[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [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: Standards Track W. Hardaker
Expires: August 16, 2014 Parsons
February 12, 2014
SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS
draft-ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane-06
Abstract
This memo describes a downgrade-resistant protocol for SMTP transport
security between Mail Transfer Agents (MTAs) based on the DNS-Based
Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) TLSA DNS record. Adoption of
this protocol enables an incremental transition of the Internet email
backbone to one using encrypted and authenticated Transport Layer
Security (TLS).
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 August 16, 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
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
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
1.2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. SMTP channel security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.1. STARTTLS downgrade attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.2. Insecure server name without DNSSEC . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.3. Sender policy does not scale . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.4. Too many certificate authorities . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Hardening (pre-DANE) Opportunistic TLS . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1. DNS errors, bogus and indeterminate responses . . . . . . 8
2.2. TLS discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1. MX resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.2. Non-MX destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.3. TLSA record lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3. DANE authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.1. TLSA certificate usages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.2. Certificate matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.3. Digest algorithm agility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3. Mandatory TLS Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1. Client Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2. Publisher Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 25
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction
This memo specifies a new connection security model for Message
Transfer Agents (MTAs). This model is motivated by key features of
inter-domain SMTP delivery, in particular the fact that the
destination server is selected indirectly via DNS Mail Exchange (MX)
records and that with MTA to MTA SMTP the use of TLS is generally
opportunistic.
We note that the SMTP protocol is also used between Message User
Agents (MUAs) and Message Submission Agents (MSAs). In [RFC6186] a
protocol is specified that enables an MUA to dynamically locate the
MSA based on the user's email address. SMTP connection security
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
requirements for MUAs implementing [RFC6186] are largely analogous to
connection security requirements for MTAs, and this specification
could be applied largely verbatim with DNS MX records replaced by
corresponding DNS Service (SRV) records.
However, until MUAs begin to adopt the dynamic configuration
mechanisms of [RFC6186] they are adequately served by more
traditional static TLS security policies. This document will not
discuss the MUA use case further, leaving specification of DANE TLS
for MUAs to future documents that focus specifically on SMTP security
between MUAs and MSAs. The rest of this memo will focus on securing
MTA to MTA SMTP connections.
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
The following terms or concepts are used through the document:
secure, bogus, insecure, indeterminate: DNSSEC validation results,
as defined in Section 4.3 of [RFC4035].
Validating Security-Aware Stub Resolver and Non-Validating
Security-Aware Stub Resolver:
Capabilities of the stub resolver in use as defined in [RFC4033];
note that this specification requires the use of a Security-Aware
Stub Resolver; Security-Oblivious stub-resolvers MUST NOT be used.
opportunistic DANE TLS: Best-effort use of TLS, resistant to
downgrade attacks for destinations with DNSSEC-validated TLSA
records. When opportunistic DANE TLS is determined to be
unavailable, clients should fall back to opportunistic TLS below.
Opportunistic DANE TLS requires support for DNSSEC, DANE and
STARTTLS on the client side and STARTTLS plus a DNSSEC published
TLSA record on the server side.
(pre-DANE) opportunistic TLS: Best-effort use of TLS that is
generally vulnerable to DNS forgery and STARTTLS downgrade
attacks. When a TLS-encrypted communication channel is not
available, message transmission takes place in the clear. MX
record indirection generally precludes authentication even when
TLS is available.
MX hostname: The RRDATA of an MX record consists of a 16 bit
preference followed by a Mail Exchange domain name (see [RFC1035],
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
Section 3.3.9). We will use the term "MX hostname" to refer to
the latter, that is, the DNS domain name found after the
preference value in an MX record. Thus an "MX hostname" is
specifically a reference to a DNS domain name, rather than any
host that bears that name.
SMTP server: An SMTP server whose name appears in an MX record for a
particular domain. Used to refer specifically to the host and
SMTP service itself, not its DNS name.
delayed delivery: Email delivery is a multi-hop store & forward
process. When an MTA is unable forward a message that may become
deliverable later, the message is queued and delivery is retried
periodically. Some MTAs may be configured with a fallback next-
hop destination that handles messages that the MTA would otherwise
queue and retry. In these cases, messages that would otherwise
have to be delayed, may be sent to the fallback next-hop
destination instead. The fallback destination may itself be
subject to opportunistic or mandatory DANE TLS as though it were
the original message destination.
original next hop destination: The logical destination for mail
delivery. By default this is the domain portion of the recipient
address, but MTAs may be configured to forward mail for some or
all recipients via designated relays. The original next hop
destination is, respectively, either the recipient domain or the
associated configured relay.
MTA: Message Transfer Agent ([RFC5598], Section 4.3.2).
MSA: Message Submission Agent ([RFC5598], Section 4.3.1).
MUA: Message User Agent ([RFC5598], Section 4.2.1).
RR: A DNS Resource Record
RRset: A set of DNS Resource Records for a particular class, domain
and record type.
1.2. Background
The Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) add data origin
authentication, data integrity and data non-existence proofs to the
Domain Name System (DNS). DNSSEC is defined in [RFC4033], [RFC4034]
and [RFC4035].
As described in the introduction of [RFC6698], TLS authentication via
the existing public Certificate Authority (CA) PKI suffers from an
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
over-abundance of trusted certificate authorities capable of issuing
certificates for any domain of their choice. DANE leverages the
DNSSEC infrastructure to publish trusted public keys and certificates
for use with the Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] protocol
via a new "TLSA" DNS record type. With DNSSEC each domain can only
vouch for the keys of its directly delegated sub-domains.
The TLS protocol enables secure TCP communication. In the context of
this memo, channel security is assumed to be provided by TLS. Used
without authentication, TLS provides only privacy protection against
eavesdropping attacks. With authentication, TLS also provides data
integrity protection to guard against man-in-the-middle (MITM)
attacks.
