DNSEXT Working Group Olafur Gudmundsson
INTERNET-DRAFT October 2001
<draft-ietf-dnsext-delegation-signer-03.txt>
Updates: RFC 1035, RFC 2535, RFC 3008.
Delegation Signer record in parent.
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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
Comments should be sent to the authors or the DNSEXT WG mailing list
namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
This draft expires on March 26, 2002.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All rights reserved.
Abstract
The Delegation Signer (DS) RR set is stored in a delegating (parent)
zone at each delegation point, and indicates the keys used in the
delegated (child) zone. The main design goal of the DS RR simplify the
operation of secure delegations by eliminating the need to store the
same RR in parent and child, as is done with the NS RR set and the KEY
Gudmundsson Expires March 2002 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Delegation Signer Record October 2001
set in RFC2535.
Secure resolvers need to take an additional step with DS to verify a
child's KEY RR set. Operationally this schema is much simpler as
operation of the two zones at delegation is now decoupled to great
extent.
This document updates RFC1035, RFC2535 and RFC3008.
1 - Introduction
Familiarity with the DNS system [RFC1035], DNS security extensions
[RFC2535] and DNSSEC terminology [RFC3090] is important.
When the same data can reside in two administratively different DNS
zones, the data frequently gets out of sync. NS record in a zone
indicates that this name is a delegation and the NS record lists the
authorative servers for the real zone. Based on actual measurements
10-30% of all delegations in the Internet have differing NS sets at
parent and child. There are number of reasons for this, including lack
of communication between parent and child and bogus name-servers being
listed to meet registrar requirements.
DNSSEC [RFC2535,RFC3008,RFC3090] specifies that child must have its
KEY set signed by the parent to create a verifiable chain of KEYs.
There is some debate, where the signed KEY set should reside,
parent[Parent] or child[RFC2535]. If the KEY set resides at the child,
frequent two way communication is needed between the two parties.
First the child needs to transmit the key set to parent and then the
parent sends the signed set or signatures to child. If the KEY set
resides at the parent the communication is reduced as the child only
sends changed key sets to parent.
DNSSEC[RFC2535] requires that the parent store NULL key set for
unsecure children, this complicates resolution process in many cases
as servers for both parent and child need to be queried for KEY set if
the child server does not return a KEY set. Storing the KEY record
only in the parent zone simplifies this and allows the elimination of
the NULL key set.
Another complication of the DNSSEC KEY model is that KEY record is
used to store DNS zone keys and public keys for other protocols.
There are number of potential problems with this including:
1. KEY set can become quite large if many applications/protocols
store their keys at the zone apex. Possible protocols are IPSEC,
HTTP, SMTP, SSH and others that use public key cryptography.
2. Key set may require frequent updates.
3. Probability of compromised/lost keys increases and triggers
emergency key rollover procedures.
Gudmundsson Expires March 2002 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Delegation Signer Record October 2001
4. Parent may refuse sign key sets with NON DNS zone keys.
5. Parent may not meet the child's expectations in turnaround time
in resigning the key set.
Given these and other reasons there is good reason to explore
alternatives to using only KEY records to create chain of trust.
Some of these problems can be reduced or eliminated by operational
rules or protocol changes. To reduce the number of keys at apex, a
rule to require applications to store their KEY records at the SRV
name for that application is one possibility. Another is to restrict
KEY record to DNS keys only and create a new type for all non DNS
keys. Third possible solution is to ban the storage of non DNS related
keys at zone apex. There are other possible solutions but they are
outside the scope of this document.
1.2 - Reserved words
The key words "MAY","MAY NOT", "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"RECOMMENDED", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in RFC2119.
2 - DS (Delegation KEY Signer)
2.1 - Delegation Signer Record model
This document proposes an alternative to the KEY record chain of
trust, that uses a special record that can only reside at the parent.
This record will identify the key(s) that child are allowed to self
sign its own KEY set.
The chain of trust is now established by verifying the parent KEY set,
the DS set from the parent and the KEY set at the child. This is
cryptographically equivalent to just using KEY records.
Communication between the parent and child is greatly reduced, since
the child only needs to notify parent about changes in keys that sign
its apex KEY RRset. Parent is ignorant of all other keys in the
child's apex KEY RRset, and the child maintains full control over the
apex KEY set and its content. Child can maintain any policies over
its DNS and other KEY usage with minimal impact on parent. Thus if
child wants to have frequent key rollover for its DNS keys parent does
not need to be aware of it as the child can use one key to only sign
its apex KEY set and other keys to sign the other record sets in the
zone.
