2. cnp3-ebook
3. protocols/dnssec
4. English
5. Zen

6 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:51
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — DNS header 10/10000 · 10
7 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:53
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The first field of the header is the `Identification` field. When Alice sends a DNS request, she places a 16-bits integer in this field and remembers it. When she receives a response, she uses this `Identification` field to locate the initial DNS request that she sent. The response is only used if its `Identification` matches a pending DNS request (containing the same question). 381/10000 · 381
8 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:62
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Mallory has studied the DNS protocol and understands how it works. If he can predict a popular domain for which Alice will regularly send DNS requests, then he can prepare a set of DNS responses that map the name requested by Alice to an IP address controlled by Mallory instead of the legitimate DNS response. Each DNS response has a different `Identification`. Since there are only 65,536 values for the `Identification` field, it is possible for Mallory to send them to Alice hoping that one of them will be received while Alice is waiting for a DNS response with the same identifier. In the past, it was difficult to send 65,536 DNS responses quickly enough. However, with the high speed links that are available today, this is not an issue anymore. A second concern for Mallory is that he must be able to send the DNS responses as if they were coming directly from the DNS resolver. This implies that Mallory must be able to send IP packets that appear to originate from a different address. Although networks should be configured to prevent this type of attack, this is not always the case and there are networks where it is possible for a host to send packets with a different source IP address [#fspoof]_. If the attack targets a single end user, e.g. Alice, this is annoying for this user. However, if the attacker can target a DNS resolver that serves an entire company or an entire ISP, the impact of the attack can be much larger in particular if the injected DNS response carries a long TTL and thus resides in the resolver's cache for a long period of time. 1571/10000 · 1571
9 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:86
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Fortunately, designers of DNS servers and resolvers have found solutions to mitigate this type of attack. The easiest approach would have been to update the format of the DNS requests and responses to include a larger `Identifier` field. Unfortunately, this elegant solution was not possible with the DNS because the DNS messages do not include any version number that would have enabled such a change. Since the DNS messages are exchanged inside UDP segments, the DNS developers found an alternate solution to counter this attack. There are two ways for the DNS library used by Alice to send her DNS requests. A first solution is to bind one UDP source port and always send the DNS requests from this source port (the destination port is always port ``53``). The advantage of this solution is that Alice's DNS library can easily receive the DNS responses by listening to her chosen port. Unfortunately, once the attacker has found the source port used by Alice, he only needs to send 65,536 DNS responses to inject an invalid response. Fortunately, Alice can send her DNS requests in a different way. Instead of using the same source port for all DNS requests, she can use a different source port for each request. In practice, each DNS request will be sent from a different source port. From an implementation viewpoint, this implies that Alice's DNS library will need to listen to one different port number for each pending DNS request. This increases the complexity of her implementation. From a security viewpoint there is a clear benefit since the attacker needs to guess both the 16 bits `Identifier` and the 16 bits `UDP source port` to inject a fake DNS response. To generate all possible DNS responses, the attacker would need to generate almost :math:`2^{32}` different messages, which is excessive in today's networks. Most DNS implementations use this second approach to prevent these cache poisoning attacks. 1922/10000 · 1922
10 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:114
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — These attacks affect the DNS messages that are exchanged between a client and its resolver or between a resolver and name servers. Another type of attack exploits the possibility of providing several resource records inside one DNS response. A frequent optimization used by DNS servers and resolvers is to include several related resource records in each response. For example, if a client sends a DNS query for an `NS` record, it usually receives in the response both the queried record, i.e. the name of the DNS server that serves the queried domain, and the IP addresses of this server. Some DNS servers return several `NS` records and the associated IP addresses. The `cache poisoning` attack exploits this DNS optimization. 728/10000 · 728
11 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:125
