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

Versions: 00 01

INTERNET-DRAFT                                              R. Gieben
DNSEXT Working Group                                        NLnet Labs
Expires September 2001                                      T. Lindgreen
                                                            NLnet Labs

                     Parent stores the child's zone KEYs

                draft-ietf-dnsext-parent-stores-zone-keys-01.txt


Status of This Document

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.  Internet-Drafts are
   working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
   areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also
   distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.  The list of
   Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   Comments should be sent to the authors or the DNSEXT WG mailing
   list namedroppers@ops.ietf.org.

   This document updates RFC 2535.


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All rights reserved.


Abstract

   When dealing with large amounts of keys the procedures to update a
   zone and to sign a zone need to be clearly defined and practically
   possible.  The current idea is to have the zone KEY RR and the
   parent's SIG to reside in the child's zone and perhaps also in the
   parent's zone. Operational experiences have prompted us to develop an
   alternative scheme in which the parent zone stores the parent's
   signature over the child's key and also the child's key itself.

   The advantage of this scheme is that all signatures signed by a key
   are in the same zone file as the producing key. This allows for a



Gieben & Lindgreen       Expires November 2001                [Page  2]

Internet Draft          Parent Stores Zone KEYS               May    2001

   simple key rollover and resigning mechanism. For large TLDs this is
   extremely important.

   Besides the operational advantages, this also obsoletes the NULL key,
   as the absence of child's zone KEY, which is securely verified by the
   absence of the KEY-bit in the corresponding NXT RR, now unambiguously
   indicates that the child is not secured by this parent.

   We further discuss the impact on a secure aware resolver/forwarder
   and the impact on the authority of KEYs and the NXT record.


Table of Contents

      Status of This Document....................................
      Abstract...................................................

      Table of Contents..........................................
      1 Introduction.............................................
      2 Proposal.................................................
      2.1. TTL of the KEY and SIG at the parent..................
      2.2. No NULL KEY...........................................
      3 Impact on a secure aware resolver/forwarder..............
      3.1 Impact of key rollovers on resolver/forwarder..........
      4 Scheduled key rollover...................................
      5 Unscheduled key rollover.................................
      6 Zone resigning...........................................
      7. Consequences for KEY and NXT records....................
      7.1. KEY bit in NXT records................................
      7.2. Authority of KEY records..............................
      7.3. Selecting KEY sets....................................
      8. The zone-KEY and local KEY records......................
      9. Security Considerations.................................

      Authors' Addresses.........................................
      References.................................................
      Full Copyright Statement...................................


1. Introduction
   Within a CENTR working group NLnet Labs is researching the impact of
   DNSSEC on the ccTLDs and gTLDs.

   In this document we are considering a secure zone, somewhere under a
   secure entry point and on-tree [RFC 3090] validation between the
   secure entry point and the zone in question.  The resolver we are
   considering is security aware and is preconfigured with the KEY of
   the secure entry point.  We also make a distinction between a
   scheduled and a unscheduled key rollover.  A scheduled rollover is
   announced before hand.  An unscheduled key rollover is needed when a
   private key is compromised.



Gieben & Lindgreen       Expires November 2001                [Page  3]

Internet Draft          Parent Stores Zone KEYS               May    2001


   RFC 2535 states that a zone KEY must be present in the apex of a
   zone.  This can be in the at the delegation point in the parent's
   zonefile, or in the child's zonefile, or in both.  This key is only
   valid if it is signed by the parent, so there is also the question
   where this signature and this zone KEY are located.

   The original idea was to have the zone KEY RR and the parent's SIG to
   reside in the child's zone and perhaps also in the parent's zone.
   There is a draft proposal [RFC 2535], that describes how a
   keyrollover can be handled.

   At NLnet Labs we found that storing the parent's signature over the
   child's zone KEY in the child's zone:
       - makes resigning a KEY by the parent difficult
       - makes a scheduled keyrollover very complicated
       - makes an unscheduled keyrollover virtually impossible

   We propose an alternative scheme in which the parent's signature over
   the child's zone KEY and the child's zone KEY itself are only stored
   in the parent's zone, i.e. where the signing key resides. This would
   solve the above problems and also obsoletes the NULL KEY.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.


2. Proposal
   The core of the new proposal is that the parent zone stores the
   parent's signature over the child's zone KEY and also the child's
   zone KEY itself, and is authoritative for both KEY and SIG.  The
   child zone may also contain its zone KEY, in which case is must be
   selfsigned. The child zone must not hold the parent's SIG, and must
   also not set the AA-bit on requests for its zone KEY.

