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

Versions: 00 01

INTERNET-DRAFT                                    Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
UPDATES RFC 2535                                                     IBM

Expires: June 2000                                         December 1999
draft-ietf-dnsind-sig-zero-01.txt




           DNS Request and Transaction Signatures ( SIG(0)s )
           --- ------- --- ----------- ---------- - ------- -



Status of This Document

   This draft, file name draft-ietf-dnsind-sig-zero-01.txt, is intended
   to become a Proposed Standard RFC updating Proposed Standard [RFC
   2535].  Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should
   be sent to the DNS Working Group mailing list
   <namedroppers@internic.net> or to the author.

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.  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.  Internet-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
   other documents at any time.  It is not appropriate to use Internet-
   Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a
   ``working draft'' or ``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.



Abstract

   Extensions to the Domain Name System (DNS) are described in [RFC
   2535] that can provide data origin and transaction integrity and
   authentication to security aware resolvers and applications through
   the use of cryptographic digital signatures.

   Implementation experience has indicated the need for minor but non-
   interoperable changes in Request and Transaction signature resource
   records ( SIG(0)s ).  These changes are documented herein.





Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                                          [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 DNS SIG(0)                  December 1999


Acknowledgments

   The significant contributions and suggestions of the following
   persons (in alphabetic order) to this draft are gratefully
   acknowledged:

        Olafur Gudmundsson
        Brian Wellington



Table of Contents

      Status of This Document....................................1
      Abstract...................................................1

      Acknowledgments............................................2
      Table of Contents..........................................2

      1. Introduction............................................3
      2. SIG(0) Design Rationale.................................3
      2.1 Transaction Authentication.............................3
      2.2 Query Authentication...................................4
      2.3 Keying.................................................4
      2.4 Differences Between TSIG and SIG(0)....................4

      3. The SIG(0) Resource Record..............................6
      3.1 Calculating Request and Transaction SIGs...............6
      3.2 Processing Responses and SIG(0) RRs....................7
      3.3 SIG(0) Lifetime and Expiration.........................8

      4. Security Considerations.................................9
      5. IANA Considerations.....................................9
      References.................................................9

      Author's Address..........................................10
      Expiration and File Name..................................10
      Appendix: SIG(0) Changes from RFC 2535....................10














Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                                          [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 DNS SIG(0)                  December 1999


1. Introduction

   This document makes minor but non-interoperable changes to part of
   [RFC 2535], familiarity with which is assumed, and includes
   additional explanatory text.  These changes concern SIG Resource
   Records (RRs) that are used to sign DNS requests and transactions /
   responses.  Such a resource record, because it has a type covered
   field of zero, is frequently called a SIG(0). The changes are based
   on implementation and attempted implementation experience with TSIG
   [draft-ietf-dnsind-tsig-*.txt] and the [RFC 2535] specification for
   SIG(0).

   Sections of [RFC 2535] updated are all of 4.1.8.1 and parts of 4.2
   and 4.3.  No changes are made herein related to the KEY or NXT RRs or
   to the processing involved with data origin and denial authentication
   for DNS data.

   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. SIG(0) Design Rationale

   The authenticated data origin and data existence denial services of
   secure DNS protect only data resource records (RRs) or
   authenticatably deny their nonexistence.  These services provide no
   protection for DNS requests, no protection for message headers on
   requests or responses, and no protection of the overall integrity of
   a response.

   If header bits are falsely set by a bad server, there is little that
   can be done.  However, it is possible to add transaction and query
   authentication to be sure that queries and responses and not tampered
   with in transit.



2.1 Transaction Authentication

   Transaction authentication means that a requester can be sure it is
   at least getting the messages from the server it queried and that the
   response is from the request it sent (i.e., that these messages have
   not been diddled in transit).  This is accomplished by optionally
   adding either a TSIG RR [draft-ietf-dnsind-tsig-*.txt] or, as
   described herein, a SIG(0) resource record at the end of the response
   which digitally signs the concatenation of the server's response and
   the corresponding resolver query.



Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                                          [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 DNS SIG(0)                  December 1999


2.2 Query Authentication

   Requests can also be authenticated by including a TSIG or, as
   described herein, a special SIG(0) RR at the end of the request.
   Authenticating requests serves no function in DNS servers the predate
   the specification of dynamic update.  Requests with a non-empty
   additional information section produce error returns or may even be
   ignored by a few such older DNS servers. However, this syntax for
   signing requests is defined for authenticating dynamic update
   requests [RFC 2136], TKEY requests [draft-ietf-dnsind-tkey-*.txt], or
   future requests requiring authentication.