Gudmundsson Expires March 2002 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Delegation Signer Record October 2001
This model fits well with slow roll out of DNSSEC and islands of
security model. In the islands of security model someone that trusts
"good.example." can preconfigure a key from "good.example." as a
trusted keys and from then on trusts any data that is signed by that
key or has a chain of trust to that key. If "example." starts
advertising DS records, "good.example." does not have to change
operations, by suspending self-signing. DS records can also be used to
identify trusted keys instead of KEY records. One further advantage
is the information stored in the parent is minimized, as only records
for secure delegations are needed.
The main disadvantage of this approach that verifying delegations KEY
set requires twice as many signature verification operations. There
is no impact on the number of signatures verified for other RR sets.
2.2 Protocol change
Each secure delegation in a secure zone MUST contain a DS RR set. If
a DS RR set accompanies the NS RR set, the intent is to state that the
child zone is secured. If an NS RR set exists without a DS RR set the
intent is to state that the child zone is unsecure. DS sets MUST NOT
appear at non delegations or at zone APEX.
In a zone that uses DS, insecure delegations MUST have the NODS[TBD]
bit set in the NXT record. This is required to differenciate this
delegation from Secure RFC2535 delegation.
Updates RFC2535 sections 2.3.4 and 3.4, as well as RFC3008 section
2.7:
Delegating zones MUST NOT store KEY records for delegations. The only
records that can appear at delegation in parent are NS, SIG, NXT and
DS.
Zone MUST self sign its apex KEY set, it SHOULD sign it with a key
that corresponds to a DS record in the parent. The KEY used to sign
the apex KEY RRset MAY sign other RRsets in the zone.
If child apex KEY RRset is not signed with one of the keys specified
in the DS record the child is locally secure[RFC3090] and SHOULD only
be considered secure if the resolver has been configured to trust the
key used.
Authorative server answering a query with the OK bit[OKbit] set, MUST
include the DS records and NXT record along with signatures in answers
for a delegation and space is available. DS and NXT records SHOULD
have lower priority than address records but higher priority than KEY.
Caching servers SHOULD return the DS and parent NXT record(s) in the
additional section under the same condition.
Gudmundsson Expires March 2002 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Delegation Signer Record October 2001
2.2.1 - Comments on protocol change
Over the years there has been various discussions on that the
delegation model in DNS is broken as there is no real good way to
assert if delegation exists. In RFC2535 version of DNSSEC the
authentication of a delegation is the NS bit in the NXT bitmap at the
delegation point. Something more explicit is needed and the DS record
addresses this for secure delegations.
DS record is the first DNS record that can only appear on the upper
side of a delegation. NS records appear at both sides as do SIG and
NXT. All other records can only appear at the lower side. This will
cause some problems as servers authorative for parent, reject DS
record even if the server understands unknown types, or will not hand
them out unless explicitly asked. Similarly a nameserver acting as a
authorative for child and as a caching recursive server may never
return the DS record.
A caching server that supports unkown types, does not care from which
side DS record comes from and thus does not have to be changed.
Different TTL values on the child's NS set and parents DS set can
cause the DS set to expire before the NS set.
Secure resolvers need to know about the DS record and how to interpret
it. In the worst case, introducing the DS record, doubles the
signatures that need to be checked to validate a KEY set.
2.3 Wire format of DS record
The DS (type=TDB) record consists of algorithm, key tag and SHA-1
digest of the public key KEY record allowed to sign the child's
delegation.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| key tag | algorithm | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SHA-1 digest |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (20 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Gudmundsson Expires March 2002 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Delegation Signer Record October 2001
The key tag is calculated as specified in RFC2535, Algorithm MUST be
an algorithm number assigned in the range 1..251. The SHA-1 digest is
calculated over the canonical name of the delegation followed by the
RDATA of the KEY record.
The size of the DS RDATA is 23 bytes, regardless of key size.
2.3.1 Justifications for fields
The algorithm and key tag fields are here to allow resolvers to
quickly identify the candidate KEY records to examine. The key tag
adds some greater assurance than SHA-1 digest on its own. SHA-1 is a
strong cryptographic checksum, it is real hard for attacker to
generate a KEY record that has the same SHA-1 digest. Combining the
name of the key and the key data as input to the digest provides
stronger assurance of the binding.