1.3. SMTP channel security
With HTTPS, Transport Layer Security (TLS) employs X.509 certificates
issued by one of the many Certificate Authorities (CAs) bundled with
popular web browsers to allow users to authenticate their "secure"
websites. Before we specify a new DANE TLS security model for SMTP,
we will explain why a new security model is needed. In the process,
we will explain why the familiar HTTPS security model is inadequate
to protect inter-domain SMTP traffic.
The subsections below outline four key problems with applying
traditional PKI to SMTP that are addressed by this specification.
Since SMTP channel security policy is not explicitly specified in
either the recipient address or the MX record, a new signaling
mechanism is required to indicate when channel security is possible
and should be used. The publication of TLSA records allows server
operators to securely signal to SMTP clients that TLS is available
and should be used. DANE TLSA makes it possible to simultaneously
discover which destination domains support secure delivery via TLS
and how to verify the authenticity of the associated SMTP services,
providing a path forward to ubiquitous SMTP channel security.
1.3.1. STARTTLS downgrade attack
The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) [RFC5321] is a single-hop
protocol in a multi-hop store & forward email delivery process. SMTP
envelope recipient addresses are not transport addresses and are
security-agnostic. Unlike the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and
its corresponding secured version, HTTPS, there is no URI scheme for
email addresses to designate whether communication with the SMTP
server should be conducted via a cleartext or a TLS-encrypted
channel. Indeed, no such URI scheme could work well with SMTP since
TLS encryption of SMTP protects email traffic on a hop-by-hop basis
while email addresses could only express end-to-end policy.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
With no mechanism available to signal transport security policy, SMTP
relays employ a best-effort "opportunistic" security model for TLS.
A single SMTP server TCP listening endpoint can serve both TLS and
non-TLS clients; the use of TLS is negotiated via the SMTP STARTTLS
command ([RFC3207]). The server signals TLS support to the client
over a cleartext SMTP connection, and, if the client also supports
TLS, it may negotiate a TLS encrypted channel to use for email
transmission. The server's indication of TLS support can be easily
suppressed by a man in the middle attacker. Thus pre-DANE SMTP TLS
security can be subverted by simply downgrading a connection to
cleartext. No TLS security feature, such as the use of PKIX, can
prevent this. The attacker can simply bypass TLS.
1.3.2. Insecure server name without DNSSEC
With SMTP, DNS Mail Exchange (MX) records abstract the next-hop
transport endpoint and allow administrators to specify a set of
target servers to which SMTP traffic should be directed for a given
domain.
A PKIX TLS client is vulnerable to man in the middle (MITM) attacks
unless it verifies that the server's certificate binds its public key
to its name. However, with SMTP server names are obtained indirectly
via MX records. Without DNSSEC, the MX lookup is vulnerable to MITM
and DNS cache poisoning attacks. Active attackers can forge DNS
replies with fake MX records and can redirect email to servers with
names of their choice. Therefore, secure verification of SMTP TLS
certificates is not possible without DNSSEC.
One might try to harden the use of TLS with SMTP against DNS attacks
by requiring each SMTP server to possess a trusted certificate for
the envelope recipient domain rather than the MX hostname.
Unfortunately, this is impractical, as email for many domains is
handled by third parties that are not in a position to obtain
certificates for all the domains they serve. Deployment of the
Server Name Indication (SNI) extension to TLS (see [RFC6066]
Section 3) is no panacea, since SNI key management is operationally
challenging except when 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, and neither can the MX hostname without
DNSSEC, large-scale deployment of authenticated TLS for SMTP requires
that the DNS be secure.
Since SMTP security depends critically on DNSSEC, it is important to
point out that consequently SMTP with DANE is the most conservative
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
possible trust model. It trusts only what must be trusted and no
more. Adding any other trusted actors to the mix can only reduce
SMTP security. A sender may choose to harden DNSSEC for selected
high value receiving domains, by configuring explicit trust anchors
for those domains instead of relying on the chain of trust from the
root domain. In such a case there is not an "additional" trusted
authority, rather the root trust anchor is replaced with a more
specific trust anchor for each of the domains in question. Detailed
discussion of DNSSEC security practices is out of scope for this
document.
1.3.3. Sender policy does not scale
Sending systems are in some cases explicitly configured to use TLS
for mail sent to specifically selected peer domains. This requires
MTAs to be configured with appropriate subject names or certificate
content digests to expect in the presented host certificates.
Because of the heavy administrative burden, such statically
configured SMTP secure channels are used rarely (generally only
between domains that make bilateral arrangements with their business
partners). Internet email, on the other hand, requires regularly
contacting new domains for which security configurations cannot be
established in advance.
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. With
little opportunity to use TLS authentication, sending MTAs are rarely
configured with a comprehensive list of trusted CAs. SMTP services
that support STARTTLS often use X.509 certificates that are self-
signed or issued by a private CA.
1.3.4. Too many certificate authorities
Even if it were generally possible to determine a secure server name,
the SMTP client would still need to verify that the server's
certificate chain is issued by a trusted certificate authority (a
trust anchor). MTAs are not interactive applications where a human
operator can make a decision (wisely or otherwise) to selectively
disable TLS security policy when certificate chain verification
fails. With no user to "click OK", the MTAs list of public CA trust
anchors would need to be comprehensive in order to avoid bouncing
mail addressed to sites that employ unknown certificate authorities.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
On the other hand, each trusted CA can issue certificates for any
domain. If even one of the configured CAs is compromised or operated
by an adversary, it can subvert TLS security for all destinations.
Any set of CAs is simultaneously both overly inclusive and not
inclusive enough.
2. Hardening (pre-DANE) Opportunistic TLS
Neither email addresses nor MX hostnames (or submission SRV records)
signal a requirement for either secure or cleartext transport.
Therefore, SMTP transport security is of necessity generally
opportunistic (barring manually configured exceptions).
This specification uses the presence of DANE TLSA records to securely
signal TLS support and to publish the means by which SMTP clients can
successfully authenticate legitimate SMTP servers. This becomes
"opportunistic DANE TLS" and is resistant to downgrade and MITM
attacks, and enables an incremental transition of the email backbone
to authenticated TLS delivery, with increased global protection as
adoption increases.
