mir/bind
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9 synced 2025-08-30 22:15:20 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

7830: The EDNS(0) Padding Option

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Mark Andrews
2016-05-11 12:08:20 +10:00
parent 56bd026e6c
commit bf4fe7ca1b
3 changed files with 288 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
doc/misc/rfc-compliance
View File

@@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ or Best Current Practice (BCP) documents. The list is non exhaustive.
RFC7043
RFC7314
RFC7477
RFC7830 [16]
The following DNS related RFC have been obsoleted
@@ -153,3 +154,6 @@ CD=0 and then send CD=1 iff SERVFAIL is returned in case the recurive
server has a bad clock and/or bad trust anchor. Alternatively one
can send CD=1 then CD=0 on validation failure in case the recursive
server is under attack or there is stale / bogus authoritative data.
[16] Named doesn't currently encrypt DNS requests so the PAD option
is accepted but not returned in responses.

1
doc/rfc/index
View File

@@ -163,3 +163,4 @@
7534: AS112 Nameserver Operations
7477: Child-to-Parent Synchronization in DNS
7535: AS112 Redirection Using DNAME
7830: The EDNS(0) Padding Option

283
doc/rfc/rfc7830.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Mayrhofer
Request for Comments: 7830 nic.at GmbH
Category: Standards Track May 2016
ISSN: 2070-1721
The EDNS(0) Padding Option
Abstract
This document specifies the EDNS(0) "Padding" option, which allows
DNS clients and servers to pad request and response messages by a
variable number of octets.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7830.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Mayrhofer Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7830 EDNS(0) Padding May 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. The "Padding" Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Usage Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
The Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1035] was specified to transport DNS
messages in cleartext form. Since this can expose significant
amounts of information about the Internet activities of an end user,
the IETF has undertaken work to provide confidentiality to DNS
transactions (see the DPRIVE working group). Encrypting the DNS
transport is considered one of the options to improve the situation.
However, even if both DNS query and response messages were encrypted,
metadata could still be used to correlate such messages with well-
known unencrypted messages, hence jeopardizing some of the
confidentiality gained by encryption. One such property is the
message size.
This document specifies the Extensions Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))
"Padding" option, which allows DNS clients and servers to
artificially increase the size of a DNS message by a variable number
of bytes, hampering size-based correlation of the encrypted message.
2. Terminology
The terms "Requestor" and "Responder" are to be interpreted as
specified in [RFC6891].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
Mayrhofer Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7830 EDNS(0) Padding May 2016
3. The "Padding" Option
The EDNS(0) [RFC6891] specifies a mechanism to include new options in
DNS packets, contained in the RDATA of the OPT meta-RR. This
document specifies the "Padding" option in order to allow clients and
servers to pad DNS packets by a variable number of bytes. The
"Padding" option MUST occur at most, once per OPT meta-RR (and hence,
at most once per message).
The figure below specifies the structure of the option in the RDATA
of the OPT RR:
0 8 16
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| OPTION-CODE |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| OPTION-LENGTH |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| (PADDING) ... (PADDING) ... /
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Figure 1
The OPTION-CODE for the "Padding" option is 12.
The OPTION-LENGTH for the "Padding" option is the size (in octets) of
the PADDING. The minimum number of PADDING octets is 0.
The PADDING octets SHOULD be set to 0x00. Other values MAY be used,
for example, in cases where there is a concern that the padded
message could be subject to compression before encryption. PADDING
octets of any value MUST be accepted in the messages received.
4. Usage Considerations
This document does not specify the actual amount of padding to be
used, since this depends on the situation in which the option is
used. However, padded DNS messages MUST NOT exceed the number of
octets specified in the Requestor's Payload Size field encoded in the
RR Class Field (see Sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 of [RFC6891]).
Responders MUST pad DNS responses when the respective DNS query
included the "Padding" option, unless doing so would violate the
maximum UDP payload size.
Responders MAY pad DNS responses when the respective DNS query
indicated EDNS(0) support of the Requestor and the "Padding" option
was not included.
Mayrhofer Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7830 EDNS(0) Padding May 2016
Responders MUST NOT pad DNS responses when the respective DNS query
did not indicate EDNS(0) support.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned Option Code 12 for "Padding" in the "DNS EDNS0
Option Codes (OPT)" registry.
IANA has updated the respective registration record by changing the
Reference field to RFC 7830 and the Status field to "Standard".
6. Security Considerations
Padding DNS packets obviously increases their size, and will
therefore lead to increased traffic.
The use of the EDNS(0) padding only provides a benefit when DNS
packets are not transported in cleartext. Further, it is possible
that EDNS(0) padding may make DNS amplification attacks easier.
Therefore, implementations MUST NOT use this option if the DNS
transport is not encrypted.
Padding length might be affected by lower-level compression.
Therefore (as described in Section 3.3 of [RFC7525]), implementations
and deployments SHOULD disable compression at the Transport Layer
Security (TLS) level.
The payload of the "Padding" option could (like many other fields in
the DNS protocol) be used as a covert channel.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.
Mayrhofer Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7830 EDNS(0) Padding May 2016
7.2. Informative References
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
Acknowledgements
This document was inspired by a discussion with Daniel Kahn Gillmor
during IETF 93, as an alternative to the proposed padding on the TLS
layer. Allison Mankin, Andreas Gustafsson, Christian Huitema, Jinmei
Tatuya, and Shane Kerr suggested text for this document.
Author's Address
Alexander Mayrhofer
nic.at GmbH
Karlsplatz 1/2/9
Vienna 1010
Austria
Email: alex.mayrhofer.ietf@gmail.com
Mayrhofer Standards Track [Page 5]