mirror of
https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9
synced 2025-08-31 06:25:31 +00:00
draft-ietf-dnsext-restrict-key-for-dnssec-00.txt
This commit is contained in:
480
doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-restrict-key-for-dnssec-00.txt
Normal file
480
doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-restrict-key-for-dnssec-00.txt
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,480 @@
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
DNSEXT Working Group D. Massey
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT USC/ISI
|
||||
S. Rose
|
||||
Expires: April 2002 NIST
|
||||
Updates: RFC 2535 November 2001
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Limiting the Scope of the KEY Resource Record
|
||||
------------------------------
|
||||
<draft-ietf-dnsext-restrict-key-for-dnssec-00.txt>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Status of this Document
|
||||
|
||||
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
|
||||
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Distribution of this
|
||||
document is unlimited. Comments regarding this document should be
|
||||
sent to the author.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Abstract
|
||||
|
||||
This document limits the KEY resource record to only DNS zone keys.
|
||||
The original KEY resource record used sub-typing to store both DNS
|
||||
zone keys and arbitrary application keys. DNS security keys and
|
||||
application keys differ in almost every respect and should not be
|
||||
combined in a single sub-typed resource record. This document
|
||||
removes application keys from the KEY record by redefining the
|
||||
Protocol Octet field in the KEY RDATA. Three existing application key
|
||||
sub-types are changed to historic, but the format of the KEY record
|
||||
is not changed. This document updates RFC 2535.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Massey, Rose [Page 1]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT Limiting the Scope of KEY RRs November 2001
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Introduction
|
||||
|
||||
This document limits the scope the KEY resource record. The KEY
|
||||
resource record, originally defined in [DNSSEC], uses resource record
|
||||
sub-typing to hold any public key associated with "a zone, a user, or
|
||||
a host or other end entity". The KEY resource record is assigned
|
||||
type value of 25 and the Protocol Octet in the KEY RDATA identifies
|
||||
the sub-type. DNSSEC Zone, User and Host keys are stored in the KEY
|
||||
resource record and are identified by a Protocol Octet value of 3.
|
||||
Email, IPSEC, and TLS keys are also stored in the KEY resource record
|
||||
and are identified by Protocol Octet values of 1,2, and 4
|
||||
(respectively). Protocol Octet values 5-254 are available for
|
||||
assignment by IANA and values have been requested (but not assigned)
|
||||
for applications such as SSH.
|
||||
|
||||
Closer examination and limited experimental deployment has shown that
|
||||
application keys stored in KEY records are problematic. Any use of
|
||||
sub-typing has inherent limitations. A resolver can not specify the
|
||||
desired sub-type in a DNS query and many DNS operations group
|
||||
resource records into sets, based on the DNS name and type. For a
|
||||
example, a resolver can not directly request the DNSSEC key sub-type.
|
||||
Instead, the resolver must request all KEY records associated with a
|
||||
DNS name. DNSSEC signatures apply to the set of all KEY resource
|
||||
records associated with the DNS name, regardless of sub-type.
|
||||
|
||||
In the case of the KEY record, the inherent sub-type limitations are
|
||||
exacerbated since DNS zone keys and application keys differ in
|
||||
virtually every respect. Combining two very different types of keys
|
||||
into a single sub-typed resource record adds unnecessary complexity
|
||||
and increases the potential for implementation and deployment errors.
|
||||
This document addresses these issues by removing all application keys
|
||||
from the KEY resource record. Note that the scope of this document
|
||||
is strictly limited to the KEY record and this document does not
|
||||
endorse or restrict the storage of application keys in other resource
|
||||
records.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
2. DNS Zone Key and Application Key Differences
|
||||
|
||||
In the original specification, all public keys were stored in KEY
|
||||
records, regardless of protocol or type. This proved to be a mistake
|
||||
as DNS security keys (zone, host and user) and application keys
|
||||
differ in the following ways:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
o They serve different purposes.
|
||||
|
||||
o They are managed by different administrators.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Massey, Rose [Page 2]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT Limiting the Scope of KEY RRs November 2001
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
o They are authenticated according to different rules.
|
||||
|
||||
o Nameservers use different rules when including them in
|
||||
responses.
|
||||
|
||||
o Resolvers process them in different ways.
|
||||
|
||||
o Faults/key compromises have different consequences.
|
||||
|
||||
The purpose of a DNS zone key is to sign resource records associated
|
||||
with a DNS zone but the purpose of an application key is specific to
|
||||
the application. DNSSEC host and user KEY RRs are used to generate
|
||||
SIG(0) transaction signatures. Application keys, such as PGP/email,
|
||||
IPSEC, TLS, and SSH keys, are not a mandatory part of any zone and
|
||||
the purpose and proper use of application keys is outside the scope
|
||||
of DNS.
