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

Versions: (draft-huitema-dnssd-prireq) 00 01 02 03 04 05 07 08 RFC 8882

Network Working Group                                         C. Huitema
Internet-Draft                                      Private Octopus Inc.
Intended status: Informational                                 D. Kaiser
Expires: July 31, 2020                          University of Luxembourg
                                                        January 28, 2020


                DNS-SD Privacy and Security Requirements
                       draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04

Abstract

   DNS-SD (DNS Service Discovery) normally discloses information about
   devices offering and requesting services.  This information includes
   host names, network parameters, and possibly a further description of
   the corresponding service instance.  Especially when mobile devices
   engage in DNS Service Discovery at a public hotspot, serious privacy
   problems arise.  We analyze the requirements of a privacy respecting
   discovery service.

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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 31, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://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



Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Threat Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Threat Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Service Discovery Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  Private Client and Public Server  . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.2.  Private Client and Private Server . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.3.  Wearable Client and Server  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  DNS-SD Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.1.  Information made available via DNS-SD Resource
               Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.2.  Privacy Implication of Publishing Service Instance
               Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.3.  Privacy Implication of Publishing Node Names  . . . .  10
       3.2.4.  Privacy Implication of Publishing Service Attributes   10
       3.2.5.  Device Fingerprinting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.2.6.  Privacy Implication of Discovering Services . . . . .  11
     3.3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.3.1.  Authenticity, Integrity & Freshness . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.3.2.  Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.3.3.  Resistance to Dictionary Attacks  . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.3.4.  Resistance to Denial-of-Service Attacks . . . . . . .  12
       3.3.5.  Resistance to Sender Impersonation  . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.3.6.  Sender Deniability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.4.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.4.1.  Power Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.4.2.  Protocol Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.4.3.  Secure Initialization and Trust Models  . . . . . . .  14
       3.4.4.  External Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  Requirements for a DNS-SD Privacy Extension . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.1.  Private Client Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.2.  Private Server Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.3.  Security and Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Introduction

   DNS-SD [RFC6763] over mDNS [RFC6762] enables zero-configuration
   service discovery in local networks.  It is very convenient for
   users, but it requires the public exposure of the offering and



Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


   requesting identities along with information about the offered and
   requested services.  Parts of the published information can seriously
   breach the user's privacy.  These privacy issues and potential
   solutions are discussed in [KW14a], [KW14b] and [K17].  While the
   multicast nature of mDNS makes these risks obvious, most risks derive
   from the observability of transactions, and also need to be mitigated
   when using server-based variants of DNS-SD.

   There are cases when nodes connected to a network want to provide or
   consume services without exposing their identity to the other parties
   connected to the same network.  Consider for example a traveler
   wanting to upload pictures from a phone to a laptop when connected to
   the Wi-Fi network of an Internet cafe, or two travelers who want to
   share files between their laptops when waiting for their plane in an
   airport lounge.

   We expect that these exchanges will start with a discovery procedure
   using DNS-SD [RFC6763] over mDNS [RFC6762].  One of the devices will
   publish the availability of a service, such as a picture library or a
   file store in our examples.  The user of the other device will
   discover this service, and then connect to it.

   When analyzing these scenarios in Section 3.2, we find that the DNS-
   SD messages leak identifying information such as the service instance
   name, the host name, or service properties.

   Identity  In this document, the term "identity" refers to the
      identity of the entity (legal person) operating a device.

   Disclosing an Identity  In this document "disclosing an identity"
      means showing the identity of operating entities to devices
      external to the discovery process; e.g., devices on the same
      network link that are listening to the network traffic but are not
      actually involved in the discovery process.  This document focuses
      on identity disclosure by data conveyed via messages on the
      service discovery protocol layer.  Still, identity leaks on deeper
      layers, e.g., the IP layer, are mentioned.

   Disclosing Information  In this document "disclosing information" is
      also focused on disclosure by data conveyed via messages on the
      service discovery protocol layer.

2.  Threat Model

   This document considers the following attacker types sorted by
   increasing power.  All these attackers can either be passive, i.e.
   they just listen to network traffic they have access to, or active,
   i.e. they additionally can craft and send (malicious) packets.



Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


   external  An external attacker is not on the same network link as
      victim devices engaging in service discovery; thus, the external
      attacker is in a different multicast domain.

   on-link  An on-link attacker is on the same network link as victim
      devices engaging in service discovery; thus, the external attacker
      is in the same multicast domain.  This attacker can also mount all
      attacks an external attacker can mount.

   MITM  A Man in the Middle (MITM) attacker either controls (parts of)
      a network link or can trick two parties to send traffic via him;
      thus, the MITM attacker has access to unicast traffic between
      devices engaging in service discovery.  This attacker can also
      mount all attacks an on-link attacker can mount.

3.  Threat Analysis

   In this section we analyse how the attackers described in the
   previous section might threaten the privacy of entities operating
   devices engaging in service discovery.  We focus on attacks
   leveraging data transmitted in service discovery protocol messages.

3.1.  Service Discovery Scenarios

   In this section, we review common service discovery scenarios and
   discuss privacy threats and their privacy requirements.  In all three
   of these common scenarios the attacker is of the type passive on-
   link.

3.1.1.  Private Client and Public Server

   Perhaps the simplest private discovery scenario involves a single
   client connecting to a public server through a public network.  A
   common example would be a traveler using a publicly available printer
   in a business center, in an hotel, or at an airport.
















Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


                                        ( Taking notes:
                                        ( David is printing
                                        ( a document
                                         ~~~~~~~~~~~
                                                     o
            ___                                        o   ___
           /   \                                         _|___|_
           |   |   client                server           |* *|
            \_/      __                                    \_/
             |      / /   Discovery   +----------+          |
            /|\    /_/  <-----------> |  +----+  |         /|\
           / | \__/                   +--|    |--+        / | \
          /  |                           |____/          /  |  \
         /   |                                          /   |   \
            / \                                            / \
           /   \                                          /   \
          /     \                                        /     \
         /       \                                      /       \
        /         \                                    /         \

           David                                        adversary

   In that scenario, the server is public and wants to be discovered,
   but the client is private.  The adversary will be listening to the
   network traffic, trying to identify the visitors' devices and their
   activity.  Identifying devices leads to identifying people, either
   just for tracking people or as a preliminary to targeted attacks.

   The requirement in that scenario is that the discovery activity
   should not disclose the identity of the client.

3.1.2.  Private Client and Private Server

   The second private discovery scenario involves a private client
   connecting to a private server.  A common example would be two people
   engaging in a collaborative application in a public place, such as
   for example an airport's lounge.














Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


                                           ( Taking notes:
                                           ( David is meeting
                                           ( with Stuart
                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~
                                                        o
            ___                               ___         o   ___
           /   \                             /   \          _|___|_
           |   |   server          client    |   |           |* *|
            \_/      __               __      \_/             \_/
             |      / /   Discovery   \ \      |               |
            /|\    /_/  <----------->  \_\    /|\             /|\
           / | \__/                       \__/ | \           / | \
          /  |                                 |  \         /  |  \
         /   |                                 |   \       /   |   \
            / \                               / \             / \
           /   \                             /   \           /   \
          /     \                           /     \         /     \
         /       \                         /       \       /       \
        /         \                       /         \     /         \

          David                              Stuart        Adversary

   In that scenario, the collaborative application on one of the devices
   will act as a server, and the application on the other device will
   act as a client.  The server wants to be discovered by the client,
   but has no desire to be discovered by anyone else.  The adversary
   will be listening to network traffic, attempting to discover the
   identity of devices as in the first scenario, and also attempting to
   discover the patterns of traffic, as these patterns reveal the
   business and social interactions between the owners of the devices.

   The requirement in that scenario is that the discovery activity
   should not disclose the identity of either the client or the server.

3.1.3.  Wearable Client and Server

   The third private discovery scenario involves wearable devices.  A
   typical example would be the watch on someone's wrist connecting to
   the phone in their pocket.












Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


                                        ( Taking notes:
                                        ( David' is here. His watch is
                                        ( talking to his phone
                                          ~~~~~~~~~~~
                                                      o
            ___                                         o  ___
           /   \                                         _|___|_
           |   |   client                                 |* *|
            \_/                                            \_/
             |     _/                                       |
            /|\   //                                       /|\
           / | \__/  ^                                    / | \
          /  |__     | Discovery                         /  |  \
         /   |\ \    v                                  /   |   \
            / \\_\                                         / \
           /   \   server                                 /   \
          /     \                                        /     \
         /       \                                      /       \
        /         \                                    /         \

           David                                        Adversary

   This third scenario is in many ways similar to the second scenario.
   It involves two devices, one acting as server and the other acting as
   client, and it leads to the same requirement of the discovery traffic
   not disclosing the identity of either the client or the server.  The
   main difference is that the devices are managed by a single owner,
   which can lead to different methods for establishing secure relations
   between the devices.  There is also an added emphasis on hiding the
   type of devices that the person wears.

   In addition to tracking the identity of the owner of the devices, the
   adversary is interested in the characteristics of the devices, such
   as type, brand, and model.  Identifying the type of device can lead
   to further attacks, from theft to device specific hacking.  The
   combination of devices worn by the same person will also provide a
   "fingerprint" of the person, allowing identification.

3.2.  DNS-SD Privacy Considerations

   While the discovery process illustrated in the scenarios in Section 2
   most likely would be based on [RFC6762] as a means for making service
   information available, this document considers all kinds of means for
   making DNS-SD resource records available.  These means comprise but
   are not limited to mDNS [RFC6762], DNS servers ([RFC1033] [RFC1034],
   [RFC1035]), e.g. using SRP [I-D.ietf-dnssd-srp], and multi-link
   [RFC7558] networks.




Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


   The discovery scenarios in Section 3.1 illustrate three separate
   abstract privacy requirements that vary based on the use case.  These
   are not limited to mDNS.

   1.  Client identity privacy: Client identities are not leaked during
       service discovery or use.

   2.  Multi-entity, mutual client and server identity privacy: Neither
       client nor server identities are leaked during service discovery
       or use.

   3.  Single-entity, mutual client and server identity privacy:
       Identities of clients and servers owned and managed by the same
       legal person are not leaked during service discovery or use.

   In this section, we describe aspects of DNS-SD that make these
   requirements difficult to achieve in practice.

   Client identity privacy, if not addressed properly, can be thwarted
   by a passive attacker (see Section 2).  The type of passive attacker
   necessary depends on the means of making service information
   available.  Information conveyed via multicast messages can be
   obtained by an on-link attacker, while unicast messages are only
   available to MITM attackers.  Using multi-link service discovery
   solutions [RFC7558], external attackers have to be taken into
   consideration as well, e.g., when relaying multicast messages to
   other links.

   Server identity privacy can be thwarted by a passive attacker in the
   same way as client identity privacy.  Additionally, active attackers
   querying for information have to be taken into consideration as well.
   This is mainly relevant for unicast based discovery, where listening
   to discovery traffic requires a MITM attacker; however, an external
   active attacker might be able to learn the server identity by just
   querying for service information, e.g. via DNS.

3.2.1.  Information made available via DNS-SD Resource Records

   DNS-Based Service Discovery (DNS-SD) is defined in [RFC6763].  It
   allows nodes to publish the availability of an instance of a service
   by inserting specific records in the DNS ([RFC1033], [RFC1034],
   [RFC1035]) or by publishing these records locally using multicast DNS
   (mDNS) [RFC6762].  Available services are described using three types
   of records:

   PTR Record:  Associates a service type in the domain with an
      "instance" name of this service type.




Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


   SRV Record:  Provides the node name, port number, priority and weight
      associated with the service instance, in conformance with
      [RFC2782].

   TXT Record:  Provides a set of attribute-value pairs describing
      specific properties of the service instance.