This format allows concise representation of the keys that child will
use, thus keeping down the size of the answer for the delegation,
reducing the probability of packet overflow. The SHA-1 hash is strong
enough to uniquely identify the key. This is similar to the PGP
footprint.
DS record is also well suited to lists trusted keys for islands of
security in configuration files.
2.4 Presentation format of DS record
The presentation format of DS record consists of 2 numbers followed by
digest presented in hex.
foo.example DS 12345 3 123456789abcdef67890
2.5 Transition issues for installed base
RFC2535 compliant resolver will assume that all DS secured delegations
are locally secure. This is a bad thing, thus it might be necessary
for a transition period to support both DS and SIG@Child. The cost is
one or more signatures in the answer for KEY records and that early
adopters have to use cumbersome communications that DS solves.
Gudmundsson Expires March 2002 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Delegation Signer Record October 2001
2.6 Backwards compatibilty with RFC2535 SIG@child and RFC1035
This section documents how a resolver determines the type of
delegation.
RFC1035 delegation has:
RFC1035 NS
RFC2535 adds the following two cases:
Secure RFC2535: NS + NXT + SIG(NXT)
NXT bit map contains: NS SIG NXT
Insecure RFC2535: NS + KEY + SIG(KEY) + NXT + SIG(NXT)
NXT bit map contains: NS SIG KEY NXT
KEY must be null-key.
DS adds the following two states:
Secure DS: NS + DS + SIG(DS) + NXT + SIG(NXT)
NXT bit map contains: NS SIG NXT DS
Insecure DS: NS + NXT + SIG(NXT)
NXT bit map contains: NS SIG KEY NXT NODS
If the NODS bit is not used, a resover can not determine if this is a
DS delegation zone. Thus is not able to determine if this delegtion is
a secure RFC2535 or a insecure DS.
2.6.1 NODS support in servers
NODS is a virtual type, servers MUST refuse to store any record of
this type. No special processing is required on answers.
3 Resolver Example
To create a chain of trust resolver goes from trusted KEY to DS to
KEY.
Assume the key for domain "example." is trusted. In zone "example."
we have
example. KEY <stuff>
secure.example. DS tag=10243 alg=3 <foofoo>
secure.example. NS ns1.secure.example.
NS ns2.secure.example.
secure.example. NXT NS SIG NXT DS unsecure.example.
secure.example. SIG(NXT)
secure.example. SIG(DS)
unsecure.example NS ns1.unsecure.example.
unsecure.example NS ns2.unsecure.example.
Gudmundsson Expires March 2002 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Delegation Signer Record October 2001
unsecure.example. NXT NS SIG NXT NODS .example.
unsecure.example. SIG(NXT)
In zone "secure.example." we have
secure.example. SOA <soa stuff>
secure.example. NS ns1.secure.example.
NS ns1.secure.example.
secure.example. KEY <tag=12345 size=1024 alg=3>
KEY <tag=54321 size=512 alg=5>
KEY <tag=32145 size=1024 alg=3>
secure.example. SIG(KEY) <key-tag=12345 alg=3>
secure.example. SIG(SOA) <key-tag=54321 alg=5>
secure.example. SIG(NS) <key-tag=54321 alg=5>
In this example the trusted key for "example." signs the DS record for
"secure.example.", making that a trusted record. The DS record states
what key is expected to sign the KEY RRset at "secure.example". Here
"secure.example." has three different KEY records and the KEY
identified in the DS record signs the KEY set, thus the KEY set is
validated and trusted. Note that one of the other keys in the keyset
actually signs the zone data, and resolvers will trust the signatures
as the key appears in the KEY set.
This example has only one DS record for the child but there no reason
to outlaw multiple DS records. More than one DS record is needed
during signing key rollover. It is strongly recommended that the DS
set be kept small.
Resolver determines the security status of "unsecure.example." by
examining the parent size NXT for this name.
3.1 Resolver cost estimates for DS records
From a RFC2535 resolver point of view for each delegation followed to
chase down an answer one KEY record has to be verified and possibly
some other records based on policy, for example the contents of the NS
set. Once the resolver gets to the appropriate delegation validating
the answer may require verifying one or more signatures. A simple A
record lookup requires at least N delegations to be verified and 1
RRset. For a DS enabled resolver the cost is 2N+1. For MX record the
cost where the target of the MX record is in the same zone as the MX
record the costs are N+2 and 2N+2. In the case of negative answer the
same ratios hold true.
