 3).
Servers publishing these certificate usages hoping to be protected by
both the public CA PKI and by DNSSEC will typically be protected by
neither.
TLSA Publishers should follow the TLSA publication size guidance
found in [I-D.dukhovni-dane-ops] about "DANE DNS Record Size
Guidelines".
2.2.1.1. Certificate usage 3
Since opportunistic DANE TLS will be used by non-interactive MTAs,
with no user to "press OK" when authentication fails, reliability of
peer authentication is paramount. TLSA records published for SMTP
servers SHOULD be "3 1 1" records to support opportunistic SMTP over
TLS with DANE. This record specifies the SHA-256 digest of the
server's public key.
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 (SNI is not required when
the TLSA record matches the public key of the server's default
certificate). It uses the SHA-256 digest which all clients are
obligated to support, and works across certificate renewals with the
same key.
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 time out the previous TLSA RRset,
which contains only the old key, the server may be reconfigured to
use the new private key and associated public key certificate. The
amount of time a server should wait before using a new key that is
referenced by new TLSA records should be at least twice the TTL of
the previously published TLSA records. Once the server is using a
new key, the obsolete TLSA RR can be removed from DNS, leaving only
the RR that matches the new key.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
2.2.1.2. Certificate usage 2
Some domains may prefer to reduce the operational complexity of
publishing unique TLSA RRs 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's public key as a trust-anchor for the certificate 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. In this case, the certificate chain presented in the TLS
handshake of each service SHOULD include the TA certificate, as SMTP
clients cannot generally be expected to have domain-issued trust-
anchor certificates in their trusted certificate store. TLSA
Publishers should publish either "2 1 1" or "2 0 1" TLSA parameters,
which specify the SHA-256 digest of the trust-anchor public key or
certificate respectively. As with regular certificate rollover
discussed in Section 2.2.1.1, two such TLSA RRs need to be published
to facilitate TA certificate rollover.
The usability of "2 1 1" or "2 0 1" TLSA RRs with SMTP is not
assured. If server operators employing these RRs universally ensure
that the corresponding TA certificate is included in the SMTP
server's TLS handshake trust chain, clients can safely enable support
for these RRs. If sufficiently many server administrators are
negligent in deploying these RRs, SMTP clients will be hesitant to
support them, since mail delivery will not work to many destination
domains if they do. Server operators are encouraged to implement
these RRs, if they are operationally a better fit for their
organization, provided they do so with care. It is critical to never
forget to include trust-anchor certificates in server trust chains.
SMTP client implementations SHOULD support these TLSA RRs, unless
server operators fail publish certificate chains that include the
required TA certificate.
2.2.1.3. Certificate usage 1
SMTP servers SHOULD NOT publish TLSA RRs with certificate usage "1".
Clients MAY treat such TLSA records as unusable. Alternatively, SMTP
clients that implement this specification MAY ignore the PKIX
validation requirement when they encounter certificate usage "1", and
authenticate the server per the content of the TLSA record alone.
That is, SMTP clients may treat certificate usage "1" as certificate
usage "3".
2.2.1.4. Certificate usage 0
SMTP servers SHOULD NOT publish TLSA RRs with certificate usage "0".
Clients MAY treat such TLSA records as unusable. Alternatively,
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
since PKIX validation is not possible with opportunistic DANE TLS,
SMTP clients MAY treat certificate usage "0" RRs as though they were
certificate usage "2" RRs. But, with certificate usage "0" the
usability of the TLSA record depends more strongly on its matching
type.
If the matching type is "0" (the server should also avoid this
matching type and should publish usage "3" or "2" public key or
certificate digests), the TLSA record contains the full certificate
or full public key of the trusted certificate authority. In this
case the client has all the information it needs to match the server
trust-chain to the TLSA record. The client SHOULD ignore the PKIX
validation requirement, and verify the server's trust chain via its
DANE TLSA records only (name checks still apply as with usage "2").
If the matching type is not "0", the TLSA record contains only a
digest of the trust certificate authority certificate or public key.
The server operator publishing usage 0 TLSA records may expect that
clients already have the issuing authority certificate on hand, and
may omit it from the server's certificate chain. As a result, the
client may not be able to match the server trust chain against the
TLSA record if it, in fact, does not have a copy of the certificate
authority certificate or public key.
SMTP clients that implement this specification SHOULD treat TLSA
records with certificate usage "0" and a digest matching type as
unusable, but MAY be explicitly configured to support them when it is
believed that clients posses a sufficiently complete set of trusted
public CA certificates. This is most plausible with an MUA which
only needs enough CA certificates to authenticate its preferred
submission service.
