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

Versions: (draft-muks-dns-message-checksums) 00 01

Internet Engineering Task Force                             M. Sivaraman
Internet-Draft                               Internet Systems Consortium
Intended status: Experimental                           October 13, 2015
Expires: April 15, 2016


                         DNS message checksums
               draft-muks-dnsop-dns-message-checksums-01

Abstract

   This document describes a method for a client to be able to verify
   that IP-layer PDU fragments of a UDP DNS message have not been
   spoofed by an off-path attacker.

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 April 15, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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.





Sivaraman                Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            DNS message checksums             October 2015


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  DNS message checksum method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The CHECKSUM EDNS(0) option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Wire format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Option fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.2.1.  NONCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.2.2.  ALGORITHM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.3.  DIGEST  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Presentation format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Checksum computation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Normative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Informative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Appendix A.  Checksum algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Appendix B.  Change history (to be removed before publication)  .   8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   [RFC1035] describes how DNS messages are to be transmitted over UDP.
   A DNS query message is transmitted using one UDP datagram from client
   to server, and a corresponding DNS reply message is transmitted using
   one UDP datagram from server to client.

   As a UDP datagram is transmitted in a single IP PDU, in theory the
   size of a UDP datagram (including various lower internet layer
   headers) can be as large as 64 KiB.  But practically, if the datagram
   size exceeds the path MTU, then the datagram will either be
   fragmented at the IP layer, or dropped by a forwarder.  In the case
   of IPv4, DNS datagrams may be fragmented by a sender or a forwarder.
   In the case of IPv6, DNS datagrams are fragmented by the sender only.

   IP-layer fragmentation for large DNS response datagrams introduces
   risk of cache poisoning by off-path attackers [Fragment-Poisonous] in
   which an attacker can circumvent some defense mechanisms like source
   port and query ID randomization [RFC5452].

   This memo introduces the concept of a DNS message checksum which may
   be used to stop the effects of such off-path attacks.

   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 [RFC2119].



Sivaraman                Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            DNS message checksums             October 2015


2.  DNS message checksum method

   Clients supporting DNS message checksums add an EDNS option to their
   queries, which signals their support for this feature.

   The CHECKSUM EDNS option contains 3 fields: NONCE, ALGORITHM, and
   DIGEST.  These fields are described in Section 3.

   It is OPTIONAL for a client to add a CHECKSUM EDNS option to DNS
   query messages.  If it adds such an option, it MUST set the NONCE
   field to a random value.  The ALGORITHM field MUST be set to 0 and
   the DIGEST field MUST be left empty.  The entire NONCE field MUST be
   randomly generated (i.e., in no predictable sequence and the random
   value must fill all bits of the field) for each query for which the
   client uses a CHECKSUM EDNS option.  The client is expected to
   remember the per-query NONCE field's value to be used in verifying
   the reply to this query message.

   A client MUST NOT send multiple DNS query messages with the NONCE set
   to a fixed unchanging value.  Instead, it must not send the option at
   all.

   The server SHOULD add a CHECKSUM EDNS option in the reply message to
   a corresponding query that arrived with this option present.  The
   NONCE field MUST be copied verbatim from the query message to the
   corresponding reply message.  A checksum is computed over the DNS
   reply message as described in Section 4 and the ALGORITHM and DIGEST
   fields MUST be set using the resulting checksum as given in
   Section 3.  The server is at liberty to choose any checksum algorithm
   it wants to from the list of supported algorithms given in
   Appendix A.

   If a server receives a query containing a CHECKSUM EDNS option with
   an ALGORITHM field that is not set to 0, it MUST ignore this option
   and process the request as if there were no CHECKSUM EDNS option in
   the query.

   When a client receives a reply message for which it sent a CHECKSUM
   EDNS option in the corresponding query, it SHOULD look for the
   presence of the CHECKSUM EDNS option in the reply.

   The client may handle the lack of a CHECKSUM EDNS option in the reply
   as it chooses to.  It is currently not specified, but may be updated
   in the future.

   If a client receives a reply containing a CHECKSUM EDNS option with
   an unknown ALGORITHM value, it MUST ignore this option and handle the
   reply as if there were no CHECKSUM EDNS option in it.  From the



Sivaraman                Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            DNS message checksums             October 2015


   previous paragraph, it follows that the client behavior in this case
   is also currently not specified, but may be updated in the future.

