Same-Origin Policy for the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP)
draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rrdp-same-origin-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Job Snijders
Last updated 2024-04-11
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
txt html xml htmlized pdf bibtex bibxml
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Email authors IPR References Referenced by Nits Search email archive
draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rrdp-same-origin-00 
SIDROPS                                                      J. Snijders
Internet-Draft                                                    Fastly
Updates: RFC8182 (if approved)                             11 April 2024
Intended status: Standards Track                                        
Expires: 13 October 2024

    Same-Origin Policy for the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP)
              draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rrdp-same-origin-00

Abstract

   This document describes a Same-origin policy (SOP) requirement for
   RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP) servers and clients.  The same-
   origin policy concept is a security mechanism to restrict how a
   document loaded from one origin can cause interaction with resources
   from another origin.  Application of a same-origin policy in RRDP
   client/server communication isolates resources such as Delta and
   Snapshot files from different Repository Servers, reducing possible
   attack vectors.  This document updates RFC 8182.

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 https://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 13 October 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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

Snijders                 Expires 13 October 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           RRDP Same-Origin Policy              April 2024

   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Implications of cross-origin resource requests in RRDP  . . .   3
   3.  Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  New Requirements for RRDP Repository Servers  . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  New Requirements for Relying Parties using RRDP . . . . .   4
   4.  Deployability in the Internet's current RPKI  . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix B.  Implementation status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   This document specifies a Same-origin policy (SOP) requirement for
   RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP) servers and clients.  The same-
   origin policy concept is a security mechanism to restrict how a
   document loaded from one origin can cause interaction with resources
   from another origin.  See [RFC6454] for an overview of the concept of
   an "origin".  Application of a same-origin policy in RRDP client/
   server communication isolates resources such as Delta and Snapshot
   files from different Repository Servers, reducing possible attack
   vectors.  This document updates [RFC8182].

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Snijders                 Expires 13 October 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           RRDP Same-Origin Policy              April 2024

2.  Implications of cross-origin resource requests in RRDP

   The first RRDP protocol specification did not explicitly disallow
   'cross-origin' URI references from the Update Notification file
   (Section 3.5.1 of [RFC8182]) towards Delta (Section 3.5.3 of
   [RFC8182]) and Snapshot (Section 3.5.2 of [RFC8182]) files, and was
   silent on the topic of HTTP Redirection (Section 6.4 of [RFC7231]).

   The implication of cross-origin references in Update Notification
   files is that one Repository Server can reference RRDP resources on
   another Repository Server and in doing so inappropriately increase
   the resource consumption for both RRDP clients and the referenced
   Repository Server.  Consider the following example served up by
   *https://badhost.example.net/notification.xml*:

   <notification version="1" session_id="172322cf-c642-4e6f-806c-bd2375d8001a"
       serial="47909" xmlns="http://www.ripe.net/rpki/rrdp">
     <snapshot
       uri="https://rrdp.ripe.net/172322cf-c642-4e6f-806c-bd2375d8001a/47909/snapshot.xml?r4nd0m"
       hash="b525b18a46be4327b72d19550728523c373840922f3762146d7e3f5038ce7b1a"/>
   </notification>

   Note that in the above Update Notification File the _badhost_
   operator is mimicking RIPE NCC's current RRDP session_id and serial
   and attaching a random query parameter to the snapshot URI.  Based on
   the above Update Notification File, all Relying Parties that reached
   _badhost_ following SIA AccessDescriptions, would download a large
   file from the RIPE CDN, wasting bandwidth on both client and server-
   side.

   Following from Section 3.4.1 of [RFC8182], scheduling a new download
   is unavoidable for RPs, because each Delta file, Snapshot file,
   session_id, and serial are significant only in scope of the referring
   SIA AccessDescription, or phrased differently: SIAs are globally
   unique and can be deduplicated before scheduling fetches, but
   (contrary to what Section 3.1 of [RFC8182] suggests) RRDP session_ids
   cannot be expected to be globally unique.

   If the adversary increment the serial in tandem with RIPE NCC
   incrementing their RRDP serial, every next request to
   _https://badhost/notification.xml_ causes another large file download
   on the RIPE NCC servers, exacerbating the issue.

   An adversary could also employ cross-origin HTTP Redirects towards
   other Repository Servers, causing similar undesirable behavior.

