Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-08
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8945.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Francis Dupont , Stephen Morris , Paul A. Vixie , Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Ólafur Guðmundsson , Brian Wellington | ||
| Last updated | 2020-05-04 (Latest revision 2020-02-20) | ||
| Replaces | draft-dupont-dnsop-rfc2845bis | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Benno Overeinder | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2019-12-24 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8945 (Internet Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Warren "Ace" Kumari | ||
| Send notices to | Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed |
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-08
Internet Engineering Task Force F. Dupont
Internet-Draft S. Morris
Obsoletes: 2845, 4635 (if approved) ISC
Intended status: Standards Track P. Vixie
Expires: November 5, 2020 Farsight
D. Eastlake 3rd
Futurewei
O. Gudmundsson
Cloudflare
B. Wellington
Akamai
May 4, 2020
Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-08
Abstract
This document describes a protocol for transaction level
authentication using shared secrets and one way hashing. It can be
used to authenticate dynamic updates to a DNS zone as coming from an
approved client, or to authenticate responses as coming from an
approved name server.
No recommendation is made here for distributing the shared secrets:
it is expected that a network administrator will statically configure
name servers and clients using some out of band mechanism.
This document obsoletes RFC2845 and RFC4635.
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 https://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 November 5, 2020.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. TSIG RR Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. TSIG RR Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. TSIG Record Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. MAC Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. Request MAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.2. DNS Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.3. TSIG Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Generation of TSIG on Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Server Processing of Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.1. Key Check and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.2. MAC Check and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.3. Time Check and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
5.2.4. Truncation Check and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Generation of TSIG on Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.1. TSIG on TCP Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.2. Generation of TSIG on Error Returns . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. Client Processing of Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.4.1. Key Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.4.2. MAC Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.4.3. Time Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.4.4. Truncation Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.5. Special Considerations for Forwarding Servers . . . . . . 16
6. Algorithms and Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. TSIG Truncation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Shared Secrets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. Issue Fixed in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.2. Why not DNSSEC? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix B. Change History (to be removed before publication) . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
The Domain Name System (DNS, [RFC1034], [RFC1035]) is a replicated
hierarchical distributed database system that provides information
fundamental to Internet operations, such as name to address
translation and mail handling information.
This document specifies use of a message authentication code (MAC),
generated using certain keyed hash functions, to provide an efficient
means of point-to-point authentication and integrity checking for DNS
transactions. Such transactions include DNS update requests and
responses for which this can provide a lightweight alternative to the
secure DNS dynamic update protocol described by [RFC3007].
A further use of this mechanism is to protect zone transfers. In
this case the data covered would be the whole zone transfer including
any glue records sent. The protocol described by DNSSEC ([RFC4033],
[RFC4034], [RFC4035]) does not protect glue records and unsigned
records.
The authentication mechanism proposed here provides a simple and
efficient authentication between clients and servers, by using shared
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
secret keys to establish a trust relationship between two entities.
Such keys must be protected in a manner similar to private keys, lest
a third party masquerade as one of the intended parties (by forging
the MAC). The proposal is unsuitable for general server to server
authentication and for servers which speak with many other servers,
since key management would become unwieldy with the number of shared
keys going up quadratically. But it is suitable for many resolvers
on hosts that only talk to a few recursive servers.
1.2. Protocol Overview
Secret Key Transaction Authentication makes use of signatures on
messages sent between the parties involved (e.g. resolver and
server). These are known as "transaction signatures", or TSIG. For
historical reasons, in this document they are referred to as message
authentication codes (MAC).
Use of TSIG presumes prior agreement between the two parties involved
(e.g., resolver and server) as to any algorithm and key to be used.
The way that this agreement is reached is outside the scope of the
document.
A DNS message exchange involves the sending of a query and the
receipt of one of more DNS messages in response. For the query, the
MAC is calculated based on the hash of the contents and the agreed
TSIG key. The MAC for the response is similar, but also includes the
MAC of the query as part of the calculation. Where a response
comprises multiple packets, the calculation of the MAC associated
with the second and subsequent packets includes in its inputs the MAC
for the preceding packet. In this way it is possible to detect any
interruption in the packet sequence, although not its premature
termination.
