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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 rfc5782                            
Anti-Spam Research Group                                       J. Levine
Internet-Draft                                      Taughannock Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                        October 10, 2008
Expires: April 13, 2009


                     DNS Blacklists and Whitelists
                        draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07

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 April 13, 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 April 13, 2009                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        DNS Blacklists and Whitelists         October 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-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     A.2.  Changes since -asrg-dnsbl-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12

























Levine                   Expires April 13, 2009                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        DNS Blacklists and Whitelists         October 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 April 13, 2009                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        DNS Blacklists and Whitelists         October 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 April 13, 2009                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        DNS Blacklists and Whitelists         October 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 April 13, 2009                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        DNS Blacklists and Whitelists         October 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 April 13, 2009                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        DNS Blacklists and Whitelists         October 2008


   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 ::FFFF:7F00:2 (::FFFF:
   127.0.0.2), and MUST NOT contain an entry for ::FFFF:7F00:1 (::FFFF:
   127.0.0.1), the IPv4-Mapped IPv6 Address [RFC4291] equivalents of the
   IPv4 test addresses.

   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
   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



Levine                   Expires April 13, 2009                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        DNS Blacklists and Whitelists         October 2008


   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.

   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.



Levine                   Expires April 13, 2009                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        DNS Blacklists and Whitelists         October 2008


   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.


9.  References







Levine                   Expires April 13, 2009                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        DNS Blacklists and Whitelists         October 2008


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.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3833]  Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain
              Name System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 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.*

A.1.  Changes since -asrg-dnsbl-06

   Change forbidden example from EXAMPLE to INVALID.

   Remove SOA encoded email addresses.



Levine                   Expires April 13, 2009                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        DNS Blacklists and Whitelists         October 2008


   Change IPv6 test addresses.

A.2.  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 April 13, 2009                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        DNS Blacklists and Whitelists         October 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 April 13, 2009                [Page 12]