Internet-Draft RRDP Same-Origin Policy June 2024
Snijders Expires 20 December 2024 [Page]
Workgroup:
SIDROPS
Updates:
RFC8182 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Author:
J. Snijders
Fastly

Same-Origin Policy for the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP)

Abstract

This document describes a Same-Origin Policy (SOP) requirement for RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP) servers and clients. Application of SOP 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 20 December 2024.

1. Introduction

This document specifies a Same-origin policy (SOP) requirement for RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP) servers and clients. The SOP 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 SOP 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.

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

3. Changes to RFC 8182

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]:

NEW

  • 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]:

NEW

  • 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.

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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6454]
Barth, A., "The Web Origin Concept", RFC 6454, DOI 10.17487/RFC6454, , <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, , <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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8182]
Bruijnzeels, T., Muravskiy, O., Weber, B., and R. Austein, "The RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP)", RFC 8182, DOI 10.17487/RFC8182, , <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.

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".

Author's Address

Job Snijders
Fastly
Amsterdam
Netherlands