   If a CHECKSUM EDNS option is present in the reply, the client SHOULD
   first check and ensure that the NONCE field contains the same nonce
   value that was sent in the corresponding query message.  If the value
   in the NONCE field is different, the reply message MUST be discarded.
   Afterwards, the client SHOULD proceed to compute a checksum over the
   reply message as described in Section 4 using the checksum algorithm
   in the ALGORITHM field.  It SHOULD then compare the checksum value
   with the value that was received in the DIGEST field for equality.
   If they are not equal, the reply message MUST be discarded.  If they
   are equal, the reply message can be used normally as the client
   intends to use it.

3.  The CHECKSUM EDNS(0) option

   CHECKSUM is an EDNS(0) [RFC6891] option that is used to transmit a
   digest of a DNS message in replies.  Client and server behavior are
   described in Section 2.  In this section, the option's syntax is
   provided.

3.1.  Wire format

   The following describes the wire format of the OPTION-DATA field
   [RFC6891] of the CHECKSUM EDNS option.  All CHECKSUM option fields
   must be represented in network byte order.

         +--------------+------------------+--------------------+
         | Option field | Type             | Field size         |
         +--------------+------------------+--------------------+
         | NONCE        | unsigned integer | 64 bits (8 octets) |
         | ALGORITHM    | unsigned integer | 8 bits (1 octet)   |
         | DIGEST       | byte array       | Variable length    |
         +--------------+------------------+--------------------+

3.2.  Option fields

3.2.1.  NONCE

   The NONCE field is represented as an unsigned 64-bit integer in
   network byte order.  It MUST be randomly computed for each query
   message which a client sends out, and is copied verbatim from the
   query to the corresponding reply DNS message by the server.







Sivaraman                Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            DNS message checksums             October 2015


3.2.2.  ALGORITHM

   The ALGORITHM field is represented as an unsigned 8-bit integer in
   network byte order.  In query messages, it MUST be set to 0.  In
   reply messages, it MUST contain the numeric value of the algorithm
   used to compute the DIGEST field.  A list of algorithms and their
   values is given in Appendix A.

3.2.3.  DIGEST

   The DIGEST field is represented as a variable-length sequence of
   octets present after the NONCE and ALGORITHM fields.  Its size is
   implicitly computed from the value in the OPTION-LENGTH field
   [RFC6891] for the CHECKSUM EDNS option minus the size of the NONCE
   and ALGORITHM fields.  In query messages, it MUST be empty.  In reply
   messages, it MUST contain the digest of the reply message which is
   computed as described in Section 4.

3.3.  Presentation format

   As with other EDNS(0) options, the CHECKSUM EDNS option does not have
   a presentation format.

4.  Checksum computation

   To generate the checksum digest to be placed in the DIGEST field,
   first the entire DNS message must be prepared (rendered) along with
   the CHECKSUM option embedded in it to the point that it is ready to
   be sent out on the wire.  In this CHECKSUM option, initially the
   DIGEST field must be filled with zero values and its size must be
   reserved equal to the size expected for the digest from the checksum
   algorithm intended to be used.  The NONCE field MUST be set to the
   value of the nonce from the query DNS message.  The ALGORITHM field
   MUST be set to the checksum algorithm intended to be used.  After
   this, the whole message contents (from the start of the DNS message
   header onwards) must be input to the checksum algorithm and the
   calculated checksum must be patched into the DIGEST field, space for
   which was reserved before.

   To verify the checksum digest from a DNS message that was received,
   first the DIGEST field is copied to a temporary location and the
   DIGEST field in the message is patched with zero values.  After this,
   the whole message contents (from the start of the DNS message header
   onwards) must be input to the checksum algorithm specified in the
   ALGORITHM field.  The calculated checksum must be compared for
   equality with the checksum originally received in the DIGEST field,
   the content of which was earlier saved to a temporary location.  If
   both are equal, the checksum matches.



Sivaraman                Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            DNS message checksums             October 2015


5.  Security considerations

   The methods in this memo are designed to thwart off-path spoofing
   attacks which may lead to cache-poisoning, including the specific
   case when IP-layer PDU fragmentation occurs.

   The CHECKSUM EDNS option is not designed to offer any protection
   against on-path attackers.  Very little can be done without using
   shared-secret or public key cryptography for this case.

   Checksum computation may increase resource usage on servers and
   clients.  It is thus desirable to use fast checksum algorithms that
   meet the requirements of Appendix A.

   The entropy source used for generating random values for use in the
   NONCE field may be chosen similarly to provide ample security to
   verify a short-lived DNS message.

   The NONCE field effectively extends the ID field [RFC1035] in the DNS
   message header.

   As a side-effect of using checksums, resolver cache poisoning attacks
   are made more difficult due to the presence of the NONCE field.

