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

Versions: 00 01 02

DNSOP                                                    P. Wouters, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                   Red Hat
Updates: 4035 (if approved)                                       L. Xia
Intended status: Informational                                    Huawei
Expires: September 20, 2018                                  W. Hardaker
                                                                 USC/ISI
                                                          March 19, 2018


                    The Delegation_Only DNSKEY flag
                      draft-pwouters-powerbind-00

Abstract

   This document introduces a new DNSKEY flag called DELEGATION_ONLY
   that indicates that the particular zone will never sign zone data
   across a label.  That is, every dot is considered a zone cut and must
   have its own (signed) delegation.

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 September 20, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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



Wouters, et al.        Expires September 20, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           Delegation Only DNSKEYs              March 2018


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The Deep Link State problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Limiting the scope of a DNSKEY RRset to Delegation Only . . .   3
   5.  Parental Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Marking the root key DELEGATION_ONLY  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Marking TLD keys DELEGATION_ONLY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  Migrating to/from DELEGATION_ONLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   9.  Thirdparty usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   10. Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   13. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     14.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     14.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   The DNS Security Extensions [DNSSEC] use public key cryptography to
   create an hierarchical trust base with the DNSSEC root public key at
   the top, followed by TLD keys one level underneath.  While the root
   and TLD zones are asumed to be almost exclusively delegation-only
   zones, there is currently no method to force these zones to actually
   behave as a delegation-only zone.  This creates an attractive target
   for malicious use of these zones - either by their owners or through
   coercion.  For example, the DNSSEC root key could remove a delegation
   for "example.com" and sign an A record and TLSA record for
   "example.com", overriding the authority of "com" and "example.com".
   If such a change is done in a targetted attack, such an attack is
   near impossible to detect and log in any kind of transparency audit
   log.

   A new DNSKEY flag is introduced to signify a public commitment by the
   zone to state that the zone will never sign any DNS data that
   traverses a single label and if any such signed data is encountered
   by validating resolvers, that this data should be interpreted as
   BOGUS.  All delegations in the zone will have at most one added
   label.  Any data found that does not comply to this commitment MUST
   be interpreted as BOGUS.





Wouters, et al.        Expires September 20, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           Delegation Only DNSKEYs              March 2018


2.  Terminology

   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 [RFC2119].

3.  The Deep Link State problem

   The hierarchical model of DNSSEC ([RFC4033], [RFC4034] and [RFC4035]
   comes with the property that a zone at one point in the hierarchy can
   define, and therefor override, everything in the DNS tree from their
   level and below.  The DNSSEC root key could ignore the NS records for
   ".org" and "example.org" and could place a record "www.example.org"
   directly into its own zone, with the corresponding RRSIG signed by
   the root key itself.  Even if resolvers would defend against this
   attack by not allowing RRSIG's to span across a zone cut, the root
   zone operator (or any level higher in the hierarchy than the target
   victim) could briefly remove the NS and DS records, and create a
   "legitimate" DNS entry for "www.example.org" that traverses a label,
   but has no zonecuts.  The attacker could then publish DNS records
   such as A/AAAA records, but also records used for authentication,
   such as TLSA, SMIME.  OPENPGPKEY, SSHP or IPSECKEY records.

   Exposing such targetted attacks requires a transparency audit setup
   that needs to log all signed DNS data to prove that data signed by a
   parental DNSKEY was out of the ordinary.  The very distributed nature
   of DNS makes such transparency logs prohibitively expensive and near
   impossible to operate.  Additionally, it would expose all zone data
   to any public log operators, thereby exposing all DNS data to a
   public archive.  This data could then be used for other malicious
   purposes.

4.  Limiting the scope of a DNSKEY RRset to Delegation Only

   This document introduces a new DNSKEY flag called DELEGATION_ONLY.
   When this flag is set on the DNSKEY with SEP bit set (KSK), the zone
   commits to not sign any data that crosses a label down in the
   hierarchy.  This forces the parent in the hierarchy to only sign NS
   and DS records for all (non-glue) records regarding its child zones.
   It will no longer be able to ignore (or briefly delete, see below)
   the child delegation and publish data across the label by pretending
   the next label is not a zone cut.

   For such a parent to take over data that belongs to its child zone,
   it has two choices.  It can (temporarilly) remove its own DNSKEY
   DELEGATION_ONLY flag or it can replace the NS and DS records of its
   child zone with its own keys for which it has the private key so it




Wouters, et al.        Expires September 20, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           Delegation Only DNSKEYs              March 2018


   can sign DNS data that belongs to its child zone.  Both of these
   actions cannot be hidden, thus exposing such malicious behaviour.

5.  Parental Transparency

   A parent zone, such as the root zone or a TLD, that has commited to
   the DELEGATION_ONLY flag can no longer make an exception for a single
   delegated zone without switching its entire zone by removing the
   DELEGATION_ONLY flag.  This action would be highly visible, and for
   some domains such as the root or TLDs, require human interaction to
   notify the stake holders.

   Removing the DELEGATION_ONLY flag from a DNSKEY requires that the
   zone signals a new DS record to its parent, as changing any DNSKEY
   flag changes the DS record data for that corresponds to its DNSKEY.