   The main advantage of this proposal is that all signatures signed by
   a key are in the same zone file as the producing key. This allows for
   a simple key rollover and resigning mechanism. For large TLDs this is
   extremely important.  A disadvantage would be that not all the
   information concerning one zone is stored at that zone, this is
   covered in section 7.2.

   A parent running DNSSEC SHOULD NOT refuse a request from a child to
   include and sign its key, but can ask for certain conditions to be
   met. These condition could include a fee, sufficient authentication,
   signing a non liability clause, the conditions specified in section 8
   of this document, etc.

2.1. TTL of the KEY and SIG at the parent
   Each zone in DNS expresses in its SOA record the maximum and minimum



Gieben & Lindgreen       Expires November 2001                [Page  4]

Internet Draft          Parent Stores Zone KEYS               May    2001

   TTL values that they allow in the zone. Thus it is possible that the
   parent will sign with a value that is unacceptable to the child. The
   parent MUST follow the TTL request of the child as long as that is
   within the allowed range for the parent.

2.2. No NULL KEY
   This proposal obsoletes the NULL KEY. If there is no child KEY at the
   parent, which can be securely verified by inspecting the the unset
   KEY-bit in the corresponding NXT RR, the child is not secured by this
   parent (of course, the child can then still be secured off-tree).
   This updates section 3.1.2 "The zone KEY RR Flag Field" of RFC 2535,
   it says:

   " 11: If both bits are one, the "no key" value, there is no key
        information and the RR stops after the algorithm octet.
        By the use of this "no key" value, a signed zone KEY RR can
        authenticatably assert that, for example, a zone is not
        secured.  See section 3.4 below. "

   As we don't have a NULL KEY anymore this is obsoleted.
   Section 3.4 "Determination of Zone Secure/Unsecured Status":

   " A zone KEY RR with the "no-key" type field value (both key type
   flag bits 0 and 1 on) indicates that the zone named is unsecured
   while a zone KEY RR with a key present indicates that the zone named
   is secure.  The secured versus unsecured status of a zone may vary
   with different cryptographic algorithms.  Even for the same
   algorithm, conflicting zone KEY RRs may be present. "

   This is rewritten as:

    " A zone is considered secured by on-tree validation [RFC 3090] when
    the there is a zone KEY from that zone present at its parent. If
    there is no zone KEY present, and the resolver is also unaware of
    alternative algorithms used and/or possible off-tree validation, the
    zone is considered unsecured. "

   To further clarify this. A zone is secure, when the resolver expects
   it to be, there are two possibilities:
      1. When its parent is secure and holds a signed KEY for this child.
      2. When zone is a secure entry point, i.e. the resolver is
         preconfigured with the KEY of this zone.

   RFC 3090 calls this globally secured.

   When a zone contains SIGs and a selfsigned KEY and this KEY is
   preconfigured in the resolvers of interest, the a zone can be
   considered locally secured (the RFC 3090 defintion).  hijacked.

   If a zone is not globally or locally it must be considered unsecure.




Gieben & Lindgreen       Expires November 2001                [Page  5]

Internet Draft          Parent Stores Zone KEYS               May    2001


3. Impact on a secure aware resolver/forwarder
   The resolver must be aware of the fact that the parent is more
   authoritative than a child when it comes to deciding whether a zone
   is secured or not.

   Without caching and with on-tree validation, a resolver will always
   start its search at a secure entry point. In this way it can
   determine whether it must expect SIG records or not.

   Considering caching in a secure aware resolver or forwarder. If
   information of a secure zone is cached, its validated KEY should also
   be cached.

3.1. Impact of key rollovers on resolver/forwarder
   When a zone is in the process of a key rollover, there could be a
   discrepancy between the KEY and the SIG in the apex of the zone and
   the KEY and SIG that are stored in the cache of a resolver.

   Suppose a resolver has cached the NS, KEY and SIG records of a zone.
   Next a request comes for an A record in that zone. Also the zone is
   in the process of a key rollover and already has new keys in its
   zone.  The resolver receives an answer consisting of the A record and
   a SIG over the A record.  It uses the tag field in the SIG to
   determine if it has a KEY which is suitable to validate the SIG.  If
   it does not has such a KEY the resolver must ask the parent of the
   zone for a new KEY and then try it again.  Now the resolver has 2
   keys for the zone, according to the tag field in the SIG it can use
   either one.

