[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 rfc5782                            
Network Working Group                                   J. Levine
Internet Draft                               Taughannock Networks
Intended Status: Informational                 September 19, 2007
Expiration: March 19, 2008


           DNS Based Blacklists and Whitelists for E-Mail
                    draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-04.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is a product of the Anti-Spam Research Group
   (ASRG).  Comments and discussion may be directed to the ASRG
   mailing list, asrg@irtf.org.

   This document is not an IETF Internet Standard.  It represents
   the consensus of the Anti-Spam Research Group of the Internet
   Research Task Force.  It may be considered for standardization
   by the IETF in the future.

   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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 19, 2008.

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and
   restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth
   therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
   any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she
   is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he
   or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   Section 6 of BCP 79.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).




Internet Draft    DNS Blacklists and Whitelists          [Page 1]


Internet Draft                                 September 19, 2007


Abstract

   The rise of spam and other anti-social behavior on the
   Internet has led to the creation of shared blacklists and
   whitelists of IP addresses or domains.  The DNS has become a
   de-facto standard method of distributing these blacklists and
   whitelists.  This memo documents the structure and usage of
   DNS based blacklists and whitelists, and the protocol used to
   query them.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ............................................ 2

   2. Structure of an IP address DNSBL or DNSWL ............... 3
     2.1. IP address DNSxL .................................... 3
     2.2. IP address DNSWL .................................... 4
     2.3. Combined IP address DNSxLs .......................... 4
     2.4. DNSxL cache behavior ................................ 5
     2.5. Test and contact addresses .......................... 5
     2.6. IPv6 DNSxLs ......................................... 6

   3. Domain name DNSxLs ...................................... 6

   4. Typical usage of DNSBLs and DNSWLs ...................... 6

   5. Security Considerations ................................. 8

   6. Informative References .................................. 8

   7. Author's Address ........................................ 8


1. Introduction

   In 1997, Dave Rand and Paul Vixie, well known Internet
   software engineers, started keeping a list of IP addresses
   that had sent them spam or engaged in other behavior that they
   found objectionable.  Word of the list quickly spread, and
   they started distributing it as a BGP feed for people who
   wanted to block all traffic from listed IP addresses at their
   routers.  The list became known as the Real-time Blackhole
   List (RBL).

   Many network managers wanted to use the RBL to block unwanted
   e-mail, but weren't prepared to use a BGP feed.  Rand and
   Vixie created a DNS-based distribution scheme that quickly
   became more popular than the original BGP distribution.  Other
   people created other DNS-based blacklists either to compete
   with the RBL or to complement it by listing different
   categories of IP addresses.  Although some people refer to all
   DNS-based blacklists as ``RBLs'', the term properly is used
   for the MAPS RBL, the descendant of the original list.  (In


Internet Draft    DNS Blacklists and Whitelists          [Page 2]


Internet Draft                                 September 19, 2007


   the United States, the term RBL is a registered service mark
   of Trend Micro[3].)

   The conventional term is now DNS Blacklist or Blocklist, or
   DNSBL.  Some people also publish DNS-based whitelists or
   DNSWLs.  Network managers typically use DNSBLs to block
   traffic and DNSWLs to preferentially accept traffic.  The
   structure of a DNSBL and DNSWL are the same, so in the
   subsequent discussion we use the abbreviation DNSxL to mean
   either.

   This document describes existing practice but does not define
   a standard of any sort.  It describes the structure,
   operation, and use of DNSBLs and DNSWLs but does not describe
   or recommend policies for adding or removing addresses to and
   from DNSBLs and DNSWLs, nor does it recommend policies for
   using them, nor does it take a position on whether the DNS is
   the best way to distribute such data.  We anticipate that
   management policies will be addressed in a companion document.

2. Structure of an IP address DNSBL or DNSWL

   A DNSxL is a DNS zone containing resource records
   corresponding to hosts present in a blacklist or whitelist.
   Hosts were originally encoded into DNSxL zones using a
   transformation of their IP addresses, but now host names are
   sometimes encoded as well.  Most DNSxLs still use address
   records.

