Domain Name System Operations J. Livingood
Internet-Draft C. Griffiths
Intended status: Informational Comcast
Expires: September 27, 2012 March 26, 2012
Definition and Use of DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors
draft-livingood-negative-trust-anchors-00
Abstract
DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) is now entering widespread
deployment. However, domain signing tools and processes are not yet
as mature and reliable as is the case for non-DNSSEC-related domain
administration tools and processes. One potential technique to
mitigate this is to use a Negative Trust Anchor, which is defined in
this document.
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 http://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 September 27, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
Livingood & Griffiths Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors March 2012
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Domain Validation Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. End User Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Switching to a Non-Validating Resolver is Not Recommended . . 5
5. Responsibility for Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Negative Trust Anchor Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Negative Trust Anchor Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Managing Negative Trust Anchors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Comparison to Other DNS Misconfigurations . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix B. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Livingood & Griffiths Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors March 2012
1. Introduction
The Domain Name System (DNS), DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC), and
related operational practices are defined extensively [RFC1034]
[RFC1035] [RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035] [RFC4398] [RFC4509] [RFC4641]
[RFC5155].
DNSSEC has now entered widespread deployment. However, domain
signing tools and processes are not yet as mature and reliable as is
the case for non-DNSSEC-related domain administration tools and
processes. As a result, operators of DNS recursive resolvers, such
as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), occasionally observe domains
incorrectly managing DNSSEC-related resource records. This
mismanagement triggers DNSSEC validation failures, and then causes
large numbers of end users to be unable to reach a domain. Many end
users tend interpret this as a failure of their DNS servers, and may
switch to a non-validating resolver or contact their ISP to complain,
rather than seeing this as a failure on the part of the domain they
wanted to reach.
In the short-term, one potential way to address this is for DNS
operators to use a Negative Trust Anchor to temporarily disable
DNSSEC validation for a specific misconfigured domain name. This
immediately restore access for end users while that domain's
administrators fix their misconfiguration. While DNS operators
likely prefer not to use this tool, during the global transition to
DNSSEC it seems some tool is needed to reduce the negative impact on
such operators.
A Negative Trust Anchor should be considered a transitional and
temporary tactic which is not particularly scalable and should not be
used in the long-term. Over time, however, the use of Negative Trust
Anchors will become less necessary as DNSSEC-related domain
administration becomes more resilient.
2. Domain Validation Failures
A domain name can fail validation for two general reasons, a
legitimate security failure such as due to an attack or compromise of
some sort, or as a result of misconfiguration on the part of an
domain administrator. As domains transition to DNSSEC the most
likely reason for a validation failure will be due to
misconfiguration. Thus, domain administrators should be sure to read
[RFC4641] in full. They should also pay special attention to Section
4.2, pertaining to key rollovers, which appears to be the cause of
many recent validation failures.
Livingood & Griffiths Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors March 2012
In one recent example [NASA.GOV Validation Failure Analysis], the
NASA.GOV domain name failed to validate. An investigation revealed
that the NASA.GOV domain administrators performed a Key Signing Key
(KSK) rollover by (1) generating a new key and (2) signing the
NASA.GOV domain with the new key. However, they did not use a
double-signing procedure for the KSK and a pre-publish procedure for
the ZSK. Double-signing refers to signing a zone with two KSKs and
then updating the parent zone with the new DS record so that both
keys are valid at the same time. This meant that the domain NASA.GOV
was signed with the new KSK, but it was not double-signed with the
old KSK. So, the new key was used for signing the zone but the old
key was not. As a result, the domain could not be trusted and
returned an error when trying to reach the domain. Thus, the domain
was in a situation where the DNSSEC chain of trust was broken because
the Delegation Signer (DS) record pointed to the old KSK, which was
no longer used for signing the zone. (A DS record provides a link in
the chain of trust for DNSSEC from the parent zone to the child zone
- in this case between .GOV and NASA.GOV.)
3. End User Reaction
End users generally do not know what DNSSEC is, nor should they be
expected to at the current time (and absent widespread integration of
DNSSEC indicators in end user software such as web browsers). As a
result, end users may incorrectly the failure to reach a domain due
to DNSSEC-related misconfiguration as their ISP purposely blocking
access to the domain or as a performance failure on the part of their
ISP (especially of the ISP's DNS servers). End users may feel less
satisfied with their ISP's service, which may make them more likely
to switch to a competing ISP. They may also contact their ISP to
complain, which of course will incur cost for their ISP. In
addition, they may use online tools and sites to complain of this
problem, such as via a blog, web forum, or social media site, which
may lead to dissatisfaction on the part of other end users or general
criticism of an ISP or operator of a DNS recursive resolver.