2.2.2. Certificate matching
When at least one usable "secure" TLSA record is found, the SMTP
client SHOULD use TLSA records to authenticate the next-hop host,
mail SHOULD not be delivered via this next-hop host if authentication
fails, otherwise the SMTP client is vulnerable to TLS man in the
middle attacks.
To match a server via a TLSA record with certificate usage "2", the
client MUST perform name checks to ensure that it has reached the
correct server. The SMTP client MUST accept the TLSA base domain as
a valid DNS name in the server certificate. Clients should also
accept securely looked up TLSA base domain obtained indirectly via an
MX lookup, or a CNAME resolved expansion.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
Accepting certificates with the next-hop domain in addition to the
next-hop MX host allows a domain with multiple MX hosts to field a
single certificate bearing the email domain name across all the MX
hosts, this is also compatible with pre-DANE SMTP clients that are
configured to look for the email domain name in server certificates.
The client MUST NOT perform certificate usage name checks with
certificate usage "3", since with usage "3" the server is
authenticated directly by matching the TLSA RRset to its certificate
or public key without resort to any issuing authority. The
certificate content is ignored except in so far as it is used to
match the certificate or public key digest with the TLSA RRset.
To ensure that the server sends the right certificate chain, the SMTP
client MUST send the TLS SNI extension containing the TLSA base
domain. Since DANE-aware clients are obligated to send SNI
information, which requires at least TLS 1.0, SMTP servers for which
DANE TLSA records are published MUST support TLS 1.0 or later with
any client authorized to use the service.
Each SMTP server MUST present a certificate trust chain (see
[RFC2246] Section 7.4.2) that matches at least one of the TLSA
records. The server MAY rely on SNI to determine which certificate
chain to present to the client. Clients that don't send SNI
information may not see the expected certificate chain.
If the server's TLSA RRset includes records with a matching type
indication a digest record (i.e., a value other than "0"), the
SHA-256 digest of any object SHOULD be provided along with any other
digest published, since clients may support only SHA-256. Unless
SHA-256 proves vulnerable to a "second preimage" attack, it should be
the only digest algorithm used in TLSA records.
If the server's TLSA records match the server's default certificate
chain, the server need not support SNI. The server need not include
the extension in its TLS HELLO, simply returning a matching
certificate chain is sufficient. Servers MUST NOT enforce the use of
SNI by clients, if the client sends no SNI extension, or sends an SNI
extension for an unsupported domain the server MUST simply use its
default certificate chain. The client may be using unauthenticated
opportunistic TLS and may not expect any particular certificate from
the server.
The client may even offer to use anonymous TLS ciphersuites and
servers SHOULD support these, no security is gained by forcing the
use of a certificate the client will ignore. Indeed support for
anonymous ciphersuites in the server makes audit trails more useful
if the chosen ciphersuite is logged, as this will in many cases
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
record which clients did not care to authenticate the server. (The
Postfix SMTP server supports anonymous TLS ciphersuites by default,
and the Postfix SMTP client offers these at its highest preference
when server authentication is not applicable).
With opportunistic DANE TLS, both the TLS support implied by the
presence of DANE TLSA records and the verification parameters
necessary to authenticate the TLS peer are obtained together,
therefore authentication via this protocol is expected to be less
prone to connection failure caused by incompatible configuration of
the client and server.
3. Opportunistic TLS for Submission
Prior to [RFC6409], the SMTP submission protocol was a poster child
for PKIX TLS. The MUA typically connects to one or more submission
servers explicitly configured by the user. There is no indirection
via insecure MX records, and unlike web browsers, there is no need to
authenticate a large set of TLS servers. Once TLS is enabled for the
desired submission server or servers, provided the server certificate
is correctly maintained, the MUA is able to reliably use TLS to
authenticate the submission server.
[RFC6186] aims to simplify the configuration of the MUA submission
service by dynamically deriving the submission service from the
user's email address. This is done via SRV records, but at the cost
of introducing the same TLS security problems faced by MTA to MTA
SMTP. Prompting the user when the SRV record domain is different
from the email domain is not a robust solution.
The protocol defined in this memo can also be used to
opportunistically secure the submission service association. If the
email domain is DNSSEC signed, the SRV records are "secure" and the
SRV host publishes secure TLSA records for submission, then the MUA
can safely auto-configure to authenticate the submission server via
DANE. When DANE TLSA records are not available, the client SHOULD
fall back to legacy behavior.
Specifically, MUAs that dynamically determine the submission server
via SRV records SHOULD support DNSSEC and DANE TLSA records. They
SHOULD use TLSA records to authenticate the server. The processing
of usage 2 and 3 TLSA associations by an MUA is the same as by an MTA
with SRV records replaced by corresponding MX records.