The MAC is contained in a TSIG resource record included in the
Additional Section of the DNS message.
1.3. Document History
TSIG was originally specified by [RFC2845]. In 2017, two nameserver
implementations strictly following that document (and the related
[RFC4635]) were discovered to have security problems related to this
feature ([CVE-2017-3142], [CVE-2017-3143], [CVE-2017-11104]). The
implementations were fixed but, to avoid similar problems in the
future, the two documents were updated and merged, producing this
revised specification for TSIG.
While TSIG implemented according to this RFC provides for enhanced
security, there are no changes in interoperability. TSIG is on the
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
wire still the same mechanism described in [RFC2845]; only the
checking semantics have been changed. See Section 10.1 for further
details.
2. Key Words
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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Assigned Numbers
This document defines the following RR type and associated value:
TSIG (250)
In addition, the document also defines the following DNS RCODEs and
associated names:
16 (BADSIG)
17 (BADKEY)
18 (BADTIME)
22 (BADTRUNC)
(See [RFC6895] Section 2.3 concerning the assignment of the value 16
to BADSIG.)
These RCODES may appear within the "Error" field of a TSIG RR.
4. TSIG RR Format
4.1. TSIG RR Type
To provide secret key authentication, we use an RR type whose
mnemonic is TSIG and whose type code is 250. TSIG is a meta-RR and
MUST NOT be cached. TSIG RRs are used for authentication between DNS
entities that have established a shared secret key. TSIG RRs are
dynamically computed to cover a particular DNS transaction and are
not DNS RRs in the usual sense.
As the TSIG RRs are related to one DNS request/response, there is no
value in storing or retransmitting them, thus the TSIG RR is
discarded once it has been used to authenticate a DNS message.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
4.2. TSIG Record Format
The fields of the TSIG RR are described below. As is usual, all
multi-octet integers in the record are sent in network byte order
(see [RFC1035] 2.3.2).
NAME The name of the key used, in domain name syntax. The name
should reflect the names of the hosts and uniquely identify the
key among a set of keys these two hosts may share at any given
time. For example, if hosts A.site.example and B.example.net
share a key, possibilities for the key name include
<id>.A.site.example, <id>.B.example.net, and
<id>.A.site.example.B.example.net. It should be possible for
more than one key to be in simultaneous use among a set of
interacting hosts. This allows for periodic key rotation as
per best operational practices, as well as algorithm agility as
indicated by [BCP201].
The name may be used as a local index to the key involved but
it is recommended that it be globally unique. Where a key is
just shared between two hosts, its name actually need only be
meaningful to them but it is recommended that the key name be
mnemonic and incorporates the names of participating agents or
resources as suggested above.
TYPE This MUST be TSIG (250: Transaction SIGnature)
CLASS This MUST be ANY
TTL This MUST be 0
RdLen (variable)
RDATA The RDATA for a TSIG RR consists of a number of fields,
described below:
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ Algorithm Name /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Time Signed +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Fudge |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAC Size | /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MAC /
/ /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Original ID | Error |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Other Len | /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Other Data /
/ /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The contents of the RDATA fields are:
* Algorithm Name - a octet sequence identifying the TSIG
algorithm name in the domain name syntax. (Allowed names
are listed in Table 2.) The name is stored in the DNS name
wire format as described in [RFC1034]. As per [RFC3597],
this name MUST NOT be compressed.
* Time Signed - an unsigned 48-bit integer containing the time
the message was signed as seconds since 00:00 on 1970-01-01
UTC, ignoring leap seconds.
* Fudge - an unsigned 16-bit integer specifying the allowed
time difference in seconds permitted in the Time Signed
field.
* MAC Size - an unsigned 16-bit integer giving the length of
MAC field in octets. Truncation is indicated by a MAC size
less than the size of the keyed hash produced by the
algorithm specified by the Algorithm Name.
