INTERNET-DRAFT DNSSEC Key Rollover UPDATES RFC 1996
JulyDecember 2000 Expires JanuaryJune 2001 Domain Name System (DNS) Security Key Rollover ------ ---- ------ ----- -------- --- -------- <draft-ietf-dnsop-rollover-00.txt><draft-ietf-dnsop-rollover-01.txt> Mark Andrews, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Status of This Document This draft, file name draft-ietf-dnsop-rollover-00.txt,draft is intended to be become a Proposed Standard RFC. Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent to the Domain Name Server Operations working group mailing list <email@example.com> or to the authors. This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract Deployment of Domain Name System (DNS) security with good cryptologic practice will involve large volumes of key rollover traffic. A standard format and protocol for such traffic will be necessary for this to be practical and is specified herein. [Note: The previous versionversions of this draft was draft-ietf-dnsind- rollover-00.txtincluded draft-ietf- dnsind-rollover-*.txt and before that draft-ietf-dnssec-rollover-00.txt.]draft-ietf-dnssec-rollover-*.txt.] INTERNET-DRAFT JulyDecember 2000 DNSSEC Key Rollover Table of Contents Status of This Document....................................1 Abstract...................................................1 Table of Contents..........................................2 1. Introduction............................................3 2. Key Rollover Scenario...................................3 3. Rollover Operation......................................5 3.1 Rollover to Parent.....................................5 3.2 Rollover to Children...................................7 4. Secure Zone Cuts and Joinders...........................8 5. Security Considerations.................................9 6. IANA Considerations.....................................9 References................................................10 Authors Address...........................................11 Expiration and File Name..................................11 INTERNET-DRAFT JulyDecember 2000 DNSSEC Key Rollover 1. Introduction The Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC 1034, 1035] is the global hierarchical replicated distributed database system for Internet addressing, mail proxy, and other information. The DNS has been extended to include digital signatures and cryptographic keys as described in [RFC 2535]. The principle security service provided for DNS data is data origin authentication. The owner of each zone signs the data in that zone with a private key known only to the zone owner. Anyone that knows the corresponding public key can then authenticate that zone data is from the zone owner. To avoid having to preconfigure resolvers with all zone's public keys, keys are stored in the DNS with each zone's key signed by its parent (if the parent is secure). To obtain high levels of security, keys must be periodically changed, or "rolled over". The longer a private key is used, the more likely it is to be compromised due to cryptanalysis, accident, or treachery [RFC 2541]. In a widely deployed DNS security system, the volume of update traffic will be large. Just consider the .com zone. If only a few percent of its children are secure and change their keys only once a year, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of new child public keys that must be securely sent to the .com manager to sign and return with their new parent signature. And when .com rolls over its private key, it will need to send hundred of thousands of new signatures on the existing child public keys to the child zones. It will be impractical to handle such update volumes manually on a case by case basis. The bulk of such key rollover updates must be automated. The key words "MUST", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. 2. Key Rollover Scenario Although DNSSEC provides for the storage of other keys in the DNS for other purposes, DNSSEC zone keys are included solely for the purpose of being retrieved to authenticate DNSSEC signatures. Thus, when a zone key is being rolled over, the old public key should be left in the zone, along with the addition of the new public key, for as long as it will reasonably be needed to authenticate old signatures that have been cached or are held by applications. Similarly, old parent SIGs should be retained for a short time after a parent KEY(s) roll over and new parent SIGs have been installed. INTERNET-DRAFT JulyDecember 2000 DNSSEC Key Rollover If DNSSEC were universally deployed and all DNS server's clocks were synchronized and zone transfers were instantaneous etc., it might be possible to avoid ever having