   If the new key also does not validate the SIG the zone is marked bad.
   If the parent indicates by having a not set KEY-bit in the NXT RR
   that there is no KEY for this zone, the child must be considered
   unsecured by this parent, despite the appearance of an (old) KEY in
   the cache.  This could for instance happen after an emergency request
   from the child, who has suffered a key compromise, and has decided to
   prefer being unsecured over either dropping of the Internet or being
   exposed to have verifiable secure info added by the key-compromiser
   to their zone information.


4. Scheduled key rollover
   When the signatures, produced by the key to be rolled over, are all
   in one zone file, there are two parties involved.  Let us look at an
   possible example where a TLD rolls over its zone KEY. The new key
   needs to be signed with the root's key before it can be used to sign
   the TLD zone and the zone KEYs of the TLD's children. The steps that
   need to be taken by TLD and root are:
      - the TLD adds the new key to its KEY set in its zonefile. This
        zone and KEY set are signed with the old zone KEY
      - then the TLD signals the parent



Gieben & Lindgreen       Expires November 2001                [Page  6]

Internet Draft          Parent Stores Zone KEYS               May    2001

      - the root copies the new KEY set, consisting of the both new and
        the old key, in its zonefile, resigns it and signals the TLD
      - the TLD removes the old key from its KEY set, resigns its zone
        with the new KEY, and signals the the root
      - the root copies the new KEY set, now consisting of the new key
        only, and resigns it

   Note that this procedure is immune to fake signals and spoofing
   attacks (as long as there is no key compromise):
      - on a fake signal either way the action becomes a null-action as
        the new KEY set is identical to the existing one.
      - a spoofed new KEY set will not validate with the existing KEY
        that the parent holds.


5. Unscheduled key rollover
   Although nobody hopes that this will ever happen, we must be able to
   cope with possible key compromises. When such an event occurs, an
   immediate keyrollover is needed and must be completed in the shortest
   possible time.  With two parties involved, it will still be awkward,
   but not impossible to update two zonefiles overnight. "Out-of-band"
   communication between the two parties will be necessary, since the
   compromised old key can not be trusted.  We think that between two
   parties this is doable, but this complicated procedure is beyond the
   scope of this document.

   An alternative to an emergency key-rollover is becoming unsecured as
   an emergency measure. This has already been mentioned above in
   section 3.1. This only involves an emergency change in the parents
   zonefile (deleting the child's zone KEY), and allows the child and
   its underlying zones time to clean up before becoming secured again,
   without dropping from the Internet or being exposed to having secured
   but false zone information.


6. Zone resigning
   Resigning a TLD is necessary before the current signatures expire.
   When all SIGs (produced by the TLD's zone KEY) and the child KEY
   records, are kept in the TLD's zonefile, such a resign session is
   trivial, as only one party (the TLD) and one zonefile are involved.


7. Consequences for KEY and NXT records
   There are two reasons to have of the child's zone KEY not only at the
   parent but also in the child's own zonefile:
        1. to facilitate a key-rollover
        2. to prevent local lookups for local information to suffer
           from possible loss of access to its outside parent

   To cope with 1, secure aware resolvers MUST be aware that during a
   key-rollover there may be a conflict, and that in that case the



Gieben & Lindgreen       Expires November 2001                [Page  7]

Internet Draft          Parent Stores Zone KEYS               May    2001

   parent always holds the active KEY set.  To cope with 2, the local
   resolver/caching forwarder should be preconfigured with the zone-KEY
   and thus looks at its own zone as were it a secure entry-point.  For
   both things to work, the zone-KEY set must be selfsigned in the child
   zonefile.

7.1. KEY bit in NXT records
   RFC 2535, section 5.2 states:

   " The NXT RR type bit map format currently defined is one bit per RR
   type present for the owner name.  A one bit indicates that at least
   one RR of that type is present for the owner name.  A zero indicates
   that no such RR is present. [....] "

   As the zone KEY is present in a child zone, and signed by the zone
   KEY (thus selfsigned), the definition of NXT RR type bit states in
   RFC 2535, section 5.2 that the KEY bit must be set. We do not see a
   compelling reason to change this default behavior.

7.2. Authority of KEY records
   The parent of a zone generates the signature for the key belonging to
   that zone. By making that signature available the parent publicly
   states that the child zone is trustworthy: when it comes to security
   in DNSSEC the parent is more authoritative than the child.

   From this we conclude that a parent zone MUST set the authority bit
   to 1 and child zones MUST set this bit to 0 when dealing with KEYs
   from that child zone.This also causes resolvers to pick up and cache
   the right KEY set, in case it finds conflicting KEY sets during a
   key-rollover.