* MAC - a sequence of octets whose contents are defined by the
TSIG algorithm used, possibly truncated as specified by MAC
Size. The length of this field is given by the Mac Size.
Calculation of the MAC is detailed in Section 4.3.
* Original ID - An unsigned 16-bit integer holding the message
ID of the original request message. For a TSIG RR on a
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
request, it is set equal to the DNS message ID. In a TSIG
attached to a response - or in cases such as the forwarding
of a dynamic update request - the field contains the ID of
the original DNS request.
* Error - in responses, an unsigned 16-bit integer containing
the extended RCODE covering TSIG processing. In requests,
this MUST be zero.
* Other Len - an unsigned 16-bit integer specifying the length
of the "Other Data" field in octets.
* Other Data - additional data relevant to the TSIG record.
In responses, this will be empty (i.e. "Other Len" will be
zero) unless the content of the Error field is BADTIME, in
which case it will be a 48-bit unsigned integer containing
the server's current time as the number of seconds since
00:00 on 1970-01-01 UTC, ignoring leap seconds (see
Section 5.2.3). This document assigns no meaning to its
contents in requests.
4.3. MAC Computation
When generating or verifying the contents of a TSIG record, the data
listed in the rest of this section are passed, in the order listed
below, as input to MAC computation. The data are passed in network
byte order or wire format, as appropriate, and are fed into the
hashing function as a continuous octet sequence with no inter-field
separator or padding.
4.3.1. Request MAC
Only included in the computation of a MAC for a response message (or
the first message in a multi-message response), the validated request
MAC MUST be included in the MAC computation. If the request MAC
failed to validate, an unsigned error message MUST be returned
instead. (Section 5.3.2).
The request's MAC, comprising the following fields, is digested in
wire format:
Field Type Description
---------- ----------------------- ----------------------
MAC Length Unsigned 16-bit integer in network byte order
MAC Data octet sequence exactly as transmitted
Special considerations apply to the TSIG calculation for the second
and subsequent messages a response that consists of multiple DNS
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
messages (e.g. a zone transfer). These are described in
Section 5.3.1.
4.3.2. DNS Message
The DNS message used in the MAC computation is a whole and complete
DNS message in wire format.
When creating a TSIG, it is the message before the TSIG RR has been
added to the additional data section and before the DNS Message
Header's ARCOUNT field has been incremented to contain the TSIG RR.
When verifying an incoming message, it is the message after the TSIG
RR has been removed and the ARCOUNT field decremented. If the
message ID differs from the original message ID, the original message
ID is substituted for the message ID. (This could happen, for
example, when forwarding a dynamic update request.)
4.3.3. TSIG Variables
Also included in the digest is certain information present in the
TSIG RR. Adding this data provides further protection against an
attempt to interfere with the message.
Source Field Name Notes
---------- -------------- -----------------------------------------
TSIG RR NAME Key name, in canonical wire format
TSIG RR CLASS (Always ANY in the current specification)
TSIG RR TTL (Always 0 in the current specification)
TSIG RDATA Algorithm Name in canonical wire format
TSIG RDATA Time Signed in network byte order
TSIG RDATA Fudge in network byte order
TSIG RDATA Error in network byte order
TSIG RDATA Other Len in network byte order
TSIG RDATA Other Data exactly as transmitted
Table 1
The RR RDLEN and RDATA MAC Length are not included in the input to
MAC computation since they are not guaranteed to be knowable before
the MAC is generated.
The Original ID field is not included in this section, as it has
already been substituted for the message ID in the DNS header and
hashed.
For each label type, there must be a defined "Canonical wire format"
that specifies how to express a label in an unambiguous way. For
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
label type 00, this is defined in [RFC4034] Section 6.2. The use of
label types other than 00 is not defined for this specification.