2.1. IP address DNSxL

   An IP address DNSxL has a structure adapted from that of the
   rDNS.  (The rDNS, reverse DNS, is the IN-ADDR.ARPA and
   IP6.ARPA domains used to map IP addresses to domain names.)
   Each IP address listed in the DNSxL has a corresponding DNS
   entry created by reversing the order of the octets of the text
   representation of the IP address, and appending the domain
   name of the DNSxL.  If, for example, the DNSxL is called
   bad.example.com, and the IP address to be listed is
   192.0.2.99, the name of the DNS entry would be
   99.2.0.192.bad.example.com.  Each entry in the DNSxL has an A
   record and often a TXT record.  The A record conventionally
   has the value 127.0.0.2, but may have other values as
   described below in Combined IP address DNSxLs.  The TXT record
   describes the reason that the IP is listed in the DNSxL, and
   is often used as the text of an SMTP error response when an
   SMTP client attempts to send mail to a server using the list
   as a DNSBL, or as explanatory text when the DNSBL is used in a
   scoring spam filter, for example:

     99.2.0.192.bad.example.com    A      127.0.0.2
     99.2.0.192.bad.example.com    TXT
              "Spam source, see http://bad.example.com?192.0.2.99"


Internet Draft    DNS Blacklists and Whitelists          [Page 3]


Internet Draft                                 September 19, 2007


   Some DNSxLs use the same TXT record for all entries, while
   others provide a different TXT record for each entry or range
   of entries that describes the reason that entry or range is
   listed.  The reason often includes the URL of a web page where
   more information is available.  Some client software only
   checks the A record, some only checks the TXT record, some
   checks both.

   If a range of addresses is listed in the DNSxL, it contains a
   record (or a pair of A and TXT records) for every address in
   the DNSxL Conversely, if an IP address is not listed in the
   DNSxL, there is no record for the address.

2.2. IP address DNSWL

   Since SMTP has no standard way for a server to advise a client
   why a request was accepted, TXT records in DNSWLs are not very
   useful.  Some DNSWLs contain TXT records anyway to document
   the reasons that entries are present.

   It is possible and occasionally useful for a DNSxL to be used
   as a DNSBL in one context and a DNSWL in another.  For
   example, a DNSxL that lists the IP addresses assigned to
   dynamically assigned addresses on a particular network might
   be used as a DNSWL on that network's outgoing mail server or
   intranet web server, and used as a DNSBL for mail servers on
   other networks.

2.3. Combined IP address DNSxLs

   In many cases, an organization maintains a DNSxL that contains
   multiple entry types, with the entries of each type
   constituting a sublist.  For example, an organization that
   publishes a DNSBL listing sources of unwanted e-mail may wish
   to indicate why various addresses are included in the list,
   with one sublist for addresses listed due to sender policy, a
   second list for addresses of open relays, a third list for
   hosts compromised by malware, and so forth.  (At this point
   all of the DNSxLs with sublists of which we are aware are
   intended for use as DNSBLs, but the sublist techniques are
   equally usable for DNSWLs.)

   There are three common methods of representing a DNSxL with
   multiple sublists: subdomains, multiple A records, and bit
   encoded entries.  Most DNSxLs with sublists use both
   subdomains and one of the other methods.

   Sublist subdomains are merely subdomains of the main DNSxL
   domain.  If for example, bad.example.com had two sublists
   relay and malware, entries for 192.0.2.99 would be
   99.2.0.192.relay.bad.example.com or
   99.2.0.192.malware.bad.example.com.  Sublist names contain
   non-digits, so there is no problem of name collisions with


Internet Draft    DNS Blacklists and Whitelists          [Page 4]


Internet Draft                                 September 19, 2007


   entries in the main domain, where the IP addresses consist of
   digits.

   To minimize the number of DNS lookups, multiple sublists can
   also be encoded as bit masks or multiple A records.  With bit
   masks, the A record entry for each IP is the logical OR of the
   bit masks for all of the lists on which the IP appears.  For
   example, the bit masks for the two sublists might be 127.0.0.1
   and 127.0.0.2, in which case an entry for an IP on both lists
   would be 127.0.0.3:

     99.2.0.192.bad.example.com    A      127.0.0.3

   With multiple A records, each sublist has a different assigned
   value such as 127.0.1.1, 127.0.1.2, and so forth, with an A
   record for each sublist on which the IP appears:

     99.2.0.192.bad.example.com    A      127.0.0.1
     99.2.0.192.bad.example.com    A      127.0.0.2

   There is no widely used convention for mapping sublist names
   to bits or values, beyond the convention that all A values are
   in the 127.0.0.0/8 range to prevent unwanted network traffic
   if the value is accidentally used as an IP address.