|
||||
|
||||
DNSSEC keys are managed by DNS administrators, but application keys
|
||||
are managed by application administrators. The DNS zone administra-
|
||||
tor determines the key lifetime, handles any suspected key comprom-
|
||||
ises, and manages any DNSSEC key changes. Likewise, the application
|
||||
administrator is responsible for the same functions for the applica-
|
||||
tion keys related to the application. For example, a user typically
|
||||
manages her own PGP key and a server manages its own TLS key.
|
||||
Application key management tasks are outside the scope of DNS
|
||||
administration.
|
||||
|
||||
DNS zone keys are used to authenticate application keys, but applica-
|
||||
tion keys MUST NOT be used to authenticate DNS zone keys. A DNS
|
||||
zone key is either configured as trusted key or authenticated by con-
|
||||
structing a chain of trust in the DNS hierarchy. To participate in
|
||||
the chain of trust, a DNS zone must exchange zone key information
|
||||
with its parent zone [DNSSEC]. Application keys are not configured
|
||||
as trusted keys in the DNS and are never part of any DNS chain of
|
||||
trust. Application key data should not be exchanged with the parent
|
||||
zone. A resolver considers an application key authenticated if it
|
||||
has a valid signature from the local DNS zone keys, but applications
|
||||
may impose additional requirements before the application key is
|
||||
accepted as authentic.
|
||||
|
||||
It MAY be useful for nameservers to include DNS zone keys in the
|
||||
additional section of a response, but application keys are typically
|
||||
not useful unless they have been specifically requested. For exam-
|
||||
ple, it may be useful to include the isi.edu zone key along with a
|
||||
response that contain the www.isi.edu A record and SIG record. A
|
||||
secure resolver will need the isi.edu zone key in order to check the
|
||||
SIG and authenticate the www.isi.edu A record. It is typical not
|
||||
useful to include the IPSEC, email, and TLS keys along with the A
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Massey, Rose [Page 3]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT Limiting the Scope of KEY RRs November 2001
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
record. Note that by placing application keys in the KEY record, a
|
||||
resolver will need the IPSEC, email, TLS, and other key associated
|
||||
with isi.edu if the resolver intends to authenticate the isi.edu zone
|
||||
key (since signatures only apply to the entire KEY set).
|
||||
|
||||
DNS zone keys require special handling by resolvers, but application
|
||||
keys should be treated the same as any other type of DNS data. The
|
||||
DNSSEC keys are of no value to end applications, unless the applica-
|
||||
tions plan to do their own DNS authentication. Secure resolvers
|
||||
MUST NOT use application keys as part of the authentication process.
|
||||
Application keys have no unique value to resolvers and are only use-
|
||||
ful to the application requesting the key. Note that if sub-types
|
||||
are used to identify the application key, then either the interface
|
||||
to the resolver must specify the sub-type or the application must be
|
||||
able to accept all KEY records and pick out the desired the sub-type.
|
||||
|
||||
A fault or compromise of DNS zone key can lead to invalid or forged
|
||||
DNS data, but a fault or compromise of an application key should have
|
||||
no impact on other DNS data. Incorrectly adding or changing a DNS
|
||||
zone key can invalidate all of the DNS data in zone and in all of its
|
||||
subzones. By using a compromised key, an attacker can forge data
|
||||
from the effected zone and any for any of its sub-zones. A fault or
|
||||
compromise of an application key has implications for that applica-
|
||||
tion, but it should not have an impact on the DNS. Note that applica-
|
||||
tion key faults and key compromises can have an impact on the entire
|
||||
DNS if the application key and DNS zone keys are both stored in the
|
||||
KEY record.
|
||||
|
||||
In summary, DNS zone keys and application keys differ in most every
|
||||
respect. DNS zone keys are an essential part of the DNS infrastruc-
|
||||
ture and require special handling by DNS administrators and DNS
|
||||
resolvers. Application keys are simply another type of data and have
|
||||
no special meaning to DNS administrators or resolvers. These two
|
||||
different types of data do not belong in the same resource record.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
3. Redefinition of the KEY Resource Record
|
||||
|
||||
The KEY record is redefined as resource record for storing DNSSEC
|
||||
keys. The KEY RDATA format, as defined in [DNSSEC], is not changed,
|
||||
but the Protocol Octet is redefined as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
VALUE Protocol
|
||||
0 - reserved
|
||||
1 HISTORIC
|
||||
2 HISTORIC
|
||||
3 dnssec
|
||||
4 HISTORIC
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Massey, Rose [Page 4]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT Limiting the Scope of KEY RRs November 2001
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
5-254 - reserved
|
||||
255 HISTORIC
|
||||
|
||||
All valid KEY records MUST have a Protocol Octet value of 3. KEY
|
||||
records with a Protocol Octet value other than 3 SHOULD NOT be stored
|
||||
in the DNS and SHOULD be ignored by nameservers and resolvers that
|
||||
receive them in a response.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
4. Backward Compatibility
|
||||
|
||||
Protocol Octet values of 1,2, 4, and 255 were previously defined in
|
||||
RFC 2535. These values are now deprecated. To insure backward
|
||||
compatibility, the Protocol Octet values 1,2, and 4 will be desig-
|
||||
nated as HISTORIC. Protocol values 5-254 are reserved and are no
|
||||
longer available for assignment by IANA.