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Let us illustrate it on an example. Assume that Alice frequently uses the `example.net` domain and in particular the web server whose name is `www.example.net`. Mallory would like to redirect the TCP connections established by Alice towards `www.example.net` to one IP address that he controls. Assume that Mallory controls the `mallory.net` domain. Mallory can tune the DNS server of his domain and add special DNS records to the responses that it sends. An attack could go roughly as follows. Mallory forces Alice to visit the `www.mallory.net` web site. He can achieve this by sending a spam message to Alice or buying advertisements on a web site visited by Alice and redirect one of these advertisements to `www.mallory.net`. When visiting the advertisement, Alice's DNS resolver will send a DNS request for `www.mallory.net`. Since Mallory control the DNS server, he can easily add in the response a `AAAA` record that associates `www.example.net` to the IP address controlled by Mallory. If Alice's DNS library does not check the returned response, the cache entry for `www.example.net` will be replaced by the `AAAA` record sent by Mallory. 1148/10000 · 1148
12 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:144
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — To cope with these security threats and improve the security of the DNS, the IETF has defined several extensions that are known as DNSSEC. DNSSEC exploits public-key cryptography to authenticate the content of the DNS records that are sent by DNS servers and resolvers. DNSEC is defined in three main documents :rfc:`4033`, :rfc:`4034`, :rfc:`4035`. With DNSSEC, each DNS zone uses one public-private key pair. This key pair is only used to sign and authenticate DNS records. The DNS records are not encrypted and DNSSEC does not provide any confidentiality. Other DNS extensions are being developed to ensure the confidentiality of the information exchanged between a client and its resolvers :rfc:`7626`. Some of these extensions exchange DNS records over a TLS session which provides the required confidentiality, but they are not yet deployed and outside the scope of this chapter. 885/10000 · 885
13 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:158
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — DNSSEC defines four new types of DNS records that are used together to authenticate the information distributed by the DNS. 123/10000 · 123
14 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:161
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — the `DNSKEY` record allows storing the public key associated with a zone. This record is encoded as a TLV and includes a `Base64` representation of the key and the identification of the public key algorithm. This allows the `DNSKEY` record to support different public key algorithms. 283/10000 · 283
15 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:166
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — the `RRSIG` record is used to encode the signature of a DNS record. This record contains several sub-fields. The most important ones are the algorithm used to generate the signature, the identifier of the public key used to sign the record, the original TTL of the signed record and the validity period for the signature. 321/10000 · 321
16 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:171
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — the `DS` record contains a hash of a public key. It is used by a parent zone to certify the public key used by one of its child zones. 134/10000 · 134
17 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:173
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — the `NSEC` record is used when non-existent domain names are queried. Its usage will be explained later 103/10000 · 103
18 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:176
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The simplest way to understand the operation of DNSSEC is to rely on a simple example. Let us consider the `example.org` domain and assume that Alice wants to retrieve the `AAAA` record for `www.example.org` using DNSSEC. 221/10000 · 221
19 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:182
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The security of DNSSEC relies on `anchored keys`. An `anchored key` is a public key that is considered as trusted by a resolver. In our example, we assume that Alice's resolver has obtained the public key of the servers that manage the root zone in a secure way. This key has been distributed outside of the DNS, e.g. it has been published in a newspaper or has been received in a sealed letter. 395/10000 · 395
20 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:189
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — To obtain an authenticated record for `www.example.org`, Alice's resolver first needs to retrieve the `NS` which is responsible for the `.org` Top-Level Domain (TLD). This record is served by the DNS root server and Alice's resolver can retrieve the signature (`RRSIG` record) for this `NS` record. Since Alice knows the `DNSKEY` of the root, she can verify the validity of this signature. 389/10000 · 389
21 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:196