Just as with port 25, SMTP submission servers SHOULD NOT publish
usage 0 or 1 TLSA associations, and MUAs that support DANE TLSA are
not expected to trust a full list of public CAs. Server certificate
subjectAltNames should include at least the server name. When the
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
server administrator is also authorized to obtain certificates for
the email domain, the server certificate should also include the
email domain name. MUAs that are not able to support DNSSEC may then
be able to authenticate the server domain. If it is practical to
field additional certificates for hosted domains, SNI may be used by
the server to select the appropriate domain's certificate.
4. Mandatory TLS Security
An MTA implementing this protocol may require a stronger security
assurance when sending email to selected destinations to which the
sending organization sends sensitive email and may have regulatory
obligations to protect its content. This protocol is not in conflict
with such a requirement, and in fact it can often simplify
authenticated delivery to such destinations.
Specifically, with domains that publish DANE TLSA records for their
MX hosts a sending MTA can be configured to use the receiving
domains's DANE TLSA records to authenticate the corresponding MX
hosts, thereby obviating the complex manual provisioning process. In
anticipation of, or in response to, a failure to obtain the expected
TLSA records, the sending system's administrator may choose from a
selection of fallback options, if supported by the sending MTA:
o Defer mail if no usable TLSA records are found. This is useful
when the destination is known to publish TLSA records, and lack of
TLSA records is most likely a transient misconfiguration.
o Authenticate the peer via a manually configured certificate
digest. This may be obtained, for example, after a problem is
detected and confirmed to be valid by some out-of-band mechanism.
o Authenticate the peer via the existing public CA PKI, if the peer
server has usable CA issued certificates. In many cases the
sending MTA will need custom certificate name matching rules to
match the destination's gateways. And the sending server must
explicitly configure policy for the destination to always require
TLS to prevent MITM attacks.
o Send via unauthenticated mandatory TLS. This is useful if the
requirement is merely to always encrypt transmissions to protect
against only eavesdropping, and the possibility of MITM attacks is
less of a concern than timely email delivery.
It should be noted that barring administrator intervention, email
SHOULD be deferred when DNSSEC lookups fail, (as distinct from
"secure" non-existence of TLSA records, or secure evidence that the
domain is no longer signed). In addition to configuring fallback
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
strategies when TLSA records are unexpectedly absent, administrators
may, in hopefully rare cases, need to disable DNSSEC lookups for a
destination to work around a DNSSEC outage.
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to extend great thanks to Tony Finch, who
started the original version of a DANE SMTP document. His work is
greatly appreciated and has been incorporated into this document.
The authors would like to additionally 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 Wietse Venema who created
Postfix, and patiently guided the Postfix DANE implementation to
production quality.
6. Security Considerations
This protocol leverages DANE TLSA records to implement MITM resistant
opportunistic channel security for SMTP. For destination domains
that sign their MX records and publish signed TLSA records for their
MX hosts, this protocol allows sending MTAs (and perhaps dynamically
configured MUAs) to securely discover both the availability of TLS
and how to authenticate the destination.
This protocol does not aim to secure all SMTP traffic, as that is not
practical until DNSSEC and DANE adoption are universal. The
incremental deployment provided by following this specification is a
best possible path for securing SMTP. This protocol coexists and
interoperates with the existing insecure Internet email backbone.
The protocol does not preclude existing non-opportunistic SMTP TLS
security arrangements, which can continue to be used as before via
manual configuration and negotiated out-of-band key and TLS
configuration exchanges.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
Opportunistic SMTP TLS depends critically on DNSSEC for downgrade
resistance and secure resolution of the destination name. If DNSSEC
is compromised, it is not possible to fall back on the public CA PKI
to prevent MITM attacks. A successful breach of DNSSEC enables the
attacker to publish TLSA usage 3 certificate associations, and
thereby bypass any security benefit the legitimate domain owner might
hope to gain by publishing usage 0 or 1 TLSA RRs. Given the lack of
public CA PKI support in existing MTA deployments, deprecating
certificate usages 0 and 1 in this specifications improves
interoperability without degrading security.
7. Normative References
[I-D.dukhovni-dane-ops]
Dukhovni, V., "DANE TLSA implementation and operational
guidance", draft-dukhovni-dane-ops-00 (work in progress),
May 2013.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2246] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
RFC 2246, January 1999.
[RFC3207] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, February 2002.
[RFC3546] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J.,
and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Extensions", RFC 3546, June 2003.
[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.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires April 11, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS October 2013
[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.
[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
October 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.
[RFC6186] Daboo, C., "Use of SRV Records for Locating Email
Submission/Access Services", RFC 6186, March 2011.
[RFC6409] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail",
STD 72, RFC 6409, November 2011.
[RFC6698] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication
of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, August 2012.
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 April 11, 2014 [Page 17]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/