4.3.3.1. Time Values Used in TSIG Calculations
The data digested includes the two timer values in the TSIG header in
order to defend against replay attacks. If this were not done, an
attacker could replay old messages but update the "Time Signed" and
"Fudge" fields to make the message look new. This data is named
"TSIG Timers", and for the purpose of MAC calculation, they are
hashed in their "on the wire" format, in the following order: first
Time Signed, then Fudge.
5. Protocol Details
5.1. Generation of TSIG on Requests
Once the outgoing record has been constructed, the client performs
the keyed hash (HMAC) computation, appends a TSIG record with the
calculated MAC to the Additional Data section (incrementing the
ARCOUNT to reflect the additional RR), and transmits the request to
the server. This TSIG record MUST be the only TSIG RR in the message
and MUST be last record in the Additional Data section. The client
MUST store the MAC and the key name from the request while awaiting
an answer.
The digest components for a request are:
DNS Message (request)
TSIG Variables (request)
5.2. Server Processing of Request
If an incoming message contains a TSIG record, it MUST be the last
record in the additional section. Multiple TSIG records are not
allowed. If multiple TSIG records are detected or a TSIG record is
present in any other position, the DNS message is dropped and a
response with RCODE 1 (FORMERR) MUST be returned. Upon receipt of a
message with exactly one correctly placed TSIG RR, a copy of the TSIG
RR is stored, and the TSIG RR is removed from the DNS Message, and
decremented out of the DNS message header's ARCOUNT.
If the TSIG RR cannot be interpreted, the server MUST regard the
message as corrupt and return a FORMERR to the server. Otherwise the
server is REQUIRED to return a TSIG RR in the response.
To validate the received TSIG RR, the server MUST perform the
following checks in the following order:
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
1. Check KEY
2. Check MAC
3. Check TIME values
4. Check Truncation policy
5.2.1. Key Check and Error Handling
If a non-forwarding server does not recognize the key or algorithm
used by the client (or recognizes the algorithm but does not
implement it), the server MUST generate an error response with RCODE
9 (NOTAUTH) and TSIG ERROR 17 (BADKEY). This response MUST be
unsigned as specified in Section 5.3.2. The server SHOULD log the
error. (Special considerations apply to forwarding servers, see
Section 5.5.)
5.2.2. MAC Check and Error Handling
Using the information in the TSIG, the server MUST verify the MAC by
doing its own calculation and comparing the result with the MAC
received. If the MAC fails to verify, the server MUST generate an
error response as specified in Section 5.3.2 with RCODE 9 (NOTAUTH)
and TSIG ERROR 16 (BADSIG). This response MUST be unsigned as
specified in Section 5.3.2. The server SHOULD log the error.
5.2.2.1. MAC Truncation
When space is at a premium and the strength of the full length of a
MAC is not needed, it is reasonable to truncate the keyed hash and
use the truncated value for authentication. HMAC SHA-1 truncated to
96 bits is an option available in several IETF protocols, including
IPsec and TLS. However, while this option is kept for backwards
compatibility, it may not provide a security level appropriate for
all cases in the modern environment. In these cases, it is
preferable to use a hashing algorithm such as SHA-256-128, SHA-
384-192 or SHA-512-256 [RFC4868].
Processing of a truncated MAC follows these rules:
1. If "MAC size" field is greater than keyed hash output length:
This case MUST NOT be generated and, if received, MUST cause the
DNS message to be dropped and RCODE 1 (FORMERR) to be returned.
2. If "MAC size" field equals keyed hash output length:
The entire output keyed hash output is present and used.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
3. "MAC size" field is less than the larger of 10 (octets) and half
the length of the hash function in use:
With the exception of certain TSIG error messages described in
Section 5.3.2, where it is permitted that the MAC size be zero,
this case MUST NOT be generated and, if received, MUST cause the
DNS message to be dropped and RCODE 1 (FORMERR) to be returned.