3.2.2.  Privacy Implication of Publishing Service Instance Names

   In the first phase of discovery, clients obtain all PTR records
   associated with a service type in a given naming domain.  Each PTR
   record contains a Service Instance Name defined in Section 4 of
   [RFC6763]:

     Service Instance Name = <Instance> . <Service> . <Domain>

   The <Instance> portion of the Service Instance Name is meant to
   convey enough information for users of discovery clients to easily
   select the desired service instance.  Nodes that use DNS-SD over mDNS
   [RFC6762] in a mobile environment will rely on the specificity of the
   instance name to identify the desired service instance.  In our
   example of users wanting to upload pictures to a laptop in an
   Internet Cafe, the list of available service instances may look like:

   Alice's Images         . _imageStore._tcp . local
   Alice's Mobile Phone   . _presence._tcp   . local
   Alice's Notebook       . _presence._tcp   . local
   Bob's Notebook         . _presence._tcp   . local
   Carol's Notebook       . _presence._tcp   . local

   Alice will see the list on her phone and understand intuitively that
   she should pick the first item.  The discovery will "just work".
   (Note that our examples of service names conform to the specification
   in section 4.1 of [RFC6763], but may require some character escaping
   when entered in conventional DNS software.)

   However, DNS-SD/mDNS will reveal to anybody that Alice is currently
   visiting the Internet Cafe.  It further discloses the fact that she
   uses two devices, shares an image store, and uses a chat application
   supporting the _presence protocol on both of her devices.  She might
   currently chat with Bob or Carol, as they are also using a _presence
   supporting chat application.  This information is not just available
   to devices actively browsing for and offering services, but to
   anybody passively listening to the network traffic, i.e. a passive
   on-link attacker.






Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


3.2.3.  Privacy Implication of Publishing Node Names

   The SRV records contain the DNS name of the node publishing the
   service.  Typical implementations construct this DNS name by
   concatenating the "host name" of the node with the name of the local
   domain.  The privacy implications of this practice are reviewed in
   [RFC8117].  Depending on naming practices, the host name is either a
   strong identifier of the device, or at a minimum a partial
   identifier.  It enables tracking of both the device, and, by
   extension, the device's owner.

3.2.4.  Privacy Implication of Publishing Service Attributes

   The TXT record's attribute-value pairs contain information on the
   characteristics of the corresponding service instance.  This in turn
   reveals information about the devices that publish services.  The
   amount of information varies widely with the particular service and
   its implementation:

   o  Some attributes like the paper size available in a printer, are
      the same on many devices, and thus only provide limited
      information to a tracker.

   o  Attributes that have freeform values, such as the name of a
      directory, may reveal much more information.

   Combinations of attributes have more information power than specific
   attributes, and can potentially be used for "fingerprinting" a
   specific device.

   Information contained in TXT records does not only breach privacy by
   making devices trackable, but might directly contain private
   information about the user.  For instance the _presence service
   reveals the "chat status" to everyone in the same network.  Users
   might not be aware of that.

   Further, TXT records often contain version information about services
   allowing potential attackers to identify devices running exploit-
   prone versions of a certain service.

3.2.5.  Device Fingerprinting

   The combination of information published in DNS-SD has the potential
   to provide a "fingerprint" of a specific device.  Such information
   includes:

   o  List of services published by the device, which can be retrieved
      because the SRV records will point to the same host name.



Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


   o  Specific attributes describing these services.

   o  Port numbers used by the services.

   o  Priority and weight attributes in the SRV records.

   This combination of services and attributes will often be sufficient
   to identify the version of the software running on a device.  If a
   device publishes many services with rich sets of attributes, the
   combination may be sufficient to identify the specific device.

   A sometimes heard argument is that devices providing services can be
   identified by observing the local traffic, and that trying to hide
   the presence of the service is futile.  However,

   1.  Providing privacy at the discovery layer is of the essence for
       enabling automatically configured privacy-preserving network
       applications.  Application layer protocols are not forced to
       leverage the offered privacy, but if device tracking is not
       prevented at the deeper layers, including the service discovery
       layer, obfuscating a certain service's protocol at the
       application layer is futile.

   2.  Further, in the case of mDNS based discovery, even if the
       application layer does not protect privacy, typically services
       are provided via unicast which requires a MITM attacker, while
       identifying services based on multicast discovery messages just
       requires an on-link attacker.

   The same argument can be extended to say that the pattern of services
   offered by a device allows for fingerprinting the device.  This may
   or may not be true, since we can expect that services will be
   designed or updated to avoid leaking fingerprints.  In any case, the
   design of the discovery service should avoid making a bad situation
   worse, and should as much as possible avoid providing new
   fingerprinting information.