   DNSxLs that return multiple A records sometimes return
   multiple TXT records as well, although the lack of any way to
   match the TXT records to the A records limits the usefulness
   of those TXT records.  Other combined DNSxLs return a single
   TXT record.

2.4. DNSxL cache behavior

   The per-record time-to-live and zone refresh intervals of
   DNSBLs and DNSWLs vary greatly depending on the management
   policy of the list.  A list of IP addresses assigned to
   dynamically allocated dialup and DHCP users could be expected
   to change slowly, so the TTL might be several days and the
   zone refreshed once a day.  On the other hand, a list of IP
   addresses that had been observed sending spam might change
   every few minutes, with comparably short TTL and refresh
   intervals.

2.5. Test and contact addresses

   Nearly all IP based DNSxLs contain an entry for 127.0.0.2 for
   testing purposes.  DNSBLs that return multiple values often
   have multiple test addresses so that, for example, a DNSBL
   that can return 127.0.0.5 would have a test record for
   127.0.0.5 that returns an A record with the value 127.0.0.5,
   and a corresponding TXT record.

   Most DNSxLs also contain an A record at root of the DNSxL zone


Internet Draft    DNS Blacklists and Whitelists          [Page 5]


Internet Draft                                 September 19, 2007


   that points to a web server, so that anyone wishing to learn
   about the bad.example.net DNSBL can check
   http://bad.example.net.

2.6. IPv6 DNSxLs

   No DNSxL based on IPv6 addresses has, to the best of our
   knowledge, been deployed yet.  The obvious format for one
   would use 32-component hex nibble-reversed IPv6 addresses in
   the same places where IPv4 DNSxLs use four-component decimal
   byte-reversed addresses.  A single DNSxL could in principle
   contain both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, since the different
   lengths prevent any ambiguity.  If a DNSxL is represented
   using traditional zone files and wildcards, there is no way to
   specify the length of the name that a wildcard matches, so
   wildcard names would indeed be ambiguous for DNSxLs served in
   that fashion.

3. Domain name DNSxLs

   A few DNSxLs list domain names rather than IP addresses.  They
   are sometimes called RHSBLs, for right hand side blacklists.
   The names of their entries contain the listed domain name
   followed by the name of the DNSxL.  If the DNSxL were called
   doms.example.net, and the domain invalid.edu were to be
   listed, the entry would be named invalid.edu.doms.example.net:

     invalid.edu.doms.example.net    A      127.0.0.2
     invalid.edu.doms.example.net    TXT    "Host name used in phish"

   A few name-based DNSBLs encode e-mail addresses using a
   convention adopted from DNS SOA records, so an entry for
   fred@invalid.edu would have the name
   fred.invalid.edu.doms.example.net:

     fred.invalid.edu.doms.example.net    A      127.0.0.2

   There is no consistent convention for a test entry, but some
   name-based DNSxLs use EXAMPLE.COM as a test entry.  Name-based
   DNSBLs are far less common than IP based DNSBLs.  There is no
   agreed convention for wildcards.

   Name-based DNSWLs can be created in the same manner as DNSBLs,
   and have been used as simple reputation systems with the
   values of octets in the A record representing reputation
   scores and confidence values, typically on a 0-100 or 0-255
   scale.

4. Typical usage of DNSBLs and DNSWLs

   DNSxLs can be served either from standard DNS servers, or from
   specialized servers like rbldns[2] and rbldnsd[4] that accept
   lists of IP addresses and CIDR ranges and synthesize the


Internet Draft    DNS Blacklists and Whitelists          [Page 6]


Internet Draft                                 September 19, 2007


   appropriate DNS records on the fly.  Organizations that make
   heavy use of a DNSxL usually arrange for a private mirror of
   the DNSxL, either using the standard AXFR and IXFR or by
   fetching a file containing addresses and CIDR ranges for the
   specialized servers.  If a /24 or larger range of addresses is
   listed, and the zone's server uses traditional zone files to
   represent the DNSxL, the DNSxL may use wildcards to limit the
   size of the zone file.  If for example, the entire range of
   192.0.2.0/24 were listed, the DNSxL's zone could contain a
   single wildcard for *.2.0.192.bad.example.com.

