ComputerSurge/bind9
3
0
Fork 0
Code Pull Requests 1 Activity

This commit was manufactured by cvs2git to create branch 'v9_6'.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
cvs2git
2010-02-23 01:32:46 +00:00
parent 5563138dca 3ab7336ea7
commit 855cb68fb7
1 changed files with 504 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

504
doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-trust-history-01.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,504 @@
Domain Name System Operations W. Wijngaards
Internet-Draft O. Kolkman
Intended status: Standards Track NLnet Labs
Expires: August 26, 2010 February 22, 2010
DNSSEC Trust Anchor History Service
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-trust-history-01
Abstract
When DNS validators have trusted keys, but have been offline for a
longer period, key rollover will fail and they are stuck with stale
trust anchors. History service allows validators to query for older
DNSKEY RRsets and pick up the rollover trail where they left off.
Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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 August 26, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Wijngaards & Kolkman Expires August 26, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Trust History Service February 2010
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
described in the BSD License.
1. Introduction
This memo defines a trust history service for DNS validators -- the
component in a resolver that performs DNSSEC [RFC4034] validation,
validator for short.
A validator that has been offline or missed an (emergency) rollover
can use this service to reconfigure themselves with the current
trust-anchor. Using a newly defined resource record (RR) that links
old DNSKEYS together, the TALINK RR, a validator fetches old DNSKEY
RRsets and checks they form a chain to the latest key (see
Section 2). The lists of old DNSKEYS, linked with the TALINK RRs, do
not necessarily need to be published in the zone for which the DNSKEY
history is being maintained but can be published in any DNS domain.
We will call the entity that offers the trust history the History
Provider. The choice of the History Provider is made by the
maintainer of the validator, possibly based on a hint provided, using
the TALINK, by the zone owner.
The algorithm that the validator uses to construct a history and
reconfigure a new key is detailed in Section 3. The algorithms for
how providers of trust history can fetch the DNSKEY data as published
by the zone they track and publish that are explained in Section 4.
2. The TALINK Resource Record
The DNS Resource Record type TALINK (decimal 58) ties the elements of
a linked list of DNSKEY RRs together.
The rdata consists of two domain names. The first name is the start,
or previous name, and the other name the end or next name in the
list. The empty label '.' is used at the endpoints of the list.
The presentation format is the two domain names. The wire encoding
is the two domain names, with no compression so the type can be
treated according to [RFC3597]. The list is a double linked list,
Wijngaards & Kolkman Expires August 26, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Trust History Service February 2010
because this empowers low memory hosts to perform consistency checks.
3. Trust History Lookup
This is the algorithm that a validator uses to detect and resolve the
situation in which a trust-anchor is out of sync with the DNSKEYs
published by a zone owner. The algorithm uses the TALINK RR type
which is used to link various old DNSKEYs as published by the History
Provider, to arrive from the outdated configured Trust Anchor to one
that matches the current DNSKEY. The TALINK RR type is defined in
Section 2.
When the algorithm below results in failure the trust history cannot
be build and a new trust anchor will need to be re-configured using
another mechanism.
Step 1: The validator performs a DNSKEY lookup to the target zone,
which looks like any other initial DNSKEY lookup that the
validator needs to match a trust anchor to the currently used
DNSKEY RR set. If the keyset verifies with the trust anchor
currently held, the trust-anchor is not out of sync. Otherwise,
store the DNSKEY RR set as result. The algorithm will
successfully build a linked list to this DNSKEY RR, or delete the
trust point, or fail.
All nameservers (the ones authoritative for the zone or the
upstream resolver caches when the validator is not full resolver)
SHOULD be checked to make sure the DNSKEY RR sets are the same.
The results can differ if a key-rollover is in progress and not
all nameservers are in sync yet. This case can be detected by
checking that the older keyset signs the newer and take the newer
as result keyset. The keysets are distinguished by the average
over the middle of the inception and expiration dates of the
signatures that are validated by the keyset itself. Otherwise,
the history lookup fails. If the check fails then the
inconsistency may be the result of spoofing, or compromise of
(DNS) infrastructure elements.
Step 2: Fetch the trust history list end points. Perform a query of
QTYPE TALINK and QNAME the domain name that is configured to be
the History Provider for the particular domain you are trying to
update the trust-anchor for.
Step 3: Go backwards through the trust history list as provided by
the TALINK linked list. Verify that the keyset validly signs the
next keyset. This is [RFC4034] validation, but the RRSIG
expiration date is ignored. [Editor note: Are we shure that there
are no server implementations that will not serve expired RRSIG,
Wijngaards & Kolkman Expires August 26, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Trust History Service February 2010
are such 'smart' servers allowed by the specs? In other words do
we need clarification in the DNSSEC-updates document?] Replace
the owner domain name with the target zone name for verification.
One of the keys that signs the next keyset MUST have the SEP bit
set. The middle of inception and expiration date from the valid
signature MUST be older than that of the signature that validates
the next keys in the list. Query type TALINK to get previous and
next locations.