As end users publicize these failures, others may recommend they
switch from security-aware DNS resolvers to resolvers not performing
DNSSEC validation. This is a shame since the ISP or other DNS
recursive resolver operator is actually doing exactly what they are
supposed to do in failing to resolve a domain name, as this is the
expected result when a domain can no longer be validated, protecting
end users from a potential security threat.
Livingood & Griffiths Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors March 2012
4. Switching to a Non-Validating Resolver is Not Recommended
As noted in Section 3 some people may consider switching to an
alternative, non-validating resolver themselves, or may recommend
that others do so. But if a domain fails DNSSEC validation and is
inaccessible, this could very well be due to a security-related
issue. In order to be as safe and secure as possible, end users
should not change to DNS servers that do not perform DNSSEC
validation as a workaround, and people should not recommend that
others do so either. Even if a website in a domain seems to look
"normal" and valid, including any applicable SSL [REFERENCE NEEDED -
RFC 5246 CORRECT?] certificates, according to the DNSSEC protocol,
that domain is not secure. Domains that fail DNSSEC for legitimate
reasons may be in control of hackers or there could be other
significant security issues with the domain.
Thus, switching to a non-validating resolver to restore access to a
domain that fails DNSSEC validation is not a recommended practice, is
bad advice to others, is potentially harmful to end user security,
and is potentially harmful to DNSSEC adoption.
5. Responsibility for Failures
A domain administrator is solely and completely responsible for
managing their domain name(s) and DNS resource records. This
includes complete responsibility for the correctness of those
resource records, the proper functioning of their DNS authoritative
servers, and the correctness of DNS records linking their domain to a
top-level domain (TLD) or other higher level domain. Even in cases
where some error may be introduced by a third party, whether that is
due to an authoritative server software vendor, software tools
vendor, domain name registrar, or other organization, these are all
parties that the domain administrator has selected and is responsible
for managing successfully.
So in the case of a domain name failing to successfully validate,
when this is due to a misconfiguration of the domain, that is the
sole responsibility of the domain administrator.
Any assistance or mitigation responses undertaken by other parties to
mitigate the misconfiguration of a domain name by a domain
administrator, especially operators of DNS recursive resolvers, are
optional and at the pleasure of those parties.
Livingood & Griffiths Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors March 2012
6. Negative Trust Anchor Defined
Trust Anchors are defined in [RFC5914] [editorial note: details or
what to say about reference is undefined in the -00 version, so this
needs work for the -01]. A trust anchor should be used by a
validating caching resolver as a starting point for building the
authentication chain for a signed DNS response. The inverse of this
is a Negative Trust Anchor, which would create a stopping point for a
caching resolver to end validation of the authentication chain. This
Negative Trust Anchor can potentially be placed at any level within
the chain of trust and would stop validation at that point in the
chain.
7. Negative Trust Anchor Use
When a domain has been confirmed to be failing DNSSEC validation due
to a DNSSEC-related misconfiguration, an ISP or other DNS recursive
resolver operator may in some cases use a Negative Trust Anchor for a
domain or sub-domain. This instructs a DNS recursive resolver to
temporarily NOT perform DNSSEC validation for a specific domain name.
This immediately restores access to the domain for end users while
the domain's administrator corrects the misconfiguration(s).
In the case of a validation failure due to misconfiguration of a TLD
or popular domain name (such as a top 100 website), this could make
content or services in the affected TLD or domain to be inaccessible
for a large number of users. A Negative Trust Anchor can therefore
be useful in the short-term when used on a targeted and time-limited
basis. It does not [editorial question: must not? should not?]
involve turning off validation more broadly, and helps during the
transition to DNSSEC as organizations that are new to signing their
domains are still maturing their DNSSEC operational practices,
alleviating end user issues Section 3 and restoring end user access.
However, use of a Negative Trust Anchor should not be automatic in
any way, and must involve investigation by technical personnel
trained in the operation of DNS servers. Such an investigation must
confirm that a failure is due to misconfiguration, as a similar
breakage could have occurred if an attacker gained access to a
domain's authoritative servers and modified those records or had the
domain pointed to their own rogue authoritative servers.
Furthermore, a Negative Trust Anchor should be used only for a short
duration, perhaps for a day or less.