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The next step is to contact `ns.org`, the `NS` responsible for the `.org` TLD to retrieve the `NS` record for the `example.org` domain. This record is accompanied by a `RRSIG` record that authenticates it. This `RRSIG` record is signed with the key of the `.org` domain. Alice's resolver can retrieve this public key as the `DNSKEY` record for the `.org`, but how can it trust this key since it is distributed by using the DNS and could have been modified by attackers ? DNSSEC solves this problem by using the `DS` record that is stored in the parent zone (in this case, the root zone). This record contains a hash of a public key that is signed with a `RRSIG` signature. Since Alice's resolver's trusts the root key, it can validate the signature of the `DS` record for the `.org` domain. It can then retrieve the `DNSKEY` record for this domain from the DNS and compare the hash of this key with the `DS` record. If they match, the public key of the `.org` domain can be trusted. The same technique is used to obtain and validate the key of the `example.org` domain. Once this key is trusted, Alice's resolver can request the `AAAA` record for `www.example.org` and validate its signature. 1192/10000 · 1192
22 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:215
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Thanks to the `DS` record, a resolver can validate the public keys of client zones as long as their is a chain of `DS` -> `DNSKEY` records from an anchored key. If the resolver trusts the public key of the root zone, it can validate all DNS replies for which this chain exists. 277/10000 · 277
23 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:220
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — There are several details of the operation of DNSSEC that are worth being discussed. First, a server that supports DNSSEC must have a public-private key pair. The public key is distributed with the `DNSKEY` record. The private key is never distributed and it does not even need to be stored on the server that uses the public key. DNSSEC does not require the DNSSEC servers to perform any operation that requires a private key in real time. All the `RRSIG` records can be computed offline, possibly on a different server than the server that returns the DNSSEC replies. The initial motivation for this design choice was the CPU complexity of computing the `RRSIG` signatures for zones that contain millions of records. In the early days of DNSSEC, this was an operational constraint. Today, this is less an issue, but avoiding costly signature operations in real time has two important benefits. First, this reduces the risk of denial of service attacks since an attacker cannot force a DNSSEC server to perform computationally intensive signing operations. Second, the private key can be stored offline, which means that even if an attacker gains access to the DNSSEC server, it cannot retrieve its private key. Using offline signatures for the `RRSIG` records has some practical implications that are reflected in the content of this record. First, each `RRSIG` record contains the original TTL of the signed record. When DNS resolvers cache records, they change the value of the TTL of these cached records and then return the modified records to their clients. When a resolver receives a signed DNS record, it must replace the received TTL of the record with the original TTL (and check that the received TTL is smaller than the original one) before checking the signature. Second, the `RRSIG` records contain a validity period, i.e. a starting time and an ending time for the validity of the signature. This period is specified as two timestamps. This period is only the validity of the signature. It does not affect the TTL of the signed record and is independent from the TTL. In practice, the validity period is important to allow DNS server operators to update their public/private keys. When such a key is changed, e.g. because the private could have been compromised, there is some period of time during which records signed with the two keys coexist in the network. The validity period allows ensuring that old signatures do not remain in DNS caches for ever. 2471/10000 · 2471
24 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:263
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The last record introduced by DNSSEC is the `NSEC` record. It is used to authenticate a negative response returned by a DNS server. If a resolver requests a domain name that is not defined in the zone, the server replies with an error message. The designers of the original version of the DNS thought that these errors would not be very frequent and resolvers were not required to cache those negative responses. However, operational experience showed that queries for invalid domain names are more frequent than initially expected and a large fraction of the load on some servers is caused by repeated queries for invalid names. Typical examples include queries for invalid TLDs to the root DNS servers or queries caused by configuration errors [WF2003]_. Current DNS deployments allow resolvers to cache those negative answers to reduce the load on the entire DNS :rfc:`2308`. 878/10000 · 878
25 ../../protocols/dnssec.rst:277
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The simplest way to allow a DNSSEC server to return signed negative responses would be for the server to return a signed response that contains the received query and some information indicating the error. The client could then easily check the validity of the negative response. Unfortunately, this would force the DNSSEC server to generate signatures in real time. This implies that the private key must be stored in the server memory, which leads to risks if an attacker can take control of the server. Furthermore, those signatures are computationally complex and a simple denial of service attack would be to send invalid queries to a DNSSEC server. 654/10000 · 654