Anti-Spam Research Group J. Levine
Internet-Draft Taughannock Networks
Intended status: Standards Track July 28, 2008
Expires: January 29, 2009
DNS Blacklists and Whitelists
draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-06
Status of this Memo
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.
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 January 29, 2009.
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.
IRTF Notice
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.
Levine Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNS Blacklists and Whitelists July 2008
This document represents the consensus of the Anti-Spam Research
Group of the Internet Research Task Force.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Structure of an IP address DNSBL or DNSWL . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. IP address DNSxL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. IP address DNSWL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Combined IP address DNSxL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. IPv6 DNSxLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Domain name DNSxLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. DNSxL cache behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Test and contact addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Typical usage of DNSBLs and DNSWLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.1. Changes since -asrg-dnsbl-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12
Levine Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNS Blacklists and Whitelists July 2008
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 the
United States, the term RBL is a registered service mark of Trend
Micro[MAPSRBL].)
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 defines the structure of DNSBLs and DNSWLs. 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. We anticipate that management policies will
be addressed in a companion document.
Requirements Notation: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT",
"REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Structure of an IP address DNSBL or DNSWL
A DNSxL is a zone in the DNS[RFC1034][RFC1035]. The zone containing
resource records identifies 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 IP addresses.
Levine Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNS Blacklists and Whitelists July 2008
2.1. IP address DNSxL
An IPv4 address DNSxL has a structure adapted from that of the rDNS.
(The rDNS, reverse DNS, is the IN-ADDR.ARPA[RFC1034] and
IP6.ARPA[RFC3596] domains used to map IP addresses to domain names.)
Each IPv4 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 IPv4
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 MUST have an
A record. DNSBLs SHOULD have a TXT record that describes the reason
for the entry. DNSWLs MAY have a TXT record that describes the
reason for the entry. 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. The DNS records for this entry might
be:
99.2.0.192.bad.example.com A 127.0.0.2
99.2.0.192.bad.example.com TXT
"Dynamic address, see http://bad.example.com?192.0.2.99"
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. Client software MUST check the A record and MAY check the
TXT record.
If a range of addresses is listed in the DNSxL, the DNSxL MUST
contain an 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 MUST NOT be any records 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
Levine Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNS Blacklists and Whitelists July 2008
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 DNSxL
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 might 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.
DNSxLs with sublists SHOULD 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. If a DNSxL contains both entries
for a main domain and for sublists, sublist names MUST be at least
two characters and contain non-digits, so there is no problem of name
collisions with entries in the main domain, where the IP addresses
consist of digits or single hex characters.
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 127.0.0.2 and 127.0.0.4, in which case an
entry for an IP on both lists would be 127.0.0.6:
99.2.0.192.bad.example.com A 127.0.0.6
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 127.0.1.1
99.2.0.192.bad.example.com A 127.0.1.2
Levine Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNS Blacklists and Whitelists July 2008
There is no widely used convention for mapping sublist names to bits
or values, beyond the convention that all A values SHOULD be 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. IPv6 DNSxLs
The structure of DNSxLs based on IPv6 addresses is adapted from that
of the IP6.ARPA domain defined in [RFC3596]. Each entry MUST be a
32-component hex nibble-reversed IPv6 addresses suffixed by the the
DNSxL domain. For example, to represent the address:
2001:db8:1:2:3:4:567:89ab
in the DNSxL ugly.example.com, the entry might be:
b.a.9.8.7.6.5.0.4.0.0.0.3.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.1.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.
ugly.example.com. A 127.0.0.2
TXT "Spam received."
Combined IPv6 sublist DNSxLs are represented the same way as IPv4
DNSxLs, replacing the four octets of IPv4 address with the 32 nibbles
of IPv6 address.
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 MUST 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"
Levine Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNS Blacklists and Whitelists July 2008
A few name-based DNSBLs encode e-mail addresses using a convention
adapted from DNS SOA records, with the mailbox name encoded as the
first component of the domain name, 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
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. 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.
The TTL and refresh times SHOULD be chosen to reflect the expected
rate of change of the DNSxL. 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.
5. Test and contact addresses
IPv4 based DNSxLs MUST contain an entry for 127.0.0.2 for testing
purposes. IPv4 based DNSxLs MUST NOT contain an entry for 127.0.0.1.
DNSBLs that return multiple values SHOULD 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.
IPv6 based DNSxLs MUST contain an entry for ::2, and MUST NOT contain
an entry for ::1.
Domain name based DNSxLs MUST contain an entry for the [RFC2606]
reserved domain name "test" and MUST NOT contain an entry for the
reserved domain name "invalid".
DNSxLs also MAY contain an A record at the apex of the DNSxL zone
that points to a web server, so that anyone wishing to learn about
Levine Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNS Blacklists and Whitelists July 2008
the bad.example.net DNSBL can check http://bad.example.net.
The combination of a test address that MUST exist and an address that
MUST NOT exist allows a client system to defend against DNSxLs which
deliberately or by accident install a wildcard that returns an A
record for all queries. DNSxL clients SHOULD periodically check
appropriate test entries to ensure that the DNSxLs they are using are
still operating.
6. Typical usage of DNSBLs and DNSWLs
DNSxLs can be served either from standard DNS servers, or from
specialized servers like rbldns [RBLDNS] and rbldnsd [RBLDNSD] that
accept lists of IP addresses and CIDR ranges and synthesize the
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.
A client MUST interpret any returned A record as meaning that an
address or domain is listed in a DNSxL. Mail servers that test
combined lists most often handle them the same as single lists and
treat any A record as meaning that an IP is listed without
distinguishing among the various reasons it might have been listed.
DNSxL clients SHOULD be able to use bit masks and value range tests
on returned A record values in order to select particular sublists of
a combined list.
Mail servers typically check a list of DNSxLs on every incoming SMTP
connection, with the names of the DNSxLs 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.
Levine Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNS Blacklists and Whitelists July 2008
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, but
MUST respect the TTL values and discard expired records.
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:" header fields or URIs in the
body of the message. The DNSxL results can be used to make a binary
accept/reject decision, or in a scoring system.
Packages that test multiple header fields MUST 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 would be rejected if the IP sends
mail directly to the 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.
7. 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[SENDERBASE] [KSN].
As with any other DNS based services, DNSBLs and DNSWLs are subject
to various types of DNS attacks which are described in [RFC3833].
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
Levine Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DNS Blacklists and Whitelists July 2008
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2606] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
October 2003.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3833] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain
Name System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
[RBLDNS] Bernstein, D., "rbldns, in 'djbdns'".
[MAPSRBL] "MAPS RBL+".
[RBLDNSD] Tokarev, M., "rbldnsd: Small Daemon for DNSBLs".
[SENDERBASE]
Ironport Systems, "Senderbase".
[KSN] Levine, J., "The South Korean Network Blocking List".
Appendix A. Change Log
*NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: This section may be removed upon publication of
this document as an RFC.*
Levine Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DNS Blacklists and Whitelists July 2008
A.1. Changes since -asrg-dnsbl-05
Pervasive edits to standard language, including RFC2119 terms.
Test entries clarified for IPv4, invented for IPv6 and domains.
Author's Address
John Levine
Taughannock Networks
PO Box 727
Trumansburg, NY 14886
Phone: +1 831 480 2300
Email: standards@taugh.com
URI: http://www.taugh.com
Levine Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DNS Blacklists and Whitelists July 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (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.
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.
Levine Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 12]