   In the case of the root key, it would require updating out-of-band
   root key meta information and/or perform an [RFC5011] style rollover
   to the same key with updated DNSKEY flags.  Due to the timings of
   such a rollover, it would take at least 30 days for validating
   resolvers to pick this policy change.  It would also be a highly
   visible event.

   Replacing the NS and DS records of a child zone can still be done in
   a targetted attack mode, but these events are something that can be
   easilly tracked by a transparency infrastructure similar to what is
   now in use for the WebPKI using [RFC6962](bis).  With client
   implementations of transparency, this would be logged and become
   visible to the owner of the child zone and would expose the parent's
   malicious action.

6.  Marking the root key DELEGATION_ONLY

   Once the root key is marked with a DELEGATION_ONLY flag, and resolver
   software and RFC 5011 compliant resolver setups have rolled into such
   a key, all TLDs are ensured that the root key can no longer be abused
   to create "deep link" data.  Until the root key sets this bit,
   software MAY imply this bit is always set as this is the current mode
   of operation of the root zone.

7.  Marking TLD keys DELEGATION_ONLY

   Even before the root key has been marked with DELEGATION_ONLY, TLDs
   can already signal their own willingness to commit to formally being
   DELEGATION_ONLY zones.  Any changes of that state in a TLD DNSKEY
   would require those TLDs to submit a new DS record to the root, and
   could therefor only be done in a transparent and auditible way -
   preventing abuse and coercion.



Wouters, et al.        Expires September 20, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           Delegation Only DNSKEYs              March 2018


8.  Migrating to/from DELEGATION_ONLY

   There might be multiple DNSKEYs with the SEP bit set in a zone.  For
   the purpose of delcaring a zone as DELEGATION_ONLY, only those
   DNSKEY's that have a corresponding DS record at the parent MUST be
   considered.  If multiple DS records appear at the parent, some of
   which point to DNSKEY's with and some of which point to DNSKEY's
   without the DELEGATION_ONLY flag set, the zone MUST be considered
   DELEGATION_ONLY.  This situation will occur when a zone is rolling
   its DNSKEY key at the same time as it is commiting to a
   DELEGATION_ONLY zone (or the reverse).

9.  Thirdparty usage

   The DELEGATION_ONLY flag has a strong overlap in functionality with
   the Public Suffix List as both signal a formal split of authority
   between parent and child.

10.  Operational Considerations

   Setting or unsetting the DELEGATION_ONLY flag must be handled like
   any other Key Signing Key rollover procedure, with the appropriate
   wait times to give resolvers the chance to update their caches.

   Some TLDs offer a service where small domains can be hosted in-zone
   at the TLD zone itself.  In that case, the TLD MUST NOT set the
   DELEGATION_ONLY flag.  Another solution for such TLDs is to create
   delegations for these child zones with the same or different DNSKEY
   as used in the parent zone itself.

   If a zone is publishing glue records for a number of zones, and the
   zone that contains the authoritative records for this glue is
   deleted, a resigning of the zone will make this orphaned glue
   authoritative within the zone.  However, with the DELEGATION_ONLY bit
   set, this (signed) DNSSEC data will be considered BOGUS as it
   violations the commitment to only delegate.  This may impact domains
   that depended on this unsigned glue.

   For example, if "example.com" and "example.net" use NS records
   pointing to "ns.example.net", then if "example.net" is deleted from
   the ".net" zone, and the previously unsigned glue of "ns.example.net"
   is now signed by the ".net" zone, the "example.com" zone will lose
   its NS records and fail to resolve.

   The bind DNS software has an option called "delegation_only zones"
   which is an option that means something completely different.  It
   refers to ignoring wildcard records in specified zones that are
   deemed delegation-only zones.



Wouters, et al.        Expires September 20, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           Delegation Only DNSKEYs              March 2018


11.  Security Considerations

   There are no negative security impacts of using the DELEGATION_ONLY
   bit?

12.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new DNSKEY flag, the DELEGATION_ONLY flag,
   whose value [TBD] has been allocated by IANA from the DNSKEY FLAGS
   registry.

13.  Acknowledgements

   The author wishes to thank Thomas H.  Ptacek for his insistence on
   this matter.

   Thanks to the following IETF participants: Viktor Dukhovni, Shumon
   Huque, Geoff Huston, Rick Lamb and Sam Weiler.

14.  References

14.1.  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, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.

   [RFC5011]  StJohns, M., "Automated Updates of DNS Security (DNSSEC)
              Trust Anchors", STD 74, RFC 5011, DOI 10.17487/RFC5011,
              September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5011>.

14.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.

   [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
              RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.



Wouters, et al.        Expires September 20, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           Delegation Only DNSKEYs              March 2018


   [RFC6962]  Laurie, B., Langley, A., and E. Kasper, "Certificate
              Transparency", RFC 6962, DOI 10.17487/RFC6962, June 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6962>.

Authors' Addresses

   Paul Wouters (editor)
   Red Hat

   Email: pwouters@redhat.com


   Liang Xia
   Huawei

   Email: frank.xialiang@huawei.com


   Wes Hardaker
   USC/ISI
   P.O. Box 382
   Davis, CA  95617
   US

   Email: ietf@hardakers.net


























Wouters, et al.        Expires September 20, 2018               [Page 7]


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