duplicate old/new KEY/SIG RRsets due to simultaneous expiration of SIGs everywhere in the DNS. But these assumptions do not hold. Security aware DNS servers decrease the TTL of secure RRs served as the expiration of their authenticating SIG(s) approaches but some dithered fudge must generally be left due to clock skew, rounding, RR retention by applications, and the like. Retaining old KEYs for a while after rolling over to new KEYs will be necessary in practical cases. Assume a secure middle zone with a ssecure parent and a secure child wishes to role over its KEY RRset. This RRset would probably be one KEY RR per crypto algorithm used to sign the zone, but for this scenario, we will simply assume it is one KEY RR. The old KEY RR and two SIG RRs, one signed by the parent and one signed by the zone itself, will exist at the apex of the middle zone. (These RRs may also exist at the leaf node for this zone in its parent if the parent chooses to store them there.) The contents of this middle zone and the zone KEY RRs of its secure child will have SIGs under the old key. The middle zone owner needs to communicate with its parent to obtain a new parental signature covering both the old and new KEY RRs and a parental signature covering just the new KEY RR. The signature on both is needed so the old KEY can be retain for the period it might be needed to authenticate old SIGs. The middle zone would probably want to obtain these in advance so that it can install them at the right time along with its new SIG RRs covering the content of its zone. Finally, it needs to give new SIG RRs to its child that cover both its KEY RRs andthe child's KEY RRs so it must signal its children to ask for such SIG RRs. The table below illustrates what happens during this rollover scenario: INTERNET-DRAFT JulyDecember 2000 DNSSEC Key Rollover BEFORE ROLLOVER SHORTLY AFTER AFTER ROLLOVER p.x KEY P1 p.x KEY P1 p.x KEY P1 p.x SIG(KEY) P1 p.x SIG(KEY) P1 p.x SIG(KEY) P1 p.x SIG(KEY) GP p.x SIG(KEY) GP p.x SIG(KEY) GP m.p.x KEY M1 m.p.x KEY M2 m.p.x KEY M2 m.p.x SIG(KEY) P1 m.p.x KEY M1 m.p.x SIG(KEY) P1 m.p.x SIG(KEY) M1 m.p.x SIG(KEY) P1 m.p.x SIG(KEY) M2 m.p.x SIG(KEY) M2 c.m.p.x KEY C1 c.m.p.x KEY C1 c.m.p.x KEY C1 c.m.p.x SIG(KEY) M1 c.m.p.x SIG(KEY) M2 c.m.p.x SIG(KEY) M2 c.m.p.x SIG(KEY) C1 c.m.p.x SIG(KEY) M1 c.m.p.x SIG(KEY) C1 c.m.p.x SIG(KEY) C1 p = parent, m = middle, c = child, GP = grandparent key P* = parent key, M* = middle zone key, C* = child key 3. Rollover Operation Rollover operations use a DNS request syntactically identical to the UPDATE request [RFC 2136] except that the operation code is ROLLOVER, which is equal to (TBD), and use a new variation of NOTIFY [RFC 1996]. Considerations are given below. All rollover operations involve significant amounts of cryptographic calculations. Appropriate rate limiting SHOULD be applied to avoid denial of service attacks. [This draft does not consider cross-certification key rollover.] 3.1 Rollover to Parent A zone rolling over its KEY RRset sends an upward ROLLOVER request to its parent. Actually, it will normally do two upward ROLLOVERs, one for a combined KEY RRset of its old and new KEYs and one for just its new KEY RRset, as discussed above. The server selection algorithm in [RFC 2136] section 4 should be used for the retrieval of SRV RRs [RFC 2782] using the service name (tbd) to determine which host(s) to which the ROLLOVER request is sent. A child needs to be configured with or determine the name of its parent. The ROLLOVER request Zone should be specified in the Zone section. INTERNET-DRAFT JulyDecember 2000 DNSSEC Key Rollover The request Update section has the new KEY RRset on which the parent signature is requested along with the requesting zone's SIG(s) under its old KEY(s) as RRs to be "added" to the parent zone. The inception and expiration times in this child SIG or SIGs are the requested inception and expiration times for the new parent SIG(s). The "prerequisites" section has the old child KEY RRset with the parent SIG (see next paragraph). An upward ROLLOVER request MUST be signed and if not signed a BADAUTH response generated. The signature MUST be a SIG(0) using the previous zone KEY, so the parent can validate it, or be under a valid TSIG key [RFC 2845] arranged with the parent. Including the "prerequisite" section as specified above enables a parent that keeps no record of its children's KEYs to still authenticate a child's ROLLOVER request based on the old child KEY because the parent is presented with its own SIG on the old KEY. If the ROLLOVER command is erroneous or violates parental policy, an Error response is returned. If a parent retains copies of its children's KEYs, it