2.3 Keying

   The private keys used in transaction security belong to the host
   composing the DNS response message, not to the zone involved.
   Request authentication may also involve the private key of the host
   or other entity composing the request or of a zone to be affected by
   the request or other private keys depending on the request authority
   it is sought to establish. The corresponding public key(s) are
   normally stored in and retrieved from the DNS for verification as KEY
   RRs with a protocol byte of 3 (DNSSEC) or 255 (ANY).

   Because requests and replies are highly variable, message
   authentication SIGs can not be pre-calculated.  Thus it will be
   necessary to keep the private key on-line, for example in software or
   in a directly connected piece of hardware.



2.4 Differences Between TSIG and SIG(0)

   There are significant differences between TSIG and SIG(0).

   Because TSIG involves secret keys installed at both the requester and
   server the presence of such a key implies that the other party
   understands TSIG and likely has the same key installed.  Furthermore,
   TSIG uses keyed hash authentication codes which are relatively
   inexpensive to compute.  Thus it is common to authenticate requests
   with TSIG and responses are authenticated with TSIG if the
   corresponding request is authenticated.

   SIG(0) on the other hand, uses public key authentication, where the
   public keys are stored in DNS as KEY RRs.  Thus, existence of such a
   KEY RR does not necessarily imply implementation of SIG(0).  In
   addition, SIG(0) involves relatively expensive public key
   cryptographic operations that should be minimized and the
   verification of a SIG(0) involves obtaining and verifying the


Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                                          [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 DNS SIG(0)                  December 1999


   corresponding KEY which can be an expensive and lengthy operation.
   Indeed, a policy of using SIG(0) on all requests and verifying it
   before responding would, for some configurations, lead to a deadly
   embrace with the attempt to obtain and verify the KEY needed to
   authenticate the request SIG(0) resulting in additional requests
   accompanied by a SIG(0) leading to further requests accompanied by a
   SIG(0), etc.  Furthermore, omitting SIG(0)s when not required on
   requests halves the number of public key operations required by the
   transaction.

   For these reasons, SIG(0)s SHOULD only be used on requests when
   necessary to authenticate that the requester has some required
   privilege or identity.  SIG(0)s on replies are defined in such a way
   as to not require a SIG(0) on the corresponding request and still
   provide transaction protection.  Some replies, such as those
   involving TKEY [draft-ietf-dnsind-tkey-*.txt], MUST be authenticated
   with TSIG or SIG(0).  For other replies, whether they are
   authenticated by the server or required to be authenticated by the
   requester SHOULD be a local configuration option.

































Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                                          [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 DNS SIG(0)                  December 1999


3. The SIG(0) Resource Record

   The structure of and type number of SIG resource records (RRs) is
   given in [RFC 2535] Section 4.1.  However all of Section 4.1.8.1 and
   the parts of Sections 4.2 and 4.3 related to SIG(0) should be
   considered replaced by the material below.  Any conflict between [RFC
   2535] and this document concerning SIG(0) RRs should be resolved in
   favor of this document.

   For all transaction SIG(0)s, the signer field MUST be the name of the
   originating server host and there MUST be a KEY RR at that name with
   the public key corresponding to the private key used to calculate the
   signature.  (The inverse IP address mapping name MAY be used if the
   relevant KEY is stored there.)

   For all SIG(0) RRs, the owner name, class, TTL, and original TTL, are
   meaningless.  The TTL fields SHOULD be zero and the CLASS filed
   SHOULD be ANY.  To conserve space, the owner name SHOULD be root (a
   single zero octet).  When SIG(0) authentication on a response is
   desired, that SIG RR must be considered the highest priority of any
   additional information for inclusion in the response. If the SIG(0)
   RR cannot be added without causing the message to be truncated, the
   server MUST alter the response so that a SIG(0) can be included.
   This response consists of only the question and a SIG(0) record, and
   has the TC bit set and RCODE 0 (NOERROR).  The client SHOULD at this
   point retry the request using TCP.




3.1 Calculating Request and Transaction SIGs

   A DNS request may be optionally signed by including one or more
   SIG(0)s at the end of the query additional information section.  Such
   SIGs are identified by having a "type covered" field of zero. They
   sign the preceding DNS request message including DNS header but not
   including the UDP/IP header or any request SIG(0)s at the end and
   before the request RR counts have been adjusted for the inclusions of
   any request SIG(0)s.

   Note: requests and response can either have a TSIG or one or more
   SIG(0)s but not both a TSIG and a SIG(0).

   They are calculated by using a "data" (see [RFC 2535], Section 4.1.8)
   of (1) the SIG's RDATA section omitting the signature subfield
   itself, (2) the entire DNS query messages, including DNS header, but
   not the UDP/IP header or any SIG(0) and before the reply RR counts
   have been adjusted for the inclusion of any SIG(0).  That is

      data = RDATA | request - SIG(0)s


Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                                          [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 DNS SIG(0)                  December 1999


   where "|" is concatenation and RDATA is the RDATA of the SIG(0) being
   calculated less the signature itself.