   DNSBL clients are most often mail servers or spam filters
   called from mail servers.  There's no requirement that DNSBLs
   be used only for mail, and other services such as IRC use them
   to check client hosts that attempt to connect to a server.

   Mail servers that test combined lists most often handle them
   the same as single lists and treat any A or TXT record as
   meaning that an IP is listed without distinguishing among the
   various reasons it might have been listed.  Some mail server
   and spam filtering software does have the ability to apply bit
   masks to retrieved A values in order to select particular
   sublists of a combined list.

   Mail servers typically check a list of DNSBLs and DNSWLs on
   every incoming SMTP connection, with the names of the DNSBLs
   and DNSWLs set in the server's configuration.  A common usage
   pattern is for the server to check each list in turn until it
   finds one with a DNSBL entry, in which case it rejects the
   connection, or a DNSWL entry in which case it accepts the
   connection.  If the address appears on no list at all (the
   usual case for legitimate mail), the mail server accepts the
   connection.  In another approach, DNSxL entries are used as
   inputs to a weighting function that computes an overall score
   for each message.

   The mail server uses its normal local DNS cache to limit
   traffic to the DNSxL servers and to speed up retests of IP
   addresses recently seen.  Long-running mail servers may cache
   DNSxL data internally.

   An alternate approach is to check DNSxLs in a spam filtering
   package after a message has been received.  In that case, the
   IP(s) to test are usually extracted from Received: headers or
   URIs in the body of the message.  The DNSxL results may be
   used to make a binary accept/reject decision, or in a scoring
   system.

   Packages that test multiple headers need to be able to
   distinguish among values in lists with sublists since, for
   example, an entry indicating that an IP is assigned to dialup
   users might be treated as a strong indication that a message
   should be rejected if the IP sends mail directly to the


Internet Draft    DNS Blacklists and Whitelists          [Page 7]


Internet Draft                                 September 19, 2007


   recipient system, but not if the message were relayed through
   an ISP's mail server.

   Name-based DNSBLs have been used both to check domain names of
   e-mail addresses and host names found in mail headers, and to
   check the domains found in URLs in message bodies.

5. Security Considerations

   Any system manager that uses DNSxLs is entrusting part of his
   or her server management to the parties that run the lists.  A
   DNSBL manager that decided to list 0/0 (which has actually
   happened) could cause every server that uses the DNSBL to
   reject all mail.  Conversely, if a DNSBL manager removes all
   of the entries (which has also happened), systems that depend
   on the DNSBL will find that their filtering doesn't work as
   they want it to.

   Since DNSxL users usually make a query for every incoming e-
   mail message, the operator of a DNSxL can extract approximate
   mail volume statistics from the DNS server logs.  This has
   been used in a few instances to estimate the amount of mail
   individual IPs or IP blocks send[5,6].

   As with any other DNS based services, DNSBLs and DNSWLs are
   subject to various types of DNS attacks which are described in
   [1].

6. Informative References

   [1] D. Atkins et al, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name
   System", RFC 3833, August 2004.

   [2] D. J. Bernstein, rbldns, in "djbdns",
   http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html.

   [3] Mail Abuse Prevention System, "MAPS RBL+", http://mail-
   abuse.com/

   [4] Michael Tokarev,"rbldnsd: Small Daemon for DNSBLs",
   http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/rbldnsd.html.

   [5] Senderbase, http://www.senderbase.org.

   [6] The South Korean Network Blocking List,
   http://korea.services.net.

7. Author's Address

   John R. Levine
   Taughannock Networks
   PO Box 727
   Trumansburg NY 14886 USA


Internet Draft    DNS Blacklists and Whitelists          [Page 8]


Internet Draft                                 September 19, 2007


   E-mail: johnl@taugh.com
   Phone: +1 607 330 5711

Full Copyright Statement

   This document and the information contained herein are
   provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE
   ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY),
   THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
   any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
   claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the
   technology described in this document or the extent to which
   any license under such rights might or might not be available;
   nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort
   to identify any such rights.  Information on the procedures
   with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78
   and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of
   an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for
   the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of
   this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
   repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its
   attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or
   other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be
   required to implement this standard.  Please address the
   information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

   $Id: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl.n,v 4.1 2007/09/20 03:35:03 johnl
   Exp $













Internet Draft    DNS Blacklists and Whitelists          [Page 9]