mayMAY use that knowledge to validate ROLLOVER request SIGs and ignore the "prerequisites" section. If the ROLLOVER command is OK and the parent can sign online, its response MAY include the new parent SIG(s) in the response Update section. This response MUST be sent to the originator of the request. If the parent can not sign online in a reasonable length of time, it should return a response with an empty Update section and queue the SIG(s) calculation request. This response MUST be sent to the originator of the request. ROLLOVER response messages MUST always include, in the Additional Information section, the actual parent's SOA signed with a key the child should recognize (see section 4 below). Regardless of whether the server has sent the new signatures above, it MUST, once it has calculated the new SIG(s), send a ROLLOVER to the child zone using the DNS port (53) and host determined as follows: the server selection algorithm defined in RFC 2136, Section 4, for updates to the child zone is used to fetch SRV RRs for service name (tbd). This ROLLOVER reqeust contains the KEY RR set that triggered it and the new SIG(s). There are several reasons for sending the ROLLOVER response regardless of whether the new SIG RR(s) were sent in the original response. One is to provide an indication to the operators of the zone in the event someone is trying to hijack the zone. Another is that this maximizes the probability of the response getting through. Although the parent zone need not hold or serve the child's key, if INTERNET-DRAFT JulyDecember 2000 DNSSEC Key Rollover it does, the ROLLOVER command request MAY automatically update the parent zone. This document does not cover the question of parental policy on key rollovers. Parents may have restrictions on how far into the future they will sign KEY RRsets, what algorithms or key lengths they will support, may require payment for the service, etc. The signing of a future KEY by a parent is, to some extent, a granting of future authoritative existence to the controller of the child private key even if the child zone ownership should change. The only effective way of invalidating such future signed child public keys would be for the parent to roll over its key(s), which might be a very expensive operation. 3.2 Rollover to Children When a secure zone is going to rollover its key(s), it needs to re- sign the zone keys of any secure children under its new key(s). The parent simply NOTIFies the children via a rollover NOTIFY [RFC 1996] that the parent KEY(s) have changed. The child then proceeds to do an upward ROLLOVER request, as described in 3.1 above to obtain the new parental SIG(s). A rollover NOTIFY is a NOTIFY request [RFC 1996] that has a QTYPE of SIG and the owner name of the child zone. The answer section has the current parent SOA signed by a key the child will know (see section 4). A rollover NOTIFY MUST be signed and if not signed a BADAUTH response generated. The signature MUST be under the previous parental zone KEY, so the child can validate it, or under a valid TSIG key [RFC 2845] negotiated between parent and child. The rollover NOTIFY MUST be send by using the the nameserver selection algorithm defined in RFC 2136, Section 4, to fetch SRV RRs for the (tbd) named service. Servers for the child zone receiving a rollover NOTIFY query will forward the rollover NOTIFY in the same manner as an UPDATE is forwarded except that they will forward using SRV RRs as above. Unless the rollover server for the zone master is configured to initiate an automatic ROLLOVER it MUST seek to inform its operators that a rollover NOTIFY request has been received. This could be done by a number of methods including generating a log message, generating an email request to the child zone's SOA RNAME or any other method defined in the server's configuration for the zone. The default SHOULD be to send mail to the zone's SOA RNAME. As with all rollover operations, care should be taken to rate limit these messages so INTERNET-DRAFT JulyDecember 2000 DNSSEC Key Rollover prevent them being used to facilitate a denial of service attack. Once the message has been sent (or suppressed if so configured) to the child zone's administrator the master server for the child zone is free to respond to the rollover NOTIFY request. 