Finally, a Negative Trust Anchor is used only in a specific domain or
sub-domain and would not affect validation at other names up the
authentication chain. For example, a Negative Trust Anchor for
zone1.example.com would affect only names within zone1.example.com,
Livingood & Griffiths Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors March 2012
and validation would still be performed on example.com, .com, and the
root ("."). In another example, a Negative Trust Anchor for
example.com would affect only names within example.com, and
validation would still be performed on .com, and the root (".")
[Editorial note: diagram helpful here?]
8. Managing Negative Trust Anchors
This tool is unlikely to be [editorial note: should not be?] used
over the long-term since DNSSEC-related domain administration
practices will naturally improve over time. In addition, however,
continued and frequent use of Negative Trust Anchors is not scalable
since it requires investigation by technical personnel and may
involve manual processes, resulting in increased operational overhead
(and therefore cost).
While Negative Trust Anchors have proven useful during the early
stages of DNSSEC adoption, domain owners are ultimately responsible
for managing and ensuring their DNS records are configured correctly
Section 5.
Most current implementations of DNS validating resolvers currently
follow [RFC4033] on defining the implementation of Trust Anchor as
either using Delegation Signer (DS), Key Signing Key (KSK), or Zone
Signing Key (ZSK). A Negative Trust Anchor should use domain name
formatting that signifies where in a delegation that validation
should be stopped [editorial note: research if domain names should be
used, or if alternatives formatting needs to be clear in the case of
RFC 5914].
9. Comparison to Other DNS Misconfigurations
As noted in Section 5 domain administrators are ultimately
responsible for managing and ensuring their DNS records are
configured correctly. ISPs or other DNS recursive resolver operators
cannot and should not correct misconfigured A, CNAME, MX, or other
resource records of domains for which they are not authoritative.
Expecting non-authoritative entities to protect domain administrators
from any misconfiguration of resource records is therefore
unrealistic and unreasonable, and in the long-term is harmful to the
delegated design of the DNS and could lead to extensive operational
instability and/or variation.
Livingood & Griffiths Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors March 2012
10. Other Considerations
10.1. Security Considerations
[Editorial note: to be completed in -01]
10.2. Privacy Considerations
There are no privacy considerations in this document.
10.3. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations in this document.
11. Contributors
The following people made significant textual contributions to this
document and/or played an important role in the development and
evolution of this document:
- John Barnitz
- Tom Creighton
- Chris Ganster
12. Acknowledgements
The authors and contributors also wish to acknowledge the assistance
of the following individuals or groups. Some of these people
provided helpful and important guidance in the development of this
document and/or in the development of the concepts covered in this
document. Other people assisted by performing a detailed review of
this document, and then providing feedback and constructive criticism
for revisions to this document, or engaged in a healthy debate over
the subject of the document. All of this was helpful and therefore
the following individuals merit acknowledgement:
- Your Name Here!
13. References
Livingood & Griffiths Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors March 2012
13.1. 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.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, March 2005.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC4398] Josefsson, S., "Storing Certificates in the Domain Name
System (DNS)", RFC 4398, March 2006.
[RFC4509] Hardaker, W., "Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer
(DS) Resource Records (RRs)", RFC 4509, May 2006.
[RFC4641] Kolkman, O. and R. Gieben, "DNSSEC Operational Practices",
RFC 4641, September 2006.
[RFC5155] Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS
Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of
Existence", RFC 5155, March 2008.
[RFC5914] Housley, R., Ashmore, S., and C. Wallace, "Trust Anchor
Format", RFC 5914, June 2010.
13.2. Informative References
[NASA.GOV Validation Failure Analysis]
Barnitz, J., Creighton, T., Ganster, C., Griffiths, C.,
and J. Livingood, "Analysis of DNSSEC Validation Failure -
NASA.GOV", Comcast , January 2012, <http://
www.dnssec.comcast.net/
DNSSEC_Validation_Failure_NASAGOV_20120118_FINAL.pdf>.
Livingood & Griffiths Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors March 2012
Appendix A. Document Change Log
[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]
-00: First version published as an individual draft.
Appendix B. Open Issues
[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]
Check references to ensure all of them are still necessary
Authors' Addresses
Jason Livingood
Comcast Cable Communications
One Comcast Center
1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
US
Email: jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com
Chris Griffiths
Comcast Cable Communications
One Comcast Center
1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
US
Email: chris_griffiths@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com
Livingood & Griffiths Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 10]