If all SEP keys have the REVOKE flag set at this step, and the
keyset is signed by all SEP keys, then continue but store that the
end result is that the trust point is deleted, see Section 5
[RFC5011].
If all SEP keys are of an unknown algorithm at this step, continue
and at the next step, when you verify if the keyset signs validly:
if false, continue with result a failure, if true, continue with
the end result that the trust point is deleted. Thus, the keysets
with unknown algorithms are stepped over with an end result of
failure because the validator cannot determine if unknown
algorithm signatures are valid, until the oldest keyset with
unknown algorithms is signed by a known algorithm and the result
is set to deletion and step 3 continues to a known key.
Step 4: When the trust anchor currently held by the validator
verifies the keyset, the algorithm is done. The validator SHOULD
store the result on stable storage. Use the new trust anchor for
validation (if using [RFC5011], put it in state VALID).
4. Trust History Tracker
External trackers can poll the target zone DNSKEY RRset regularly.
Ignore date changes in the RRSIG. Ignore changes to keys with no SEP
flag. Copy the newly polled DNSKEY RRset and RRSIGs, change the
owner name to a new name at the history location. Publish the new
RRset and TALINK records to make it the last element in the list.
Update the TALINK that advertises the first and last name.
Integrated into the rollover, the keys are stored in the history and
the TALINK is updated when a new key is used in the rollover process.
This gives the TALINK and new historical key time to propagate.
The signer can support trust history. Trust history key sets need
only contain SEP keys. To use older signers, move historical RRSIGs
to another file. Sign the zone, including the TALINK and DNSKEY
records. Append the historical RRSIGs to the result. Signing the
zone like this obviates the need for changes to signer and server
software.
Wijngaards & Kolkman Expires August 26, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Trust History Service February 2010
5. Example
In this example example.com is the History Provider for example.net.
The DNSKEY rdata and RRSIG rdata is omitted for brevity, it is a copy
and paste of the data from example.net.
$ORIGIN example.com.
example.com. TALINK h0.example.com. h2.example.com.
h0 TALINK . h1.example.com.
h0 DNSKEY ...
h0 RRSIG ...
h1 TALINK h0.example.com. h2.example.com.
h1 DNSKEY ...
h1 RRSIG ...
h2 TALINK h1.example.com. .
h2 DNSKEY ...
h2 RRSIG ...
The example.net zone can advertise the example.com History Provider
by providing the TALINK shown here at example.com at the apex of the
example.net zone. The TALINK at example.com is then not needed.
6. Deployment
The trust history is advertised with TALINK RRs at the zone apex.
These represent alternative history sources, that can be searched in
turn. The TALINK at the zone apex contains the first and last name
of the list of historical keys.
The historical list of keys grows perpetually. Since most validators
have recent keys, their processing time remains similar as the list
grows. If validators no longer have trust in the keys then they need
no longer be published. The oldest key entries can be omitted from
the list to shorten it.
The validator decides how long it trusts a key. A recommendation
from the zone owner can be configured for keys of that zone, or
recommendations per algorithm and key size can be used (e.g. see
[NIST800-57]). If a key is older than that, trust history lookup
fails with it and the trust point can be considered deleted. This
assumes the validator has decided on a security policy and also can
take actions when the update of the trust anchor fails. Without such
policy, or if the alternative is no DNSSEC, the approach below can be
used.
Wijngaards & Kolkman Expires August 26, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Trust History Service February 2010
In general, the decision can be that any key - no matter how old or
how small - is better than no security. The validator then never
considers a key too old, and the lookup algorithm becomes an
unsecured update mechanism at the time where the key can be trivially
broken. The history provider SHOULD provide these broken keys to
facilitate clients performing the unsecured update. If a key can not
be trivially broken then it provides a non-trivial amount of security
that the history lookup algorithm uses to get the current keys.
Conceivably after the update the result is stored on stable storage
and the client is thereafter safe - it performs a leap of faith. The
validator operator can opt for this set up after considering the
trade-off between loss of DNSSEC, loss of connectivity, and the
argument that perceived security is worse than no security.
The history lookup can be used on its own. Then, the trust history
is used whenever the key rolls over and no polling is performed.
This has associated risks, in that the immediate rollover without
timeout that it provides could be abused, and certainly when taken
together with leap-of-faith such systems SHOULD inform their user
that the key has changed and urge them to do immediate checks.
Initially we put a hold down timer on such rollovers to mitigate the
abuse risks but these make following normal rollovers impossible.
If a validator is also using [RFC5011] for the target zone, then the
trust history algorithm SHOULD only be invoked if the [RFC5011]
algorithm failed due to the inability to perform probes. This is the
case when the last [RFC5011] successful probe was more than 30 days
ago. If a new key has been announced, invoke the history if no 2
probes succeeded during the add hold-down time and there was no
successful probe after the add hold-down time passed. Therefore the
time of the last successful probe MUST be stored on stable storage.