Resolver may require an extra query to get the DS record and this may
add to the overall cost of the query, but this is never worse than
chasing down NULL KEY records from the parent in RFC2535 DNSSEC.
Gudmundsson Expires March 2002 [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Delegation Signer Record October 2001
DS adds processing overhead on resolvers, increases the size of
delegation answers but much less than SIG@Parent.
4 Acknowledgments
Number of people have over the last few years contributed number of
ideas that are captured in this document. The core idea of using one
key to only sign key set, comes from discussions with Bill Manning and
Perry Metzger on how to put in a single root key in all resolvers.
Alexis Yushin, Brian Wellington, Jakob Schlyter, Scott Rosen, Edward
Lewis, Dan Massey, Lars-Johan Liman, Mark Kosters, Olaf Kolman, Miek
Gieben, Havard Eidnes, Donald Eastlake 3rd., Randy Bush, David Blacka,
Rob Austein, Derek Atkins, Roy Arends, and others have provided useful
comments.
4 - Security Considerations:
This document proposes a change to the validation chain of KEY records
in DNS. The change in is not believed to reduce security in the
overall system, in RFC2535 DNSSEC child must communicate keys to
parent and prudent parents will require some authentication on that
handshake. The modified protocol will require same authentication but
allows the child to exert more local control over its own KEY set.
There is a possibility that an attacker can generate an valid KEY that
matches all the DS fields thus starting to forge data from the child.
This is considered impractical as on average more than 2^80 keys must
be generated before one is found that will match.
DS record is a change to DNSSEC protocol and there is some installed
base of implementations, as well as text books on how to set up
secured delegations. Implementations that do not understand DS record
will not be able to follow the KEY to DS to KEY chain and consider all
zone secured that way insecure.
Gudmundsson Expires March 2002 [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Delegation Signer Record October 2001
5 - IANA Considerations:
IANA needs to allocate RR type code for DS from the standard RR type
space.
IANA needs to allocate RR type code for the virtual NODS record from
the standard RR type space. Note: SINK (40) was never implemented and
that type code can be reused for NODS.
References:
[RFC1035] P. Mockapetris, ``Domain Names - Implementation and
Specification'', STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2535] D. Eastlake, ``Domain Name System Security Extensions'', RFC
2535, March 1999.
[RFC3008] B. Wellington, ``Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Signing
Authority'', RFC 3008, November 2000.
[RFC3090] E. Lewis `` DNS Security Extension Clarification on Zone
Status'', RFC 3090, March 2001.
[OKbit] D. Conrad, ``Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC'', work in
progress <draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-okbit-02.txt>, April 2001.
[Parent] R. Gieben, T. Lindgreen, ``Parent stores the child's zone
KEYs'', work in progress <draft-ietf-dnsext-parent-stores-
zones-keys-01.txt>, May 2001.
Author Address
Olafur Gudmundsson
3826 Legation Street, NW
Washington, DC, 20015
USA
<ogud@ogud.com>
Gudmundsson Expires March 2002 [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Delegation Signer Record October 2001
Appendix A: Changes from Prior versions
Changes from version 02
Added text outlawing DS at non delegations.
Added table showing the contents of DS, SIG@child, and RFC1034
delegations.
Added the NODS type/bit definition to distiguish insecure DS
delegation from secure SIG@child one.
Added the requirement that NXT be returned with referal answers.
Minor text edits.
Changes from version 01
Deleted KEY size field as it did not contribute anything but
complexity.
Number of wordsmith changes to make document more readable.
The word CAN was used when SHOULD was intended.
Deleted section 2.4 "Justifications for compact format" moved relevant
text to section 2.2.
Reverse alphabetized the acknowledgments section.
Reorganized sections 1 and 2 for readability.
Changes from version 00
Changed name from DK to DS based on working group comments.
Dropped verbose format based on WG comments.
Added text about TTL issue/problem in caching servers.
Added text about islands of security and clarified the cost impact.
Major editing of arguments and some reordering of text for clarity.
Added section on transition issues.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
translate it into languages other than English.
Gudmundsson Expires March 2002 [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Delegation Signer Record October 2001
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN
WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
Gudmundsson Expires March 2002 [Page 12]
