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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

DNSOP                                                         P. Wouters
Internet-Draft                                                   Red Hat
Updates: 4035 (if approved)                                  W. Hardaker
Intended status: Informational                                   USC/ISI
Expires: May 7, 2020                                    November 4, 2019


                    The Delegation_Only DNSKEY flag
                      draft-pwouters-powerbind-03

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 label (dot) underneath is considered
   a zone cut and must have its own (signed) delegation.  Additionally,
   it indicates the zone is expecting its parent to never bypass or
   override the zone.  DNSSEC Validating Resolvers can use this bit to
   mark any data that violates the DELEGATION_ONLY policy as BOGUS.

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 7, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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



Wouters & Hardaker         Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           Delegation Only DNSKEYs           November 2019


   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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The Deep Link State problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  The DELEGATION_ONLY DNSKEY flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.1.  _underscore label exception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Parental Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.3.  Marking zone keys DELEGATION_ONLY without parental
           support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.4.  Marking the Root DNSKEY DELEGATION_ONLY . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.5.  Migrating to and from DELEGATION_ONLY . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Human Rights Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   The DNS Security Extensions [DNSSEC] use public key cryptography to
   create an hierarchical trust base with the DNSSEC root public keys at
   the top, followed by Top Level domain (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
   audit these zones to ensure they behave as a delegation-only zone.
   This creates an attractive target for malicious use of these zones -
   either by their owners or through coercion.

   This document defines a mechanism for zone owners, at DNSKEY creation
   time, to indicate they will only delegate the remainder of the tree
   to lower-level zones, allowing easier logging and auditing of DNS
   responses they serve.

   This document introduces a new DNSKEY flag allowing zone owners to
   commit 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.




Wouters & Hardaker         Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           Delegation Only DNSKEYs           November 2019


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 DNS and 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 point and below.  For example, 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 a
   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 potential zone cut, the zone operator (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", hiding the normal zonecuts.  The attacker can then
   publish DNS addresses records (e.g.  A and AAAA records), as well as
   records used for authentication (e.g.  TLSA, SMIME, OPENPGPKEY, SSHP
   or IPSECKEY records).

   Exposing such targetted attacks requires a transparency audit setup
   ([RFC6962]) that needs to log all signed DNS data to prove that data
   signed by a parental DNSKEY was out of expected policy.  The very
   distributed nature of DNS makes such transparency logs prohibitively
   expensive and nearly 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.  The DELEGATION_ONLY DNSKEY flag

   This document introduces a new DNSKEY flag called DELEGATION_ONLY.
   When this flag is set on a DNSKEY with SEP bit set (KSK), the zone
   owner commits to not sign any data that crosses a label down in the
   hierarchy.  This commits a parent in the DNS hierarchy to only sign
   NS and DS records (i.e. all non-glue, delegation records) for its
   child zones.  It will no longer be able to ignore (or briefly delete,
   see below) a child delegation and publish data crossing zone labels
   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 data (destinations and key references) so it



Wouters & Hardaker         Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           Delegation Only DNSKEYs           November 2019


   can sign DNS data that belongs to its own child zone.  However, both
   of these actions cannot be hidden, thus exposing such malicious
   behavior when combined with DNSSEC Transparency logs.

   A zone that publishes a DNSKEY with the DELEGATION_ONLY flag also
   signifies that it is not expecting its own parent to skip it, thereby
   bypassing the DELEGATION_ONLY flag.

4.1.  _underscore label exception

   Some protocols, such as the DANE protocol [RFC6698] use a number of
   labels that start with an underscore (_) prefix to publish
   information about the zone itself.  For example, the TLSA record for
   www.example.com is published at the location
   _443._tcp.www.example.com.  These records are semantically part of
   the zone itself and are not delegated child zones.  Any chain of
   labels that each start with an underscore (_) is not considered to
   violate the DELEGATION_ONLY flag limitation of being DELEGATION_ONLY,
   as this data is logically part of the zone itself and is never meant
   to be interpreted as a indepedent delegated child zone.

4.2.  Parental Transparency

   A parent zone, such as the root zone, a TLD or any public suffix list
   delegation point, that has published a key with the DELEGATION_ONLY
   flag can no longer make an exception for a single delegated zone
   without removing the DELEGATION_ONLY flag, switching off its
   published policy.  This action would be highly visible, and for some
   domains such as the root or TLDs, require human interaction to notify
   the stake holders to prevent loss of trust.