For testing the potentially very infrequently used lookup, the
following SHOULD be implemented. For the test the lookup is
triggered manually by allowing the system to be given a particular
keyset with a last successful lookup date in the past and a test
History Provider. The test History Provider provides access to a
generated back-dated test history.
7. Security Considerations
The History Provider only provides copies of old data. If that
historic data is altered or withheld the lookup algorithm fails
because of validation errors in Step 3 of the algorithm. If the
History provider or a Man in the Middle Adversary (MIMA) has access
to the original private keys (through theft, cryptanalisis, or
otherwise), history can be altered without failure of the algorithm.
Below we only consider MIMAs and assume the History Provider is a
Wijngaards & Kolkman Expires August 26, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Trust History Service February 2010
trusted party.
Spoofing by a MIMA of data looked up in step 2 or 3, i.e. spoofing of
TALINK and DNSKEY data, can present some alternate history. However
the DNSKEY RR set trusted that the history should arrive at is
already fixed by step 1. If an attempt is made to subvert the
algorithm at step 2 or 3, then the result keyset can not be replaced
by another keyset unnoticed.
To change the keyset trusted as the outcome, the step 1 data has to
be spoofed and the key held by the validator (or a newer historic
key) has to be compromised. Unless such spoof is targeted to a
specific victim, a spoof of the step 1 result has a high visibility.
Since most of the validators that receive the spoof have an up-to-
date trust anchor most validators that would receive this spoof
return validation failure for data from the zone that contains the
DNSKEYs. An adversary will therefore have to target the attack to
validators that are in the process of an update. Since validators do
not announce that they use trust history lookup until step 2
adversaries will not be able to select the validators.
A spoof of data in steps 2 and 3, together with a compromised (old)
key, can result in a downgrade. At steps 2 and 3 a faked trust point
deletion or algorithm rollover can be inserted in a fake history.
This avoids the high visibility of spoofing the current key (see
previous paragraph) and downgrades to insecure.
Finally there is the case that one of the keys published by the
History Providers has been compromised. Since someone spoofing at
step 1 of the lookup algorithm and presenting some fake history to a
compromised key, of course does not include key revocations and does
extend the history to contain the compromised key, it therefore is
not really useful for a History Provider to remove the key from the
published history. That only makes lookups fail for those validators
who are not under attack. Useful action could be to update
validators using some other means.
Rollover with [RFC5011] revokes keys after use. If a History
Provider is used, then such revoked keys SHOULD be used to perform
history tracking and history lookup. The old keys that the validator
starts with and final current keys MUST NOT be trusted if they are
revoked.
Depending on choices by the validator operator, it may accept a leap-
of-faith, and possibly allow non-hold-down rollovers. Although this
allows very fast emergency rollover if all clients are known to do
trust-history lookups without the RFC5011-algorithm, it also allows
an attacker with the private key to attempt to take over a zone
Wijngaards & Kolkman Expires August 26, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Trust History Service February 2010
quickly and get validators to roll to a trust anchor of the
attacker's choosing.
The SEP bit is checked to make sure that control over the KSK is
necessary to change the keyset for the target zone.
The algorithm can be used to get the inception and expiration times
of signatures on the current keyset, a clock. A MIMA can attempt to
shorten history and put back that clock, but the algorithm attempts
to make this difficult to target and highly visible to others.
If the clock of the validator can be influenced, then setting it
forward is unlikely to give advantage, but setting it backward
enables a replay attack of old DNSSEC data and signatures. This
vulnerability exists also in plain DNSSEC.
8. IANA Considerations
Resource record type TALINK has been defined using RFC5395 expert
review, it has RR type number 58 (decimal).
9. Acknowledgments
Thanks to the people who provided review and suggestions, Joe Abley,
George Barwood, Edward Lewis, Michael StJohns, Bert Hubert, Mark
Andrews, Ted Lemon, Steve Crocker, Bill Manning, Eric Osterweil,
Wolfgang Nagele, Alfred Hoenes, Olafur Gudmundsson, Roy Arends and
Matthijs Mekking.
10. References
10.1. Informative References
[NIST800-57] Barker, E., Barker, W., Burr, W., Polk, W., and M.
Smid, "Recommendations for Key Management", NIST
SP 800-57, March 2007.
[RFC5011] StJohns, M., "Automated Updates of DNS Security
(DNSSEC) Trust Anchors", RFC 5011, September 2007.
10.2. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource
Record (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.
Wijngaards & Kolkman Expires August 26, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Trust History Service February 2010
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4034, March 2005.
Authors' Addresses
Wouter Wijngaards
NLnet Labs
Science Park 140
Amsterdam 1098 XG
The Netherlands
EMail: wouter@nlnetlabs.nl
Olaf Kolkman
NLnet Labs
Science Park 140
Amsterdam 1098 XG
The Netherlands
EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
Wijngaards & Kolkman Expires August 26, 2010 [Page 9]