With opportunistic DANE TLS, traffic from SMTP clients to domains
that publish "usable" DANE TLSA records in accordance with this memo
is authenticated and encrypted. Traffic from non-compliant clients
or to domains that do not publish TLSA records will continue to be
sent in the same manner as before, via manually configured security,
(pre-DANE) opportunistic TLS or just cleartext SMTP.
2.1. DNS errors, bogus and indeterminate responses
An SMTP client that implements opportunistic DANE TLS per this
specification depends critically on the integrity of DNSSEC lookups,
as discussed in Section 1.3. This section lists the DNS resolver
requirements needed to avoid downgrade attacks when using
opportunistic DANE TLS.
A DNS lookup may signal an error or return a definitive answer. A
security-aware resolver must be used for this specification.
Security-aware resolvers will indicate the security status of a DNS
RRset with one of four possible values defined in Section 4.3 of
[RFC4035]: "secure", "insecure", "bogus" and "indeterminate". In
[RFC4035] the meaning of the "indeterminate" security status is:
An RRset for which the resolver is not able to determine whether
the RRset should be signed, as the resolver is not able to obtain
the necessary DNSSEC RRs. This can occur when the security-aware
resolver is not able to contact security-aware name servers for
the relevant zones.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
Note, the "indeterminate" security status has a conflicting
definition in section 5 of [RFC4033].
There is no trust anchor that would indicate that a specific
portion of the tree is secure.
SMTP clients following this specification SHOULD NOT distinguish
between "insecure" and "indeterminate" in the [RFC4033] sense. Both
"insecure" and RFC4033 "indeterminate" are handled identically: in
either case unvalidated data for the query domain is all that is and
can be available, and authentication using the data is impossible.
In what follows, when we say "insecure", we include also DNS results
for domains that lie in a portion of the DNS tree for which there is
no applicable trust anchor. With the DNS root zone signed, we expect
that validating resolvers used by Internet-facing MTAs will be
configured with trust anchor data for the root zone. Therefore,
RFC4033-style "indeterminate" domains should be rare in practice.
From here on, when we say "indeterminate", it is exclusively in the
sense of [RFC4035].
As noted in section 4.3 of [RFC4035], a security-aware DNS resolver
MUST be able to determine whether a given non-error DNS response is
"secure", "insecure", "bogus" or "indeterminate". It is expected
that most security-aware stub resolvers will not signal an
"indeterminate" security status in the RFC4035-sense to the
application, and will signal a "bogus" or error result instead. If a
resolver does signal an RFC4035 "indeterminate" security status, this
MUST be treated by the SMTP client as though a "bogus" or error
result had been returned.
An MTA making use of a non-validating security-aware stub resolver
MAY use the stub resolver's ability, if available, to signal DNSSEC
validation status based on information the stub resolver has learned
from an upstream validating recursive resolver. In accordance with
section 4.9.3 of [RFC4035]:
... a security-aware stub resolver MUST NOT place any reliance on
signature validation allegedly performed on its behalf, except
when the security-aware stub resolver obtained the data in question
from a trusted security-aware recursive name server via a secure
channel.
To avoid much repetition in the text below, we will pause to explain
the handling of "bogus" or "indeterminate" DNSSEC query responses.
These are not necessarily the result of a malicious actor; they can,
for example, occur when network packets are corrupted or lost in
transit. Therefore, "bogus" or "indeterminate" replies are equated
in this memo with lookup failure.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
There is an important non-failure condition we need to highlight in
addition to the obvious case of the DNS client obtaining a non-empty
"secure" or "insecure" RRset of the requested type. Namely, it is
not an error when either "secure" or "insecure" non-existence is
determined for the requested data. When a DNSSEC response with a
validation status that is either "secure" or "insecure" reports
either no records of the requested type or non-existence of the query
domain, the response is not a DNS error condition. The DNS client
has not been left without an answer; it has learned that records of
the requested type do not exist.
Security-aware stub resolvers will, of course, also signal DNS lookup
errors in other cases, for example when processing a "ServFail"
RCODE, which will not have an associated DNSSEC status. All lookup
errors are treated the same way by this specification, regardless of
whether they are from a "bogus" or "indeterminate" DNSSEC status or
from a more generic DNS error: the information that was requested can
not be obtained by the security-aware resolver at this time. A
lookup error is thus a failure to obtain the relevant RRset if it
exists, or to determine that no such RRset exists when it does not.
In contrast to a "bogus" or an "indeterminate" response, an
"insecure" DNSSEC response is not an error, rather it indicates that
the target DNS zone is either securely opted out of DNSSEC validation
or is not connected with the DNSSEC trust anchors being used.
Insecure results will leave the SMTP client with degraded channel
security, but do not stand in the way of message delivery. See
section Section 2.2 for further details.
When a stub resolver receives a response containing a CNAME alias, it
will generally restart the query at the target of the alias, and
should do so recursively up to some configured or implementation-
dependent recursion limit. If at any stage of recursive CNAME
expansion a query fails, the stub resolver's lookup of the original
requested records will result in a failure status being returned. If
at any stage of recursive expansion the response is "insecure", then
it and all subsequent results (in particular, the final result) MUST
be considered "insecure" regardless of whether the other responses
received were deemed "secure". If at any stage of recursive
expansion the validation status is "bogus" or "indeterminate" or
associated with another DNS lookup error, the resolution of the
requested records MUST be considered to have failed.
When a DNS lookup failure (error or "bogus" or "indeterminate" as
defined above) prevents an SMTP client from determining which SMTP
server or servers it should connect to, message delivery MUST be
delayed. This naturally includes, for example, the case when a
"bogus" or "indeterminate" response is encountered during MX
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
resolution. When multiple MX hostnames are obtained from a
successful MX lookup, but a later DNS lookup failure prevents network
address resolution for a given MX hostname, delivery may proceed via
any remaining MX hosts.