   Similarly, a SIG(0) can be used to secure a response and the request
   that produced it.  Such transaction signatures are calculated by
   using a "data" of (1) the SIG's RDATA section omitting the signature
   itself, (2) the entire DNS query message that produced this response,
   including the query's DNS header and any SIG(0)s but not its UDP/IP
   header, and (3) the entire DNS response message, including DNS header
   but not the UDP/IP header or any SIG(0) and before the response RR
   counts have been adjusted for the inclusion of any SIG(0).

   That is

      data = RDATA | full query | response - SIG(0)s

   where "|" is concatenation and RDATA is the RDATA of the SIG(0) being
   calculated less the signature itself.

   Verification of a response SIG(0) (which is signed by the server host
   key, not the zone key) by the requesting resolver shows that the
   query and response were not tampered with in transit, that the
   response corresponds to the intended query, and that the response
   comes from the queried server.

   In the case of a DNS message via TCP, a SIG(0) on the first data
   packet is calculated with "data" as above and for each subsequent
   packet, it is calculated as follows:

      data = RDATA | DNS payload - SIG(0)s | previous packet

   where "|" is concatenations, RDATA is as above, and previous packet
   is the previous DNS payload including DNS header and any SIG(0)s but
   not the TCP/IP header.  Support of SIG(0) for TCP is OPTIONAL.  As an
   alternative, TSIG may be used after, if necessary, setting up a key
   with TKEY [draft-ietf-dnsind-tkey-*.txt].

   Except where needed to authenticate an update, TKEY, or similar
   privileged request, servers are not required to check request SIGs.



3.2 Processing Responses and SIG(0) RRs

   If a SIG RR is at the end of the additional information section of a
   response and has a type covered of zero, it is a transaction
   signature covering the response and the query that produced the
   response.  For TKEY responses, it MUST be checked and the message
   rejected if the checks fail.  For all other responses, it MAY be
   checked and the message rejected if the checks fail.


Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                                          [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 DNS SIG(0)                  December 1999


   If a response SIG(0) checks succeed, such a transaction
   authentication SIG does NOT directly authenticate the validity any
   data-RRs in the message.  However, it authenticates that they were
   sent by the queried server and have not been diddled.  (Only a proper
   SIG(0) RR signed by the zone or a key tracing its authority to the
   zone or to static resolver configuration can directly authenticate
   data-RRs, depending on resolver policy.) If a resolver or server does
   not implement transaction and/or request SIGs, it MUST ignore them
   without error where they are optional and treat them as failing where
   they are required.



3.3 SIG(0) Lifetime and Expiration

   The inception and expiration times in SIG(0)s are for the purpose of
   resisting replay attacks.  They should be set to form a time bracket
   such that messages outside that bracket can be ignored.  In IP
   networks, this time bracket should not normally extend further than 5
   minutes into the past and 5 minutes into the future.
































Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                                          [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 DNS SIG(0)                  December 1999


4. Security Considerations

   No additional considerations beyond those in [RFC 2535].

   The inclusion of the SIG(0) inception and expiration time under the
   signature improves resistance to replay attacks.



5. IANA Considerations

   No new fields are created or field values assigned by the document.



References

   [RFC 1982] - Robert Elz, Randy Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic",
   09/03/1996.

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

   [RFC 2136] - P. Vixie, S. Thomson, Y. Rekhter, J. Bound, "Dynamic
   Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", 04/21/1997.

   [RFC 2535] - D. Eastlake, "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
   March 1999.

   [draft-ietf-dnsind-tsig-*.txt] - P. Vixie, O. Gudmundsson, D.
   Eastlake, B. Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Signatures for DNS
   (TSIG)".

   [draft-ietf-dnsind-tkey-*.txt] - D. Eastlake, "Secret Key
   Establishment for DNS  (RR)"

















Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                                          [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 DNS SIG(0)                  December 1999


Author's Address

   Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
   IBM
   65 Shindegan Hill Road
   Carmel, NY 10512 USA

   Telephone:   +1-914-276-2668(h)
                +1-914-784-7913(w)
   fax:         +1-914-276-2947(h)
   email:       dee3@us.ibm.com




Expiration and File Name

   This draft expires June 2000.

   Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsind-sig-zero-01.txt.




Appendix: SIG(0) Changes from RFC 2535

   Add explanatory text concerning the differences between TSIG and
   SIG(0).

   Change the data over which SIG(0) is calculated to include the SIG(0)
   RDATA other than the signature itself to secure the signature
   inception and expiration times and resist replay attacks.  Specify
   SIG(0) for TCP.

   Add discussion of appropriate inception and expiration times for
   SIG(0).

   Change wording to permit mixing TSIG and SIG(0) RRs.

   Reword some areas for clarity.












Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                                         [Page 10]


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