4. Secure Zone Cuts and Joinders There are two other events that have some similarity to key rollover. The first is when a secure zone the is more than one level deep has a zone cut introduced inside it. For example, assume zone example.com has a.b.c.example.com, d.b.c.example.com and e.example.com in it. A zone cut could be introduced such that b.c.example.com became a separate child zone of example.com. A real world example would be a company that structures its DNS as host.branch.company.example. It might start out will all of these names in one zone but later decide to delegate all or some of the branches to branch zone file maintainers. The second is when a secure zone absorbs a child zone eliminating a zone cut. This is simply the inverse of the previous paragraph. From the point of view of the parent zone above the splitting zone or above the upper of the two combining zones, there is no change. When a zone is split by introducing a cut, the newly created child must be properly configured. However, from the point of view of a child of the splitting zone which becomes a grandchild or a grandchild that becomes a child due to joinder, there is a change in parent name. Therefore, in the normal case, there is a change in parent KEY(s). Unless the entity that handles rollovers for the zone whose parent name has changed is appropriately updated, future automated rollovers will fail because they will be sent to the old parent. For this reason and so that other consistency checks can be made, the parent SOA and SIG(SOA) are always included in the Answer section of rollover NOTIFY requests and in ROLLOVER responsess. For automated rollover to the new cut or joined state to work, these SOAs must be signed with old KEY(s) of the former parent so the signatures can be validated by the zone whose parent name is changing. In the case of a joinder, if the private key of the pinched out middle zone is not available, then manual update of the former grandchild, now child, will be necessary. In the case of introducing a cut, operational coordination with the former parent, now grandparent, signing the initial updates to the former child, now grandchild, will be needed to automate the reconfiguration of the zones. INTERNET-DRAFT JulyDecember 2000 DNSSEC Key Rollover 5. Security Considerations The security of ROLLOVER or UPDATE requests is essential, otherwise false children could steal parental authorization or a false parent could cause a child to install an invalid signature on its zone key, etc. A ROLLOVER request can be authenticated by request SIG(s)under the old zone KEY(s) of the requestor [RFC 2535]. The response SHOULD have transaction SIG(s) under the old zone KEY(s) of the responder. Alternatively, if there is a prior arrangement between a child and a parent, ROLLOVER requests and responses can be secured and authenticated using TSIG [RFC 2845]. A server that implements online signing SHOULD have the ability to black list a zone and force manual processing or demand that a particular signature be used to generate the ROLLOVER request. This is to allow ROLLOVER to be used even after a private key has been compromised. 6. IANA Considerations The DNS operation code (TBD) is assigned to ROLLOVER. The Service Name (TBD) is assigned to the DNS key rollover service. There are no other IANA considerations in this document. INTERNET-DRAFT JulyDecember 2000 DNSSEC Key Rollover References [RFC 1034] - "Domain names - concepts and facilities", P. Mockapetris, 11/01/1987. [RFC 1035] - "Domain names - implementation and specification", P. Mockapetris, 11/01/1987. [RFC 1996] - "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", P. Vixie, August 1996. [RFC 2119] - "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", S. Bradner. March 1997. [RFC 2136] - "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", P. Vixie, Ed., S. Thomson, Y. Rekhter, J. Bound. April 1997. [RFC 2535] - "Domain Name System Security Extensions", D. Eastlake. March 1999. [RFC 2541] - "DNS Security Operational Considerations", D. Eastlake. March 1999. [RFC 2782] - "A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", A. Gulbrandsen, P. Vixie, L. Esibov. February 2000. [RFC 2845] - "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", P. Vixie, O. Gundmundsson, D. Eastlake, B. Wellington. May 2000. INTERNET-DRAFT JulyDecember 2000 DNSSEC Key Rollover Authors Address Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Motorola 140 Forest Avenue Hudson,155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 0174901757 USA Telephone: +1 978-562-2827 (h) +1508-261-5434 (w) +1 508-634-2066 (h) FAX: +1 508-261-4447 (w) EMail: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com Mark Andrews Internet Software ConsortiumNominum, Inc. 1 Seymour Street Dundas Valley, NSW 2117 AUSTRALIA Telephone: +61-2-9871-4742 Email: Mark_Andrews@iengines.comMark.Andrews@nominum.com Expiration and File Name This draft expires in December 2000.June 2001 Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsop-rollover-00.txt.draft-ietf-dnsop-rollover-01.txt.