When a particular SMTP server is selected as the delivery
destination, a set of DNS lookups must be performed to discover any
related TLSA records. If any DNS queries used to locate TLSA records
fail (be it due to "bogus" or "indeterminate" records, timeouts,
malformed replies, ServFails, etc.), then the SMTP client MUST treat
that server as unreachable and MUST NOT deliver the message via that
server. If no servers are reachable, delivery is delayed.
In what follows, we will only describe what happens when all relevant
DNS queries succeed. If any DNS failure occurs, the SMTP client MUST
behave as described in this section, by skipping the problem SMTP
server, or the problem destination. Queries for candidate TLSA
records are explicitly part of "all relevant DNS queries" and SMTP
clients MUST NOT continue to connect to an SMTP server or destination
whose TLSA record lookup fails.
2.2. TLS discovery
As noted previously (in Section 1.3.1), opportunistic TLS with SMTP
servers that advertise TLS support via STARTTLS is subject to an MITM
downgrade attack. Also some SMTP servers that are not, in fact, TLS
capable erroneously advertise STARTTLS by default and clients need to
be prepared to retry cleartext delivery after STARTTLS fails. In
contrast, DNSSEC validated TLSA records MUST NOT be published for
servers that do not support TLS. Clients can safely interpret their
presence as a commitment by the server operator to implement TLS and
STARTTLS.
This memo defines four actions to be taken after the search for a
TLSA record returns secure usable results, secure unusable results,
insecure or no results or an error signal. The term "usable" in this
context is in the sense of Section 4.1 of [RFC6698]. Specifically,
if the DNS lookup for a TLSA record returns:
A secure TLSA RRset with at least one usable record: A connection to
the MTA MUST be made using authenticated and encrypted TLS, using
the techniques discussed in the rest of this document. Failure to
establish an authenticated TLS connection MUST result in falling
back to the next SMTP server or delayed delivery.
A Secure non-empty TLSA RRset where all the records are unusable: A
connection to the MTA MUST be made via TLS, but authentication is
not required. Failure to establish an encrypted TLS connection
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
MUST result in falling back to the next SMTP server or delayed
delivery.
An insecure TLSA RRset or DNSSEC validated proof-of-non-existent TLSA
records:
A connection to the MTA SHOULD be made using (pre-DANE)
opportunistic TLS, this includes using cleartext delivery when the
remote SMTP server does not appear to support TLS. The MTA may
optionally retry in cleartext when a TLS handshake fails.
Any lookup error: Lookup errors, including "bogus" and
"indeterminate", as explained in Section 2.1 MUST result in
falling back to the next SMTP server or delayed delivery.
An SMTP client MAY be configured to require DANE verified delivery
for some destinations. We will call such a configuration "mandatory
DANE TLS". With mandatory DANE TLS, delivery proceeds only when
"secure" TLSA records are used to establish an encrypted and
authenticated TLS channel with the SMTP server.
An operational error on the sending or receiving side that cannot be
corrected in a timely manner may, at times, lead to consistent
failure to deliver time-sensitive email. The sending MTA
administrator may have to choose between letting email queue until
the error is resolved and disabling opportunistic or mandatory DANE
TLS for one or more destinations. The choice to disable DANE TLS
security should not be made lightly. Every reasonable effort should
be made to determine that problems with mail delivery are the result
of an operational error, and not an attack. A fallback strategy may
be to configure explicit out-of-band TLS security settings if
supported by the sending MTA.
A note about DNAME aliases: a query for a domain name whose ancestor
domain is a DNAME alias returns the DNAME RR for the ancestor domain,
along with a CNAME that maps the query domain to the corresponding
sub-domain of the target domain of the DNAME alias. Therefore,
whenever we speak of CNAME aliases, we implicitly allow for the
possibility that the alias in question is the result of an ancestor
domain DNAME record. Consequently, no explicit support for DNAME
records is needed in SMTP software, it is sufficient to process the
resulting CNAME aliases. DNAME records only require special
processing in the validating stub-resolver library that checks the
integrity of the combined DNAME + CNAME reply. When DNSSEC
validation is handled by a local caching resolver, rather than the
MTA itself, even that part of the DNAME support logic is outside the
MTA.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
When the original next-hop destination is an address literal, rather
than a DNS domain, DANE TLS does not apply. Delivery proceeds using
any relevant security policy configured by the MTA administrator.
Similarly, when an MX RRset incorrectly lists an network address in
lieu of an MX hostname, if the MTA chooses to connect to the network
address DANE TLSA does not apply for such a connection.
In the subsections that follow we explain how to locate the SMTP
servers and the associated TLSA records for a given next-hop
destination domain. We also explain which name or names are to be
used in identity checks of the SMTP server certificate.
2.2.1. MX resolution
In this section we consider next-hop domains that are subject to MX
resolution and have MX records. The TLSA records and the associated
base domain are derived separately for each MX hostname that is used
to attempt message delivery. Clearly, if DANE TLS security is to
apply to message delivery via any of the SMTP servers, the MX records
must be obtained securely via a DNSSEC validated MX lookup.
MX records MUST be sorted by preference; an MX hostname with a worse
(numerically higher) MX preference that has TLSA records MUST NOT
preempt an MX hostname with a better (numerically lower) preference
that has no TLSA records. In other words, prevention of delivery
loops by obeying MX preferences MUST take precedence over channel
security considerations. Even with two equal preference MX records,
an MTA is not obligated to choose the MX hostname that offers more
security. Domains that want secure inbound mail delivery need to
ensure that all their SMTP servers and MX records are configured
accordingly.
In the language of [RFC5321] Section 5.1, the original next-hop
domain is the "initial name". If the MX lookup of the initial name
results in a CNAME alias, the MTA replaces the initial name with the
resulting name and performs a new lookup with the new name. MTAs
typically support recursion in CNAME expansion, so this replacement
is performed repeatedly until the ultimate non-CNAME domain is found.