Snijders                 Expires 13 October 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           RRDP Same-Origin Policy              April 2024

   To summarize, cross-origin requests in RRDP can enable one Repository
   Server operator to increase resource consumption on another
   Repository Server exploiting Relying Party instances.

3.  Proposed Solution

   To overcome the aforementioned issue described in Section 2, RRDP
   Repository Servers and Clients MUST apply a Same-Origin Policy to
   both the URIs referenced in an Update Notification File and any HTTP
   Redirects.

3.1.  New Requirements for RRDP Repository Servers

   The following checklist items are added to Section 3.5.1.3 of
   [RFC8182]:

   *  The uri attribute in the snapshot element and optional delta
      elements MUST be part of the same origin (i.e., represent the same
      principal), meaning referenced URIs MUST have the same scheme,
      host, and port as the URI for the Update Notification File
      specified in the referring RRDP SIA AccessDescription.

   *  The Repository Server MUST NOT respond with HTTP Redirects towards
      locations with an origin different from the origin of the Update
      Notification File specified in the referring RRDP SIA
      AccessDescription.

3.2.  New Requirements for Relying Parties using RRDP

   The following adds to Section 3.4.1 of [RFC8182]:

   *  The Relying Party MUST verify whether the uri attributes in the
      Update Notification File are of the same origin as the Update
      Notification File itself.  If this verification fails, the file
      MUST be rejected and RRDP cannot be used, see Section 3.4.5 of
      [RFC8182] for considerations.

   *  The Relying Party MUST NOT follow HTTP Redirection following from
      attempts to download Update Notification, Delta, and Snapshot
      files if the target origin is different from the origin of the
      Update Notification File specified in the referring RRDP SIA
      AccessDescription.  If this verification fails, the RRDP session
      MUST be rejected and RRDP cannot be used, see Section 3.4.5 of
      [RFC8182] for considerations.

Snijders                 Expires 13 October 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           RRDP Same-Origin Policy              April 2024

4.  Deployability in the Internet's current RPKI

   In the past 2.5 years no RRDP Repository Servers have employed cross-
   origin URIs in Update Notification Files.

   At the moment of writing only one RRDP server (reached following the
   TALs of the five Regional Internet Registies) employs a same-origin
   HTTP redirect.

   This means that imposing a requirement for the application of a Same-
   Origin Policy does not cause any existing commonly-used RRDP
   Repository Server operations to become non-compliant.

5.  Security Considerations

   This internet-draft patches an oversight in the original RRDP
   protocol specification: cross-origin requests allow one repository
   operator to increase resource consumption for another repository
   operator.  Another way to avoid this undesirable implication would've
   been for the original RRDP specification to have used relative URIs
   instead of absolute URIs.

6.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA actions required.

7.  References

7.1.  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>.

   [RFC6454]  Barth, A., "The Web Origin Concept", RFC 6454,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6454, December 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6454>.

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Snijders                 Expires 13 October 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           RRDP Same-Origin Policy              April 2024

   [RFC8182]  Bruijnzeels, T., Muravskiy, O., Weber, B., and R. Austein,
              "The RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP)", RFC 8182,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8182, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8182>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [FORT-validator]
              Leiva, A., "FORT validator",
              <https://fortproject.net/en/validator>.

   [Routinator]
              NLNet Labs, "Routinator",
              <https://github.com/NLnetLabs/routinator/>.

   [rpki-client]
              Jeker, C., Snijders, J., Dzonsons, K., and T. Buehler,
              "rpki-client", <https://www.rpki-client.org/>.

   [rpki-prover]
              Puzanov, M., "rpki-prover",
              <https://github.com/lolepezy/rpki-prover>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The author wishes to thank Theo Buehler, Claudio Jeker, Alberto
   Leiva, Tim Bruijnzeels, Ties de Kock, Martin Hoffmann, and Mikhail
   Puzanov for their helpful feedback, comments, and implementation
   work.

Appendix B.  Implementation status

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942.
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

Snijders                 Expires 13 October 2024                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft           RRDP Same-Origin Policy              April 2024

   According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

   *  OpenBSD's [rpki-client]

   *  Mikhail Puzanov's [rpki-prover]

   *  FORT project's [FORT-validator]

   *  NLNet Labs' [Routinator]

Author's Address

   Job Snijders
   Fastly
   Amsterdam
   Netherlands
   Email: job@fastly.com

Snijders                 Expires 13 October 2024                [Page 7]