3.2.6.  Privacy Implication of Discovering Services

   The consumers of services engage in discovery, and in doing so reveal
   some information such as the list of services they are interested in
   and the domains in which they are looking for the services.  When the
   clients select specific instances of services, they reveal their
   preference for these instances.  This can be benign if the service
   type is very common, but it could be more problematic for sensitive
   services, such as for example some private messaging services.





Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


   One way to protect clients would be to somehow encrypt the requested
   service types.  Of course, just as we noted in Section 3.2.5, traffic
   analysis can often reveal the service.

3.3.  Security Considerations

   For each of the operations described above, we must also consider
   security threats we are concerned about.

3.3.1.  Authenticity, Integrity & Freshness

   Can we trust the information we receive?  Has it been modified in
   flight by an adversary?  Do we trust the source of the information?
   Is the source of information fresh, i.e., not replayed?  Freshness
   may or may not be required depending on whether the discovery process
   is meant to be online.  In some cases, publishing discovery
   information to a shared directory or registry, rather than to each
   online recipient through a broadcast channel, may suffice.

3.3.2.  Confidentiality

   Confidentiality is about restricting information access to only
   authorized individuals.  Ideally this should only be the appropriate
   trusted parties, though it can be challenging to define who are "the
   appropriate trusted parties."  In some uses cases, this may mean that
   only mutually authenticated and trusting clients and servers can read
   messages sent for one another.  The "Discover" operation in
   particular is often used to discover new entities that the device did
   not previously know about.  It may be tricky to work out how a device
   can have an established trust relationship with a new entity it has
   never previously communicated with.

3.3.3.  Resistance to Dictionary Attacks

   It can be tempting to use (publicly computable) hash functions to
   obscure sensitive identifiers.  This transforms a sensitive unique
   identifier such as an email address into a "scrambled" but still
   unique identifier.  Unfortunately simple solutions may be vulnerable
   to offline dictionary attacks.

3.3.4.  Resistance to Denial-of-Service Attacks

   In any protocol where the receiver of messages has to perform
   cryptographic operations on those messages, there is a risk of a
   brute-force flooding attack causing the receiver to expend excessive
   amounts of CPU time and, where appliciable, battery power just
   processing and discarding those messages.




Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


   Also, amplification attacks have to be taken into consideration.
   Messages with larger payloads should only be sent as an answer to a
   query sent by a verified client.

3.3.5.  Resistance to Sender Impersonation

   Sender impersonation is an attack wherein messages such as service
   offers are forged by entities who do not possess the corresponding
   secret key material.  These attacks may be used to learn the identity
   of a communicating party, actively or passively.

3.3.6.  Sender Deniability

   Deniability of sender activity, e.g., of broadcasting a discovery
   request, may be desirable or necessary in some use cases.  This
   property ensures that eavesdroppers cannot prove senders issued a
   specific message destined for one or more peers.

3.4.  Operational Considerations

3.4.1.  Power Management

   Many modern devices, especially battery-powered devices, use power
   management techniques to conserve energy.  One such technique is for
   a device to transfer information about itself to a proxy, which will
   act on behalf of the device for some functions, while the device
   itself goes to sleep to reduce power consumption.  When the proxy
   determines that some action is required which only the device itself
   can perform, the proxy may have some way to wake the device, as
   implied in RFC6762 [RFC6762]

   In many cases, the device may not trust the network proxy
   sufficiently to share all its confidential key material with the
   proxy.  This poses challenges for combining private discovery that
   relies on per-query cryptographic operations, with energy-saving
   techniques that rely on having (somewhat untrusted) network proxies
   answer queries on behalf of sleeping devices.

3.4.2.  Protocol Efficiency

   Creating a discovery protocol that has the desired security
   properties may result in a design that is not efficient.  To perform
   the necessary operations the protocol may need to send and receive a
   large number of network packets.  This may consume an unreasonable
   amount of network capacity, particularly problematic when it is a
   shared wireless spectrum.  Further it may cause an unnecessary level
   of power consumption which is particularly problematic on battery
   devices, and may result in the discovery process being slow.



Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


   It is a difficult challenge to design a discovery protocol that has
   the property of obscuring the details of what it is doing from
   unauthorized observers, while also managing to do that efficiently.

3.4.3.  Secure Initialization and Trust Models

   One of the challenges implicit in the preceding discussions is that
   whenever we discuss "trusted entities" versus "untrusted entities",
   there needs to be some way that trust is initially established, to
   convert an "untrusted entity" into a "trusted entity".

   The purpose of this document is not to define the specific way in
   which trust can be established.  Protocol designers may rely on a
   number of existing technologies, including PKI, Trust On First Use
   (TOFU), or using a short passphrase or PIN with cryptographic
   algorithms such as Secure Remote Password (SRP) [RFC5054] or a
   Password Authenticated Key Exchange like J-PAKE [RFC8236] using a
   Schnorr Non-interactive Zero-Knowledge Proof [RFC8235].

   Protocol designers should consider a specific usability pitfall when
   trust is established immediately prior to performing discovery.
   Users will have a tendency to "click OK" in order to achieve their
   task.  This implicit vulnerability is avoided if the trust
   establishment requires active participation of the user, such as
   entering a password or PIN.

3.4.4.  External Dependencies

   Trust establishment may depend on external, and optionally online,
   parties.  Systems which have such a dependency may be attacked by
   interfering with communication to external dependencies.  Where
   possible, such dependencies should be minimized.  Local trust models
   are best for secure initialization in the presence of active
   attackers.

4.  Requirements for a DNS-SD Privacy Extension

   Given the considerations discussed in the previous sections, we state
   requirements for privacy preserving DNS-SD in the following
   subsections.

   Defining a solution according to these requirements will lead to a
   solution that does not transmit privacy violating DNS-SD messages and
   further does not open pathways to new attacks against the operation
   of DNS-SD.

   However, while this document gives advice on which privacy protecting
   mechanisms should be used on deeper layer network protocols and on



Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


   how to actually connect to services in a privacy preserving way,
   stating corresponding requirements is out of the scope of this
   document.  To mitigate attacks against privacy on lower layers, both
   servers and clients must use privacy options available at lower
   layers, and for example avoid publishing static IPv4 or IPv6
   addresses, or static IEEE 802 MAC addresses.  For services advertised
   on a single network link, link local IP addresses should be used; see
   [RFC3927] and [RFC4291] for IPv4 and IPv6, respectively.  Static
   servers advertising services globally via DNS can hide their IP
   addresses from unauthorized clients using the split mode topology
   shown in [I-D.ietf-tls-esni].  Hiding static MAC addresses can be
   achieved via MAC address randomization (see [RFC7844]).

4.1.  Private Client Requirements

   For all three scenarios described in Section 3.1, client privacy
   requires DNS-SD messages to:

   1.  Avoid disclosure of the client's identity, either directly or via
       inference, to nodes other than select servers.

   1.

   2.  Avoid exposure of linkable identifiers that allow tracing client
       devices.

   2.

   3.  Avoid disclosure of the client's interest in specific service
       instances or service types to nodes other than select servers.

   3.

   Listing and resolving services via DNS-SD, clients typically disclose
   their interest in specific services types and specific instances of
   these types, respectively.

   In addition to the exposure and disclosure risks noted above,
   protocols and implementations will have to consider fingerprinting
   attacks (see Section 3.2.5) that could retrieve similar information.

4.2.  Private Server Requirements

   Servers like the "printer" discussed in scenario 1 are public, but
   the servers discussed in scenarios 2 and 3 are by essence private.
   Server privacy requires DNS-SD messages to:





Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


   1.  Avoid disclosure of the server's identity, either directly or via
       inference, to nodes other than authorized clients.  In
       particular, Servers must avoid publishing static identifiers such
       as host names or service names.  When those fields are required
       by the protocol, servers should publish randomized values.  (See
       [RFC8117] for a discussion of host names.)

   1.

   2.  Avoid exposure of linkable identifiers that allow tracing
       servers.

   2.

   3.  Avoid disclosure of service instance names or service types of
       offered services to unauthorized clients.

   3.

   4.  Avoid disclosure of information about the services they offer to
       unauthorized clients.

   4.