If the MX RRset (or any CNAME leading to it) is "insecure" (see
Section 2.1), DANE TLS does not apply, and delivery proceeds via pre-
DANE opportunistic TLS. Otherwise (assuming no DNS errors or "bogus"
/"indeterminate" responses), the MX RRset is "secure", and the SMTP
client MUST treat each MX hostname as a separate non-MX destination
for opportunistic DANE TLS as described in Section 2.2.2. When, for
a given MX hostname, no TLSA records are found, or only "insecure"
TLSA records are found, DANE TLSA is not applicable with the SMTP
server in question and delivery proceeds to that host as with pre-
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
DANE opportunistic TLS. To avoid downgrade attacks, any errors
during TLSA lookups MUST, as explained in Section 2.1, cause the SMTP
server in question to be treated as unreachable.
2.2.2. Non-MX destinations
This section describes the algorithm used to locate the TLSA records
and associated TLSA base domain for an input domain not subject to MX
resolution. Such domains include:
o Each MX hostname used in a message delivery attempt for an
original next-hop destination domain subject to MX resolution.
Note, MTAs are not obligated to support CNAME expansion of MX
hostnames.
o Any administrator configured relay hostname, not subject to MX
resolution. This frequently involves configuration set by the MTA
administrator to handle some or all mail.
o A next-hop destination domain subject to MX resolution that has no
MX records. In this case the domain's name is implicitly also the
hostname of its sole SMTP server.
Note that DNS queries with type TLSA are mishandled by load balancing
nameservers that serve the MX hostnames of some large email
providers. The DNS zones served by these nameservers are not signed
and contain no TLSA records, but queries for TLSA records fail,
rather than returning the non-existence of the requested TLSA
records.
To avoid problems delivering mail to domains whose SMTP servers are
served by the problem nameservers the SMTP client MUST perform any A
and/or AAAA queries for the destination before attempting to locate
the associated TLSA records. This lookup is needed in any case to
determine whether the destination domain is reachable and the DNSSEC
validation status of each stage of the chain of CNAME queries
required to reach the final result.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
If no address records are found, the destination is unreachable. If
address records are found, but the DNSSEC validation status of the
first query response is "insecure" (there may be additional queries
if the initial response is a CNAME alias), the SMTP client SHOULD NOT
proceed to search for any associated TLSA records. With the problem
domains, TLSA queries will lead to DNS lookup errors and cause
messages to be consistently delayed and ultimately returned to the
sender. We don't expect to find any "secure" TLSA records associated
with a TLSA base domain that lies in an unsigned DNS zone.
Therefore, skipping TLSA lookups in this case will also reduce
latency with no detrimental impact on security.
If the A and/or AAAA lookup of the "initial name" yields a CNAME, we
replace it with the resulting name as if it were the initial name and
perform a lookup again using the new name. This replacement is
performed recursively.
We consider the following cases for handling a DNS response for an A
or AAAA DNS lookup:
Not found: When the DNS queries for A and/or AAAA records yield
neither a list of addresses nor a CNAME (or CNAME expansion is not
supported) the destination is unreachable.
Non-CNAME: The answer is not a CNAME alias. If the address RRset
is "secure", TLSA lookups are performed as described in
Section 2.2.3 with the initial name as the candidate TLSA base
domain. If no "secure" TLSA records are found, DANE TLS is not
applicable and mail delivery proceeds with pre-DANE opportunistic
TLS (which, being best-effort, degrades to cleartext delivery when
STARTTLS is not available or the TLS handshake fails).
Insecure CNAME: The input domain is a CNAME alias, but the ultimate
network address RRset is "insecure" (see Section 2.1). If the
initial CNAME response is also "insecure", DANE TLS does not
apply. Otherwise, this case is treated just like the non-CNAME
case above, where a search is performed for a TLSA record with the
original input domain as the candidate TLSA base domain.
Secure CNAME: The input domain is a CNAME alias, and the ultimate
network address RRset is "secure" (see Section 2.1). Two
candidate TLSA base domains are tried: the fully CNAME-expanded
initial name and, failing that, then the initial name itself.
In summary, if it is possible to securely obtain the full, CNAME-
expanded, DNSSEC-validated address records for the input domain, then
that name is the preferred TLSA base domain. Otherwise, the
unexpanded input-MX domain is the candidate TLSA base domain. When
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
no "secure" TLSA records are found at either the CNAME-expanded or
unexpanded domain, then DANE TLS does not apply for mail delivery via
the input domain in question. And, as always, errors, bogus or
indeterminate results for any query in the process MUST result in
delaying or abandoning delivery.
2.2.3. TLSA record lookup
Each candidate TLSA base domain (the original or fully CNAME-expanded
name of a non-MX destination or a particular MX hostname of an MX
destination) is in turn prefixed with service labels of the form
"_<port>._tcp". The resulting domain name is used to issue a DNSSEC
query with the query type set to TLSA ([RFC6698] Section 7.1).
For SMTP, the destination TCP port is typically 25, but this may be
different with custom routes specified by the MTA administrator in
which case the SMTP client MUST use the appropriate number in the
"_<port>" prefix in place of "_25". If, for example, the candidate
base domain is "mail.example.com", and the SMTP connection is to port
25, the TLSA RRset is obtained via a DNSSEC query of the form:
_25._tcp.mail.example.com. IN TLSA ?
The query response may be a CNAME, or the actual TLSA RRset. If the
response is a CNAME, the SMTP client (through the use of its
security-aware stub resolver) restarts the TLSA query at the target
domain, following CNAMEs as appropriate and keeping track of whether
the entire chain is "secure". If any "insecure" records are
encountered, or the TLSA records don't exist, the next candidate TLSA
base is tried instead.
If the ultimate response is a "secure" TLSA RRset, then the candidate
TLSA base domain will be the actual TLSA base domain and the TLSA
RRset will constitute the TLSA records for the destination. If none
of the candidate TLSA base domains yield "secure" TLSA records then
delivery should proceed via pre-DANE opportunistic TLS.
TLSA record publishers may leverage CNAMEs to reference a single
authoritative TLSA RRset specifying a common certificate authority or
a common end entity certificate to be used with multiple TLS
services. Such CNAME expansion does not change the SMTP client's
notion of the TLSA base domain; thus, when _25._tcp.mail.example.com
is a CNAME, the base domain remains mail.example.com and is still the
name used in peer certificate name checks.