   Removing the DELEGATION_ONLY flag from a DNSKEY requires that the
   zone first publishes an additional updated DS record to its parent.

   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
   for the same key with updated DNSKEY flags.  Due to the timings of
   such a rollover, it would take at least 30 days for the first
   validating resolvers to even 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, all DELEGATION_ONLY flag changes
   would be logged and become visible to the owner of attacked child
   zones, exposing a parent's malicious actions.



Wouters & Hardaker         Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           Delegation Only DNSKEYs           November 2019


4.3.  Marking zone keys DELEGATION_ONLY without parental support

   Even before a parent DNSKEY (or the root key) has been marked with
   DELEGATION_ONLY, zones can already signal their own willingness to
   commit being DELEGATION_ONLY zones.  Any changes of that state in a
   zone DNSKEY will require those zones to submit a new DS record to
   their parent.  Setting the DELEGATION_ONLY flag would trigger DNSSEC
   Transparency clients to start monitoring for actions by the zone or
   its parents that would be bypassing the DELEGATION_ONLY policy of the
   zone.  Validating resolvers would mark any data in violation of the
   DELEGATION_ONLY policy as BOGUS.

4.4.  Marking the Root DNSKEY DELEGATION_ONLY

   Once the Root DNSKEY is marked with a DELEGATION_ONLY flag and
   deployed resolvers are configured with the new DNSKEY, all TLDs will
   be ensured that the Root DNSKEY can no longer be abused to override
   child zone data.  Until the Root KSK DNSKEY sets this bit, software
   SHOULD imply this bit is always set, as this is the current
   expectation of the Root Zone.

4.5.  Migrating to and 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).

5.  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



Wouters & Hardaker         Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           Delegation Only DNSKEYs           November 2019


   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.

6.  Security Considerations

   Some parental attacks cannot be detected when the validating
   resolver's cache is empty.  Care should be taken by resolvers to not
   unneccessarilly empty their cache.  This is specifically important
   for roaming clients that re-connect frequently to different wireless
   or mobile data networks.

   The DELEGATION_ONLY DNSKEY flag is only valid for DNSKEY's that have
   the SEP bit set.  It MUST be ignored on DNSKEY's without the SEP bit
   set.

7.  Privacy Considerations

   Some of the protection offered by the DELEGATION_ONLY flag is only
   available when DNS resolvers report changes in the signing depth of
   high level (root or TLD) DNSKEYs to gain DNSSEC Transparency.  This
   reporting can reveal that a particular node is trying to access a
   certain DNS name.  Defensive measures to prevent exposing users
   should be taken when implementing DNSSEC Transparency.  It is
   expected that DNSSEC Transparency behaviour will be written up in a
   separate document.

8.  Human Rights Considerations

   The DNS protocol's hierarchy limits zones authority to themselves and
   their child zones only.  While this provides a finer grained trust
   model compared to a simple list of trusted entities, such as used in
   the WebPKI, it consolidates a lot of power in the top of the DNS
   hierarchy.  With the increased reliance on DNSSEC for securely
   identifying resources, such as DANE records, it becomes very
   important to audit those entities high up in the hierarchy to not



Wouters & Hardaker         Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           Delegation Only DNSKEYs           November 2019


   abuse or be co-erced into abusing control of the independent child
   zones.  The protocol extension specifically aims at increasing
   parental transparency and blocks some parental attacks from those
   parents who have publicly claimed to never override their child zone
   data.

   Parents using the DELEGATION_ONLY flag publication to increase their
   public trust are still able to remove child zones from their zone,
   for example in cases of legal compliance or to prevent malicious
   activity happening in its child zone.  But these parents can only do
   so publicly and can no longer surreptitiously take control of their
   own child zones.

9.  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.

10.  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.

11.  References

11.1.  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>.







Wouters & Hardaker         Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           Delegation Only DNSKEYs           November 2019


11.2.  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>.

   [RFC6698]  Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication
              of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698, August
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698>.

   [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
   Red Hat

   Email: pwouters@redhat.com


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

   Email: ietf@hardakers.net















Wouters & Hardaker         Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 8]


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