   5.  Avoid disclosure of static IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.

   5.

   Offering services via DNS-SD, servers typically disclose their
   hostnames (SRV, A/AAAA), instance names of offered services (PRT,
   SRV), and information about services (TXT).  Heeding these
   requirements protects a server's privacy on the DNS-SD level.

4.3.  Security and Operation

   In order to be secure and feasible, a DNS-SD privacy extension needs
   to consider security and operational requirements including:

   1.  Avoiding significant CPU overhead on nodes or significantly
       higher network load, because such overhead or load would make
       nodes vulnerables to denial of service attacks.

   2.  Avoiding designs in which a small message can trigger a large
       amount of traffic towards an unverified address, as this could be
       exploited in amplification attacks.






Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


5.  IANA Considerations

   This draft does not require any IANA action.

6.  Acknowledgments

   This draft incorporates many contributions from Stuart Cheshire and
   Chris Wood.  Thanks to Florian Adamsky for extensive review and
   suggestions on the organization of the threat model.

7.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-dnssd-srp]
              Cheshire, S. and T. Lemon, "Service Registration Protocol
              for DNS-Based Service Discovery", draft-ietf-dnssd-srp-02
              (work in progress), July 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-esni]
              Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. Wood,
              "Encrypted Server Name Indication for TLS 1.3", draft-
              ietf-tls-esni-05 (work in progress), November 2019.

   [K17]      Kaiser, D., "Efficient Privacy-Preserving
              Configurationless Service Discovery Supporting Multi-Link
              Networks", 2017,
              <http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-0-422757>.

   [KW14a]    Kaiser, D. and M. Waldvogel, "Adding Privacy to Multicast
              DNS Service Discovery", DOI 10.1109/TrustCom.2014.107,
              2014, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/
              articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=7011331>.

   [KW14b]    Kaiser, D. and M. Waldvogel, "Efficient Privacy Preserving
              Multicast DNS Service Discovery",
              DOI 10.1109/HPCC.2014.141, 2014,
              <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/
              articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=7056899>.

   [RFC1033]  Lottor, M., "Domain Administrators Operations Guide",
              RFC 1033, DOI 10.17487/RFC1033, November 1987,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1033>.

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.






Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC2782]  Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
              specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>.

   [RFC3927]  Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
              Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3927, May 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3927>.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

   [RFC5054]  Taylor, D., Wu, T., Mavrogiannopoulos, N., and T. Perrin,
              "Using the Secure Remote Password (SRP) Protocol for TLS
              Authentication", RFC 5054, DOI 10.17487/RFC5054, November
              2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5054>.

   [RFC6762]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.

   [RFC6763]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
              Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.

   [RFC7558]  Lynn, K., Cheshire, S., Blanchet, M., and D. Migault,
              "Requirements for Scalable DNS-Based Service Discovery
              (DNS-SD) / Multicast DNS (mDNS) Extensions", RFC 7558,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7558, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7558>.

   [RFC7844]  Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity
              Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7844, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7844>.

   [RFC8117]  Huitema, C., Thaler, D., and R. Winter, "Current Hostname
              Practice Considered Harmful", RFC 8117,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8117, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8117>.





Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft         DNS-SD Privacy Requirements          January 2020


   [RFC8235]  Hao, F., Ed., "Schnorr Non-interactive Zero-Knowledge
              Proof", RFC 8235, DOI 10.17487/RFC8235, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8235>.

   [RFC8236]  Hao, F., Ed., "J-PAKE: Password-Authenticated Key Exchange
              by Juggling", RFC 8236, DOI 10.17487/RFC8236, September
              2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8236>.

Authors' Addresses

   Christian Huitema
   Private Octopus Inc.
   Friday Harbor, WA  98250
   U.S.A.

   Email: huitema@huitema.net
   URI:   http://privateoctopus.com/


   Daniel Kaiser
   University of Luxembourg
   6, avenue de la Fonte
   Esch-sur-Alzette  4364
   Luxembourg

   Email: daniel.kaiser@uni.lu
   URI:   https://secan-lab.uni.lu/
























Huitema & Kaiser          Expires July 31, 2020                [Page 19]


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