Note, shared end entity certificate associations expose the
publishing domain to substitution attacks, where an MITM attacker can
reroute traffic to a different server that shares the same end entity
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
certificate. Such shared end entity records should be avoided unless
the servers in question are interchangeable.
For example, given the DNSSEC validated records below:
example.com. IN MX 0 mail.example.com.
example.com. IN MX 0 mail2.example.com.
_25._tcp.mail.example.com. IN CNAME tlsa211._dane.example.com.
_25._tcp.mail2.example.com. IN CNAME tlsa211._dane.example.com.
tlsa211._dane.example.com. IN TLSA 2 1 1 e3b0c44298fc1c14....
The SMTP servers mail.example.com and mail2.example.com will be
expected to have certificates issued under a common trust anchor, but
each MX hostname's TLSA base domain remains unchanged despite the
above CNAME records. Each SMTP server's certificate subject name (or
one of the subject alternative names) is expected to match either the
corresponding MX hostname or else "example.com".
If, during TLSA resolution (including possible CNAME indirection), at
least one "secure" TLSA record is found (even if not usable because
it is unsupported by the implementation or support is
administratively disabled), then the corresponding host has signaled
its commitment to implement TLS. The SMTP client SHOULD NOT deliver
mail via the corresponding host unless a TLS session is negotiated
via STARTTLS. This is required to avoid MITM STARTTLS downgrade
attacks.
As noted previously (in Section Section 2.2.2), when no "secure" TLSA
records are found at the fully CNAME-expanded name, the original
unexpanded name MUST be tried instead. This supports customers of
hosting providers where the provider's zone cannot be validated with
DNSSEC, but the customer has shared appropriate key material with the
hosting provider to enable TLS via SNI. Intermediate names that
arise during CNAME expansion that are neither the original, nor the
final name, are never candidate TLSA base domains, even if "secure".
2.3. DANE authentication
This section describes which TLSA records are applicable to SMTP
opportunistic DANE TLS and how to apply such records to authenticate
the SMTP server. 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.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
2.3.1. TLSA certificate usages
The DANE TLSA specification [RFC6698] 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]. The rest of the TLSA record is
the "certificate association data field", which specifies the full or
digest value of a certificate or public key. The 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.
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.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
The certificate usage element of a TLSA record plays a critical role
in determining how the corresponding certificate association data
field is used to authenticate server's certificate chain. The next
two subsections explain the process for certificate usages DANE-EE(3)
and DANE-TA(2). The third subsection briefly explains why
certificate usages PKIX-TA(0) and PKIX-EE(1) are not applicable with
opportunistic DANE TLS.
2.3.1.1. Certificate usage DANE-EE(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.
Authentication via certificate usage DANE-EE(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 DANE-EE(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 server's default certificate).
Two TLSA records MUST 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 and
related signature RRsets, the server may be reconfigured to use the
new private key and associated public key certificate. 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 published for SMTP servers SHOULD, in most cases, be
"DANE-EE(3) SPKI(1) SHA2-256(1)" records. 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.
2.3.1.2. Certificate usage DANE-TA(2)
Some domains may prefer to avoid 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 as a trust anchor (TA) for the certificate chains of all
relevant services. The TLSA query domain (TLSA base domain with port
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
and protocol prefix labels) for each service issued by the same TA
may then be set to a CNAME alias that points to a common TLSA RRset
that matches the TA.
SMTP servers that rely on certificate usage DANE-TA(2) TLSA records
for TLS authentication MUST include the TA certificate as part of the
certificate chain presented in the TLS handshake server certificate
message even when it is a self-signed root certificate. At this
time, many SMTP servers are not configured with a comprehensive list
of trust anchors, nor are they expected to at any point in the
future. Some MTAs will ignore all locally trusted certificates when
processing usage DANE-TA(2) TLSA records. Thus even when the TA
happens to be a public Certificate Authority known to the SMTP
client, authentication is likely to fail unless the TA is included in
the TLS server certificate message.
TLSA Publishers should publish either "DANE-TA(2) SPKI(1) Full(0)" or
"DANE-TA(2) Cert(0) SHA2-256(1)" TLSA parameters. As with leaf
certificate rollover discussed in Section 2.3.1.1, two such TLSA RRs
need to be published to facilitate TA certificate rollover.
2.3.1.3. Certificate usages PKIX-TA(0) and PKIX-EE(1)
SMTP servers SHOULD NOT publish TLSA RRs with certificate usage
"PKIX-TA(0)" or "PKIX-EE(1)". SMTP clients cannot be expected to be
configured with a suitably complete set of trusted public CAs. Even
with a full set of public CAs, SMTP clients cannot (without relying
on DNSSEC for secure MX records and DANE for STARTTLS support
signalling) perform [RFC6125] server identity verification or prevent
STARTTLS downgrade attacks. The use of trusted public CAs offers no
added security since an attacker capable of compromising DNSSEC is
free to replace any PKIX-TA(0) or PKIX-EE(1) TLSA records with
records bearing any convenient non-PKIX certificate usage.
SMTP client treatment of TLSA RRs with certificate usages "PKIX-
TA(0)" or "PKIX-EE(1)" is undefined. For example, clients MAY (will
likely) treat such TLSA records as unusable.
2.3.2. Certificate matching
When at least one usable "secure" TLSA record is found, the SMTP
client SHOULD use TLSA records to authenticate the SMTP server.
Messages SHOULD NOT be delivered via the SMTP server if
authentication fails, otherwise the SMTP client is vulnerable to MITM
attacks.
To match a server via a TLSA record with certificate usage DANE-
TA(2), the client MUST perform name checks to ensure that it has
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
reached the correct server. In all cases the SMTP client MUST accept
the TLSA base domain as a valid DNS name in the server certificate.
TLSA records for MX hostnames: If the TLSA base domain was obtained
indirectly via an MX lookup (including any CNAME-expanded name of
an MX hostname), then the original next-hop domain used in the MX
lookup MUST be accepted in the peer certificate. The CNAME-
expanded original next-hop domain MUST also be accepted if
different from the initial query name.