4. Otherwise:
This is sent when the signer has truncated the keyed hash output
to an allowable length, as described in [RFC2104], taking initial
octets and discarding trailing octets. TSIG truncation can only
be to an integral number of octets. On receipt of a DNS message
with truncation thus indicated, the locally calculated MAC is
similarly truncated and only the truncated values are compared
for authentication. The request MAC used when calculating the
TSIG MAC for a reply is the truncated request MAC.
5.2.3. Time Check and Error Handling
If the server time is outside the time interval specified by the
request (which is: Time Signed, plus/minus Fudge), the server MUST
generate an error response with RCODE 9 (NOTAUTH) and TSIG ERROR 18
(BADTIME). The server SHOULD also cache the most recent Time Signed
value in a message generated by a key, and SHOULD return BADTIME if a
message received later has an earlier Time Signed value. A response
indicating a BADTIME error MUST be signed by the same key as the
request. It MUST include the client's current time in the Time
Signed field, the server's current time (an unsigned 48-bit integer)
in the Other Data field, and 6 in the Other Len field. This is done
so that the client can verify a message with a BADTIME error without
the verification failing due to another BADTIME error. In addition,
the Fudge field MUST be set to the fudge value received from the
client. The data signed is specified in Section 5.3.2. The server
SHOULD log the error.
Caching the most recent Time Signed value and rejecting requests with
an earlier one could lead to valid messages being rejected if transit
through the network led to UDP packets arriving in a different order
to the one in which they were sent. Implementations should be aware
of this possibility and be prepared to deal with it, e.g. by
retransmitting the rejected request with a new TSIG once outstanding
requests have completed or the time given by their Time Signed plus
fudge value has passed. If implementations do retry requests in
these cases, a limit SHOULD be placed on the maximum number of
retries.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
5.2.4. Truncation Check and Error Handling
If a TSIG is received with truncation that is permitted under
Section 5.2.2.1 above but the MAC is too short for the local policy
in force, an RCODE 9 (NOTAUTH) and TSIG ERROR 22 (BADTRUNC) MUST be
returned. The server SHOULD log the error.
5.3. Generation of TSIG on Answers
When a server has generated a response to a signed request, it signs
the response using the same algorithm and key. The server MUST NOT
generate a signed response to a request if either the KEY is invalid
(e.g. key name or algorithm name are unknown), or the MAC fails
validation: see Section 5.3.2 for details of responding in these
cases.
It also MUST NOT not generate a signed response to an unsigned
request, except in the case of a response to a client's unsigned TKEY
request if the secret key is established on the server side after the
server processed the client's request. Signing responses to unsigned
TKEY requests MUST be explicitly specified in the description of an
individual secret key establishment algorithm [RFC3645].
The digest components used to generate a TSIG on a response are:
Request MAC
DNS Message (response)
TSIG Variables (response)
(This calculation is different for the second and subsequent message
in a multi-message answer, see below.)
If addition of the TSIG record will cause the message to be
truncated, the server MUST alter the response so that a TSIG can be
included. This response consists of only the question and a TSIG
record, and has the TC bit set and an RCODE of 0 (NOERROR). The
client SHOULD at this point retry the request using TCP (as per
[RFC1035] 4.2.2).
5.3.1. TSIG on TCP Connections
A DNS TCP session such as a zone transfer can include multiple DNS
messages. Using TSIG on such a connection can protect the connection
from attack and provide data integrity. The TSIG MUST be included on
all DNS messages in the response. For backward compatibility, a
client which receives DNS messages and verifies TSIG MUST accept up
to 99 intermediary messages without a TSIG and MUST verify that both
the first and last message contain a TSIG.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
The first message is processed as a standard answer (see Section 5.3)
but subsequent messages have the following digest components:
Prior MAC (running)
DNS Messages (any unsigned messages since the last TSIG)
TSIG Timers (current message)
The "Prior MAC" is the MAC from the TSIG attached to the last message
containing a TSIG. "DNS Messages" comprises the concatenation (in
message order) of all messages after the last message that included a
TSIG and includes the current message. "TSIG timers" comprises the
"Time Signed" and "Fudge" fields (in that order) pertaining to the
message for which the TSIG is being created: this means that the
successive TSIG records in the stream will have non-decreasing "Time
Signed" fields. Note that only the timers are included in the second
and subsequent messages, not all the TSIG variables.