   There is a risk of downgrade attack when the IP fragment containing
   the CHECKSUM EDNS option is spoofed, deleting this option.  This risk
   would exist until the presence of the CHECKSUM option in replies is
   made mandatory when a corresponding option is sent in the query.
   This can be made so right from the start, or after an adoption
   period.  At that time, it may be stated that a client that does not
   receive a CHECKSUM EDNS option in a reply would discard the reply
   message and retry the query using TCP.

   The CHECKSUM EDNS option cannot prevent some kinds of attack such as
   response and NS blocking and NS pinning as described in
   [Fragment-Poisonous].

6.  IANA considerations

   This document defines a new EDNS(0) option, titled CHECKSUM (see
   Section 3), assigned a value of <TBD> from the DNS EDNS0 Option Codes
   (OPT) space [to be removed upon publication:
   https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-
   parameters.xhtml#dns-parameters-11].







Sivaraman                Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            DNS message checksums             October 2015


   +------+----------+--------+----------------------------------------+
   | Valu | Name     | Status | Reference                              |
   | e    |          |        |                                        |
   +------+----------+--------+----------------------------------------+
   | TBD  | CHECKSUM | TBD    | [draft-muks-dnsop-dns-message-         |
   |      |          |        | checksums]                             |
   +------+----------+--------+----------------------------------------+

   The CHECKSUM EDNS(0) option also defines an 8-bit ALGORITHM field,
   for which IANA is to create and maintain a new sub-registry entitled
   "DNS message checksum algorithms" under the Domain Name System (DNS)
   Parameters.  Initial values for the DNS message checksum algorithms
   registry are given in Appendix A; future assignments are to be made
   through Expert Review as in BCP 26 [RFC5226].  Assignments consist of
   a DNS message checksum algorithm name and its associated value.

7.  Acknowledgements

   Tomek Mrugalski offered tips on draft naming and upload process.  Joe
   Abley reviewed the draft and pointed out some nits that were not
   detected automatically.  Ray Bellis, Robert Edmonds, Tony Finch, Paul
   Hoffman, Evan Hunt, Paul Vixie, and Paul Wouters reviewed drafts and
   sent in comments and opinions.  Mark Andrews mentioned an alternate
   method at the same time (on an internal mailing list) to address
   spoofing issues that provided further support to the idea that
   CHECKSUM was worth pursuing.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative references

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

   [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>.

   [RFC5452]  Hubert, A. and R. van Mook, "Measures for Making DNS More
              Resilient against Forged Answers", RFC 5452, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC5452, January 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5452>.







Sivaraman                Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            DNS message checksums             October 2015


   [RFC6891]  Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
              for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC6891, April 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.

8.2.  Informative references

   [Fragment-Poisonous]
              Herzberg, A. and H. Shulman, "Fragmentation Considered
              Poisonous", 2012.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

Appendix A.  Checksum algorithms

   The ALGORITHM field as specified in Section 3 identifies the checksum
   algorithm that is used to compute the checksum digest for a DNS
   message.

   The following table lists the currently defined checksum algorithm
   types.  Candidate checksum algorithms that are chosen for inclusion
   in this list MUST be one-way cryptographic hash functions that may be
   used by a client to securely verify a short-lived DNS message with a
   maximum message size constraint of 64 KiB.

     +----------+-------+-----------+-------------------------------+
     | Value(s) | Name  | Length    | Status, Remarks               |
     +----------+-------+-----------+-------------------------------+
     | 0        | EMPTY | 0 octets  | Empty digest (query only)     |
     | 1        | SHA-1 | 20 octets | Mandatory                     |
     | 2-239    |       |           | Unassigned                    |
     | 240-254  |       |           | Reserved for experimental use |
     | 255      |       |           | Reserved                      |
     +----------+-------+-----------+-------------------------------+

Appendix B.  Change history (to be removed before publication)

   o  draft-muks-dnsop-dns-message-checksums-01
      Reduced NONCE field to 8 bytes.  Reduced ALGORITHM field to 1
      byte.  Added note about risk of downgrade attack.  Expanded IANA
      considerations section and algorithms appendix.  Described
      behaviors further.  Added notes on picking a suitable checksum
      algorithm.  Updated cross references, language and grammar.

   o  draft-muks-dnsop-dns-message-checksums-00



Sivaraman                Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            DNS message checksums             October 2015


      Initial draft (renamed version).  Removed the NONCE-COPY field as
      it is no longer necessary.  Doubled the size of the NONCE field to
      128 bits.  Added sample checksum algorithms.  Fixed incorrect
      reference, language and grammar.

Author's Address

   Mukund Sivaraman
   Internet Systems Consortium
   950 Charter Street
   Redwood City, CA  94063
   US

   Email: muks@mukund.org
   URI:   http://www.isc.org/




































Sivaraman                Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/