TLSA records for Non-MX hostnames: If MX records were not used
(e.g., if none exist) and the TLSA base domain is the CNAME-
expanded original next-hop domain, then the original next-hop
domain MUST also be accepted.
Accepting certificates with the original next-hop domain in addition
to the MX hostname allows a domain with multiple MX hostnames to
field a single certificate bearing a single domain name (i.e., the
email domain) across all the SMTP servers. This also aids inter-
operability with pre-DANE SMTP clients that are configured to look
for the email domain name in server certificates. For example, with
"secure" DNS records as below:
exchange.example.org. IN CNAME mail.example.org.
mail.example.org. IN CNAME example.com.
example.com. IN MX 10 mx10.example.com.
example.com. IN MX 15 mx15.example.com.
example.com. IN MX 20 mx20.example.com.
;
mx10.example.com. IN A 192.0.2.10
_25._tcp.mx10.example.com. IN TLSA 2 0 1 ...
;
mx15.example.com. IN CNAME mxbackup.example.com.
mxbackup.example.com. IN A 192.0.2.15
; _25._tcp.mxbackup.example.com. IN TLSA ? (NXDOMAIN)
_25._tcp.mx15.example.com. IN TLSA 2 0 1 ...
;
mx20.example.com. IN CNAME mxbackup.example.net.
mxbackup.example.net. IN A 198.51.100.20
_25._tcp.mxbackup.example.net. IN TLSA 2 0 1 ...
Certificate name checks for delivery of mail to exchange.example.org
via any of the associated SMTP servers MUST accept at least the names
"exchange.example.org" and "example.com", which are respectively the
original and fully expanded next-hop domain. When the SMTP server is
mx10.example.com, name checks MUST accept the TLSA base domain
"mx10.example.com". If, despite the fact that MX hostnames are
required to not be aliases, the MTA supports delivery via
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
"mx15.example.com" or "mx20.example.com" then name checks MUST accept
the respective TLSA base domains "mx15.example.com" and
"mxbackup.example.net".
The SMTP client MUST NOT perform certificate usage name checks with
certificate usage DANE-EE(3), since with usage DANE-EE(3) the server
is authenticated directly by matching the TLSA RRset to its
certificate or public key without resorting to any issuing authority.
The certificate content is ignored except to match the certificate or
public key (ASN.1 DER encoding or its 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. This precludes the use of the backward compatible SSL 2.0
compatible SSL HELLO by the SMTP client. The minimum SSL/TLS client
HELLO version for SMTP clients performing DANE authentication is SSL
3.0, but a client that offers SSL 3.0 MUST also offer at least TLS
1.0 and MUST include the SNI extension. Servers that don't make use
of SNI MAY negotiate SSL 3.0 if offered by the client.
Each SMTP server MUST present a certificate chain (see [RFC5246]
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
indicating a digest record (i.e., a value other than Full(0)), a TLSA
record with a SHA2-256(1) matching type SHOULD be provided along with
any other digest published, since some SMTP clients may support only
SHA2-256(1).
If the server's TLSA records match the server's default certificate
chain, the server need not support SNI. In either case, the server
need not include the SNI extension in its TLS HELLO as simply
returning a matching certificate chain is sufficient. Servers MUST
NOT enforce the use of SNI by clients, as the client may be using
unauthenticated opportunistic TLS and may not expect any particular
certificate from the server. If the client sends no SNI extension,
or sends an SNI extension for an unsupported domain, the server MUST
simply send its default certificate chain. The reason for not
enforcing strict matching of the requested SNI hostname is that DANE
TLS clients are typically willing to accept multiple server names,
but can only send one name in the SNI extension. The server's
default certificate may match a different name acceptable to the
client, e.g., the original next-hop domain.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
An SMTP client employing pre-DANE opportunistic TLS MAY include some
anonymous TLS cipher suites in its TLS HELLO in addition to at least
one non-anonymous cipher suite (since servers often do support any of
the anonymous ones). Therefore, an SMTP server MUST either select
some suitable non-anonymous cipher suite offered by the client, or if
it selects an anonymous cipher suite, it MUST NOT fail to complete
the handshake merely because an anonymous cipher suite was chosen.
Note that while SMTP server operators are under no obligation to
enable anonymous cipher suites, no security is gained by sending
certificates to clients that will ignore them. Indeed support for
anonymous cipher suites in the server makes audit trails more
informative. Log entries that record connections that employed an
anonymous cipher suite record the fact that the clients did not care
to authenticate the server.
2.3.3. Digest algorithm agility
While [RFC6698] specifies multiple digest algorithms, it does not
specify a protocol by which the SMTP client and TLSA record publisher
can agree on the strongest shared algorithm. Such a protocol would
allow the client and server to avoid exposure to any deprecated
weaker algorithms that are published for compatibilty with less
capable clients, but should be ignored when possible. We specify
such a protocol below.
Suppose that a DANE TLS client authenticating a TLS server considers
digest algorithm BETTER stronger than digest algorithm WORSE.
Suppose further that a server's TLSA RRset contains some records with
BETTER as the digest algorithm. Finally, suppose that for every raw
public key or certificate object that is included in the server's
TLSA RRset in digest form, whenever that object appears with
algorithm WORSE with some usage and selector it also appears with
algorithm BETTER with the same usage and selector. In that case our
client can safely ignore TLSA records with the weaker algorithm
WORSE, because it suffices to check the records with the stronger
algorithm BETTER.
Server operators MUST ensure that for any given usage and selector,
each object (certificate or public key), for which a digest
association exists in the TLSA RRset, is published with the SAME SET
of digest algorithms as all other objects that published with that
usage and selector. In other words, for each usage and selector, the
records with non-zero matching types will correspond to on a cross-
product of a set of underlying objects and a fixed set of digest
algorithms that apply uniformly to all the objects.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
To achieve digest algorithm agility, all published TLSA RRsets for
use with opportunistic DANE TLS for SMTP MUST conform to the above
requirements. Then, for each combination of usage and selector, SMTP
clients can simply ignore all digest records except those that employ
the strongest digest algorithm. The ordering of digest algorithms by
strength is not specified in advance, it is entirely up to the SMTP
client. SMTP client implementations SHOULD make the digest algorithm
preference order configurable. Only the future will tell which
algorithms might be weakened by new attacks and when.