|
||||
|
||||
KEY records with a Protocol Value of 1,2, or 4 were never widely
|
||||
deployed in the DNS and some limited test deployment revealed prob-
|
||||
lems. Most notably, placing application keys in the KEY record can
|
||||
create very large key sets and application keys that appear in the
|
||||
zone apex can create zone management problems. Some change in the
|
||||
definition and/or usage of the KEY record would be required even if
|
||||
the approach described here were not required.
|
||||
|
||||
KEY records with a Protocol Octet value of 1,2, or 4 SHOULD NOT be
|
||||
place in a DNS zone. Likewise, resolvers that receive KEY records
|
||||
in a response with HISTORIC or invalid protocol field values SHOULD
|
||||
be ignored and SHOULD NOT be stored in a resolver's/server's cache.
|
||||
|
||||
No changes are made to the format of the KEY record or to the use of
|
||||
DNSSEC zone, host and user keys. Existing nameservers and resolvers
|
||||
will continue to correctly process KEY records that contain DNSSEC
|
||||
keys.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
5. Storing Application Keys in the DNS
|
||||
|
||||
The scope of this document is strictly limited to the KEY record.
|
||||
This document prohibits storing application keys in the KEY record,
|
||||
but it does not endorse or restrict the storing application keys in
|
||||
other record types. Other documents should describe how DNS handles
|
||||
application keys.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
6. IANA Consideration
|
||||
|
||||
Protocol Octet values 1,2,4, and 255 are changed to HISTORIC.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Massey, Rose [Page 5]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT Limiting the Scope of KEY RRs November 2001
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Protocol Octet values 5-255 are reserved and are no longer available
|
||||
for assignment by IANA.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
7. Security Consideration
|
||||
|
||||
This document eliminates potential security problems that could arise
|
||||
due to the coupling of DNS zone keys and application keys.
|
||||
|
||||
Prior to the change described in the document, a correctly authenti-
|
||||
cated KEY set could include both application keys and DNSSEC keys.
|
||||
If one of the application keys is compromised, it could be used as a
|
||||
false zone key to create phony DNS signatures (SIG records).
|
||||
Resolvers that do not carefully check the KEY sub-type may believe
|
||||
these false signatures and incorrectly authenticate DNS data. With
|
||||
this change, application keys cannot appear in an authenticated KEY
|
||||
set.
|
||||
|
||||
Applications that accept keys based solely on DNSSEC rely on the DNS
|
||||
administrator to correctly enter the application key data and are
|
||||
only as secure as the weakest zone in the DNS chain of trust.
|
||||
Compromises or errors caused by DNS administrators when entering
|
||||
DNSSEC data could results in an application key failing to verify, or
|
||||
verified incorrectly.
|
||||
|
||||
The format and correct usage of DNS zone keys is not changed by this
|
||||
document and no new security considerations are introduced.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
8. Intellectual Property
|
||||
|
||||
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
|
||||
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to per-
|
||||
tain 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; neither does it represent that it has made
|
||||
any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's
|
||||
procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-
|
||||
related documentation can be found in BCP-11.
|
||||
|
||||
Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specifica-
|
||||
tion can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
|
||||
|
||||
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
|
||||
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Massey, Rose [Page 6]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT Limiting the Scope of KEY RRs November 2001
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
|
||||
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
|
||||
Director.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
9. References
|
||||
|
||||
[DNSSEC] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC
|
||||
2535, March 1999.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
10. Author Information
|
||||
|
||||
Daniel Massey <masseyd@isi.edu>
|
||||
USC Information Sciences Institute
|
||||
3811 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 200
|
||||
Arlington, VA 22203
|
||||
|
||||
Scott Rose <scott.rose@nist.gov>
|
||||
National Institute for Standards and Technology
|
||||
Gaithersburg, MD
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Expiration and File Name:
|
||||
|
||||
This draft, titled <draft-ietf-dnsext-restrict-key-for-dnssec-00.txt> expires April 2001
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Full Copyright Statement
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
|
||||
|
||||
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
|
||||
to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
|
||||
it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
|
||||
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
|
||||
kind, provided that the above copy- right notice and this paragraph
|
||||
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
|
||||
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
|
||||
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
|
||||
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
|
||||
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
|
||||
in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required
|
||||
to translate it into languages other than English.
|
||||
|
||||
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
|
||||
be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Massey, Rose [Page 7]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT Limiting the Scope of KEY RRs November 2001
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
This document and the information contained herein is provided on
|
||||
an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
|
||||
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Massey, Rose [Page 8]
|
||||
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user