   Some zones have no parent to make it authoritatively secure, for
   instance, the root. To be secure anyway it must be defined a secure
   entry point. If a resolver knows that a secure entry point is a
   secure entry point it must have its key preconfigured.  There is no
   need for a parent in this scenario, because the resolver itself can
   check the security of that zone. A interesting consequence of this is
   that nobody is authoritative for a key belonging to a secure entry
   point. This authority must established via some out of band
   mechanism, like publishing it in a newspaper.

7.3. Selecting KEY sets
   As the zone KEY set is present in two places, there is a possibility
   of two conflicting KEY sets, this will happen during a key-rollover
   and may happen at other times.

   With one exception, a resolver MUST always select the KEY set from
   the parent in case of a conflict, as this is the active KEY set. For
   this reason, the parent sets the AA-bit on requests, while the child
   does not.




Gieben & Lindgreen       Expires November 2001                [Page  8]

Internet Draft          Parent Stores Zone KEYS               May    2001

   The one exception is when a resolver regards the child's zone as a
   secure-entry point, in which case it has the zone KEY preconfigured.
   In other words: a preconfigured KEY has even more authority then what
   a parent says.  Specifying a zone as a secure entry-point makes sense
   for a local resolver in its own local zone.


8. The zone KEY and local KEY records.
   It must be recognized that the zone KEY RR, which is signed by a
   non-local organization, is something special. The external signature
   over the public part of the key provides the local zone-administrator
   with the authority to use the corresponding private part to sign
   everything local, and thus to make his/her own zone secure. Please
   also note that the external signer, and NOT the local zone is
   authoritative for the zone KEY RRset.

   Part of the RRs that the zone-administrator may wish to sign are KEY
   RRs for local use, for instance for IPSEC.

   To make sure, that the local zone is authoritative for its own local
   KEY RRs, and that they get not exported and signed externally, these
   local KEY records SHOULD not be part of the zone KEY RRset.
   Therefore, they could be placed under a label in the zonefile, f.i.
   keys.child.parent, or for these kind of keys a new RR type could be
   defined (e.g. PUBKEY).

   Besides being kept clear of local KEY records, the zone KEY RRset
   SHOULD also be kept clear of any other obsolete or otherwise not
   strictly needed KEY records, because this increases the number of
   possible key compromise attacks and also increases the size of the
   parents zone file unnecessarily.

   In other words: the KEY RRset with the toplevel label of a zone
   SHOULD only contain its active zone KEY, unless a key-rollover is in
   progress. During a keyrollover a new KEY RR must be added to this
   RRset.  Once the new KEY becomes the active zone KEY, the old KEY
   becomes obsolete and SHOULD be removed as soon as practically
   possible. Information stored in caches SHOULD NOT be an issue on when
   to remove the old zone KEY.


9. Security Considerations
   This document addresses the operational difficulties that arise when
   DNSSEC is deployed. By putting the child's zone KEY at the parent we
   solve at lot of problems by minimizing the amount of communication
   between the two.  There is one security issue: the parent must not
   ever create a valid parental SIG over a KEY RR, from which the
   private part is (also) known to someone else than the legitimate
   administrator of the child zone. This can happen in two ways:
      1. The private KEY at the child has been compromised.
      2. The parent has been fooled and thus insufficiently checked



Gieben & Lindgreen       Expires November 2001                [Page  9]

Internet Draft          Parent Stores Zone KEYS               May    2001

         whether the KEY RR is really from the child.

   For the security it doesn't matter if the SIG and the KEY are located
   at the child or at the parent, but if they are located at the parent
   it is much easier to replace the SIG. And by keeping the parental SIG
   lifetime short, the parent helps to protect the child against
   possible key compromises.  The selfsigned zone KEY stored in the
   child's zone can have a long SIG expiration lifetime, this has no
   impact on the child's security.

   All security considerations from RFC 2535 apply.


Authors' Addresses

   R. Gieben                                      T. Lindgreen
   Stichting NLnet Labs                           Stichting NLnet Labs
   Kruislaan 419                                  Kruislaan 419
   1098 VA Amsterdam                              1098 VA Amsterdam
   miek@nlnetlabs.nl                              ted@nlnetlabs.nl


References

   [RFC 3090] Lewis, E. "DNS Security Extension Clarification on Zone
       Status", RFC 3090
       www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3090.txt
   [RFC 2119] Bradner, S. "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
          Levels", RFC 2119
       www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
   [RFC 2535] Eastlake, D. "DNS Security Extensions", RFC 2535
       www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2535.txt


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
   to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
   it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.



Gieben & Lindgreen       Expires November 2001                [Page 10]

Internet Draft          Parent Stores Zone KEYS               May    2001


   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
   be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on
   an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


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