Note, TLSA records with a matching type of Full(0), that publish the
full value of a certificate or public key object, play no role in
digest algorithm agility. They neither trump the processing of
records that employ digests, nor are they ignored in the presence of
any records with a digest (i.e. non-zero) matching type.
SMTP clients SHOULD use digest algorithm agility when processing the
DANE TLSA records of an SMTP server. Algorithm agility is to be
applied after first discarding any unusable or malformed records
(unsupported digest algorithm, or incorrect digest length). Thus,
for each usage and selector, the client SHOULD process only any
usable records with a matching type of Full(0) and the usable records
whose digest algorithm is believed to be the strongest among usable
records with the given usage and selector.
The main impact of this requirement is on key rotation, when the TLSA
RRset is pre-populated with digests of new certificates or public
keys, before these replace or augment their predecessors. Were the
newly introduced RRs to include previously unused digest algorithms,
clients that employ this protocol could potentially ignore all the
digests corresponding to the current keys or certificates, causing
connectivity issues until the new keys or certificates are deployed.
Similarly, publishing new records with fewer digests could cause
problems for clients using cached TLSA RRsets that list both the old
and new objects once the new keys are deployed.
To avoid problems, server operators SHOULD apply the following
strategy:
o When changing the set of objects published via the TLSA RRset
(e.g. during key rotation), DO NOT change the set of digest
algorithms used; change just the list of objects.
o When changing the set of digest algorithms, change only the set of
algorithms, and generate a new RRset in which all the current
objects are re-published with the new set of digest algorithms.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
After either of these two changes are made, the new TLSA RRset should
be left in place long enough that the older TLSA RRset can be flushed
from caches before making another change.
3. Mandatory TLS Security
An MTA implementing this protocol may require a stronger security
assurance when sending email to selected destinations. The sending
organization may need to send sensitive email and/or may have
regulatory obligations to protect its content. This protocol is not
in conflict with such a requirement, and in fact can often simplify
authenticated delivery to such destinations.
Specifically, with domains that publish DANE TLSA records for their
MX hostnames, a sending MTA can be configured to use the receiving
domains's DANE TLSA records to authenticate the corresponding SMTP
server. Authentication via DANE TLSA records is easier to manage, as
changes in the receiver's expected certificate properties are made on
the receiver end and don't require manually communicated
configuration changes. With mandatory DANE TLS, when no usable TLSA
records are found, message delivery is delayed. Thus, mail is only
sent when an authenticated TLS channel is established to the remote
SMTP server.
Administrators of mail servers that employ mandatory DANE TLS, need
to carefully monitor their mail logs and queues. If a partner domain
unwittingly misconfigures their TLSA records, disables DNSSEC, or
misconfigures SMTP server certificate chains, mail will be delayed.
4. Operational Considerations
4.1. Client Operational Considerations
SMTP clients may deploy opportunistic DANE TLS incrementally by
enabling it only for selected sites, or may occasionally need to
disable opportunistic DANE TLS for peers that fail to interoperate
due to misconfiguration or software defects on either end. Unless
local policy specifies that opportunistic DANE TLS is not to be used
for a particular destination, an SMTP client MUST NOT deliver mail
via a server whose certificate chain fails to match at least one TLSA
record when usable TLSA records are found for that server.
4.2. Publisher Operational Considerations
SMTP servers that publish certificate usage DANE-TA(2) associations
MUST include the TA certificate in their TLS server certificate
chain, even when that TA certificate is a self-signed root
certificate.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
TLSA Publishers must follow the digest agility guidelines in
Section 2.3.3 and must make sure that all objects published in digest
form for a particular usage and selector are published with the same
set of digest algorithms.
TLSA Publishers should follow the TLSA publication size guidance
found in [I-D.ietf-dane-ops] about "DANE DNS Record Size Guidelines".
5. 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 hostnames, this protocol allows sending MTAs 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 with negotiated out-of-band key and TLS
configuration exchanges.
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, avoiding
certificate usages 0 and 1 simplifies implementation and deployment
with no adverse security consequences.
Implementations must strictly follow the portions of this
specification that indicate when it is appropriate to initiate a non-
authenticated connection or cleartext connection to a SMTP server.
Specifically, in order to prevent downgrade attacks on this protocol,
implementation must not initiate a connection when this specification
indicates a particular SMTP server must be considered unreachable.
6. IANA considerations
This specification requires no support from IANA.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
7. 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 Paul Hoffman who motivated me
to begin work on this memo and provided feedback on early drafts.
Thanks to Patrick Koetter, Perry Metzger and Nico Williams for
valuable review comments. Thanks also to Wietse Venema who created
Postfix, and whose advice and feedback were essential to the
development of the Postfix DANE implementation.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-dane-ops]
Dukhovni, V. and W. Hardaker, "DANE TLSA implementation
and operational guidance", draft-ietf-dane-ops-00 (work in
progress), October 2013.
[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.
[RFC3207] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, February 2002.
[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.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
[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.
[RFC6672] Rose, S. and W. Wijngaards, "DNAME Redirection in the
DNS", RFC 6672, June 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.
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]
Finch, T., "Secure SMTP using DNS-Based Authentication of
Named Entities (DANE) TLSA records.", draft-ietf-dane-
smtp-01 (work in progress), February 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.
Dukhovni & Hardaker Expires August 16, 2014 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft SMTP security via opportunistic DANE TLS February 2014
[RFC5598] Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598, July
2009.
[RFC6394] Barnes, R., "Use Cases and Requirements for DNS-Based
Authentication of Named Entities (DANE)", RFC 6394,
October 2011.
[RFC6895] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 6895, April 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 August 16, 2014 [Page 29]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/