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

Versions: 00 draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy

Network Working Group                                       A. Mayrhofer
Internet-Draft                                               nic.at GmbH
Intended status: Standards Track                        October 31, 2016
Expires: May 4, 2017


                      Padding Profiles for EDNS(0)
               draft-mayrhofer-dprive-padding-profile-00

Abstract

   RFC 7830 specifies the EDNS0 'Padding' option, but does not specify
   the amount of padding to be used in specific applications.  This memo
   lists the possible options ("Padding Profiles"), discusses the
   implications of each of these options, and provides implementation
   guidance.

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 May 4, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.



Mayrhofer                  Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   draft-mayrhofer-dprive-padding-profile     October 2016


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  General Guidance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Padding Strategies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.1.  No Padding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.2.  Fixed Length Padding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.3.  Block Length Padding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.4.  Random Length Padding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.5.  Random Block Length Padding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   RFC 7830 [RFC7830] specifies the Extensions Mechanisms for DNS
   (EDNS(0)) "Padding" option, which allows DNS clients and servers to
   artificially increase the size of a DNS message by a variable number
   of bytes, hampering size-based correlation of encrypted DNS messages.

   However, RFC 7803 deliberately does not specify the actual amount of
   padding to be used.  This memo discusses options regarding the actual
   size of padding, and lists advantages and disadvantages of each of
   these "Padding Strategies".

2.  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].

3.  General Guidance

   Padding messages does not have any semantic impact on the DNS
   protocol.  However, the amount of (possible) padding does depend on
   the circumstances under which a DNS message is created, specifically
   the maximum message length as dictated by protocol negotiations.
   Therefore, in order to not impact the possibility to add other EDNS
   options, "Padding" MUST be the last ENDS option applied before a DNS
   message is sent.

   Especially in situations with scarce computing and networking
   resources such as long-life battery powered devices, the tradeoff
   between significantly increasing the size of DNS messages by generous



Mayrhofer                  Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   draft-mayrhofer-dprive-padding-profile     October 2016


   padding and the corresponding gain in confidentiality must be
   carefully considered.

4.  Padding Strategies

   This section is a non-exhaustive list of strategies with regards to
   choosing the appropriate padding length.

4.1.  No Padding

   In the "No Padding" strategy, the EDNS0 Padding option is not used,
   and the size of the final (actually, "non-padded") message obviously
   corresponds exactly to the size of the unpadded messages.  Even
   though this "non-strategy" could seem out of choice in this list, it
   needs to be considered for cases when either of the parties (client
   or server) does not apply padding, while the other party does.

   Note that following this "strategy" is required if the message size
   of the unpadded message does not allow for the Padding option to be
   included (less than 4 octets message space left).  Therefore, this
   "non-strategy" is listed here for the sake of completeness.

   Advantages: The only advantage of this approach is that this
   "strategy" requires no additional resources on client, server and
   network side.

   Disadvantages: The original size of the message remains unchanged,
   hence this approach adds no additional entropy

   TODO: Recommend that this strategy MUST NOT be used unless message
   size disallows the use of Padding.

4.2.  Fixed Length Padding

   In fixed length padding, a sender chooses to pad each message with a
   padding of constant length.

   Options: Actual length of padding

   Advantages: Since the padding is constant in length, this strategy is
   very easy to implement, and at least ensures that the message length
   diverges from the length of the original packet (even only by a fixed
   value)

   Disadvantage: Obviously, the amount of padding easily discoverable
   from a single decrypted message.  When a public DNS server applies
   this strategy, the length of the padding hence must be assumed to be




Mayrhofer                  Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   draft-mayrhofer-dprive-padding-profile     October 2016


   public knowledge.  Therefore, this strategy is almost as bad as the
   "No Padding" strategy described above.

4.3.  Block Length Padding

   In Block Length Padding, a sender pads each message so that its
   padded length is a multiple of a chosen block length.  This creates a
   greatly reduced variety of message lengths.  An implementor needs to
   consider that even the zero-length EDNS0 Padding Option increases the
   length of the packet by 4 octets.

   Options: Block Length - values between 16 and 128 (Discuss!) octets
   seem reasonable

   Advantages: This strategy is reasonably easy to implement, reduces
   the variety of message ("fingerprint") sizes significantly, and does
   not require a source of (pseudo) random numbers, since the amount of
   padding can be derived from the actual (unpadded) message.

   Disadvantage: Given an unpadded message and the block size of the
   padding (which is assumed to be public knowledge once a server is
   reachable), the size of a message can be predicted.  Therefore, the
   minimum and maximum length of the unpadded message is known.

   TODO: Recommended strategy?

4.4.  Random Length Padding

   When using Random Length Padding, a sender pads each message with a
   random amount of padding.  Due to the size of the EDNS0 Padding
   Option itself, each message size is hence increased by at least 4
   octets.  The upper limit for pading is the maximum message size.
   However, a client or server may choose to impose a lower maximum
   padding length.

   Alternatively, pad a certain percentage of "remaining space"?

   Options: Maximum (and eventually minimum) padding length.

   Advantages: This strategy should create the best "distribution" of
   message sizes

   Disadvantage: This strategy requires a good source of (pseudo) random
   numbers which keeps up with the required message rates.  Especially
   on busy servers, this could be a significant hindrance.

   TODO: Recommendation - this is (at first glance) the best strategy,
   but requires significant effort



Mayrhofer                  Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   draft-mayrhofer-dprive-padding-profile     October 2016


4.5.  Random Block Length Padding

   This strategy combines Block Length Padding with a random component.
   Specifically, a sender randomly chooses between a few block lenght'es
   and then applies Block Length Padding based on the chosen block
   length.  The random selection of block lenght might even be
   reasonably based on a "weak" source of randomness, such as the
   transction ID of the message.

   Options: Number of size of the set of Block Lengths, source of
   "randomness"

   Advantages: Compared to Block Length Padding, this creates more
   variety in the resulting message sizes for a certain individual
   original message length.  Also, compared to "Random Length Padding",
   it might not require a "full blown" random number source.

   Disadvantage: Requires more implementation effort compared to simple
   Block Length Padding

   TODO: Recommend over simple Block Length Padding?

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no considerations for IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   The choice of the right padding strategy (and the right parameters
   for the chose strategy) has a significant impact on the resilience of
   encrypted DNS against size-based correlation attacks.  Therefore, any
   implementor of EDNS0 Padding must carefully consider the chosen
   strategy and its parameters.

   A clients carefully chosen Padding strategy may be without effect if
   the corresponding server does apply an inffective (or no) Padding
   strategy on the response packets.  Therefore, a client applying
   Padding may want to chose a DNS server which does apply at least an
   equally effective Padding strategy on responses.

7.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.





Mayrhofer                  Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   draft-mayrhofer-dprive-padding-profile     October 2016


   [RFC7830]  Mayrhofer, A., "The EDNS(0) Padding Option", RFC 7830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7830, May 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7830>.

Author's Address

   Alexander Mayrhofer
   nic.at GmbH
   Karlsplatz 1/2/9
   Vienna  1010
   Austria

   Email: alex.mayrhofer.ietf@gmail.com






































Mayrhofer                  Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/