This allows the client to rapidly detect when the session has been
altered; at which point it can close the connection and retry. If a
client TSIG verification fails, the client MUST close the connection.
If the client does not receive TSIG records frequently enough (as
specified above) it SHOULD assume the connection has been hijacked
and it SHOULD close the connection. The client SHOULD treat this the
same way as they would any other interrupted transfer (although the
exact behavior is not specified).
5.3.2. Generation of TSIG on Error Returns
When a server detects an error relating to the key or MAC in the
incoming request, the server SHOULD send back an unsigned error
message (MAC size == 0 and empty MAC). It MUST NOT send back a
signed error message.
If an error is detected relating to the TSIG validity period or the
MAC is too short for the local policy, the server SHOULD send back a
signed error message. The digest components are:
Request MAC (if the request MAC validated)
DNS Message (response)
TSIG Variables (response)
The reason that the request MAC is not included in this MAC in some
cases is to make it possible for the client to verify the error. If
the error is not a TSIG error the response MUST be generated as
specified in Section 5.3.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
5.4. Client Processing of Answer
When a client receives a response from a server and expects to see a
TSIG, it first checks if the TSIG RR is present in the response. If
not, the response is treated as having a format error and is
discarded.
If the TSIG RR is present, the client performs the same checks as
described in Section 5.2. If the TSIG RR is unsigned as specified in
Section 5.3.2 or does not validate, the message MUST be discarded
unless the RCODE is 9 (NOAUTH). In this case, the client SHOULD
attempt to verify the response as if it were a TSIG error, as
described in the following subsections.
Regardless of the RCODE, a message containing a TSIG RR that is
unsigned as specified in Section 5.3.2 or which fails verification
SHOULD NOT be considered an acceptable response as it may have been
spoofed or manipulated. Instead, the client SHOULD log an error and
continue to wait for a signed response until the request times out.
5.4.1. Key Error Handling
If an RCODE on a response is 9 (NOTAUTH), but the response TSIG
validates and the TSIG key is recognized by the client but different
from that used on the request, then this is a Key Error. The client
MAY retry the request using the key specified by the server.
However, this should never occur, as a server MUST NOT sign a
response with a different key to that used to sign the request.
5.4.2. MAC Error Handling
If the response RCODE is 9 (NOTAUTH) and TSIG ERROR is 16 (BADSIG),
this is a MAC error, and client MAY retry the request with a new
request ID but it would be better to try a different shared key if
one is available. Clients SHOULD keep track of how many MAC errors
are associated with each key. Clients SHOULD log this event.
5.4.3. Time Error Handling
If the response RCODE is 9 (NOTAUTH) and the TSIG ERROR is 18
(BADTIME), or the current time does not fall in the range specified
in the TSIG record, then this is a Time error. This is an indication
that the client and server clocks are not synchronized. In this case
the client SHOULD log the event. DNS resolvers MUST NOT adjust any
clocks in the client based on BADTIME errors, but the server's time
in the Other Data field SHOULD be logged.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
5.4.4. Truncation Error Handling
If the response RCODE is 9 (NOTAUTH) and the TSIG ERROR is 22
(BADTRUNC) then this is a Truncation error. The client MAY retry
with a lesser truncation up to the full HMAC output (no truncation),
using the truncation used in the response as a hint for what the
server policy allowed (Section 7). Clients SHOULD log this event.
5.5. Special Considerations for Forwarding Servers
A server acting as a forwarding server of a DNS message SHOULD check
for the existence of a TSIG record. If the name on the TSIG is not
of a secret that the server shares with the originator the server
MUST forward the message unchanged including the TSIG. If the name
of the TSIG is of a key this server shares with the originator, it
MUST process the TSIG. If the TSIG passes all checks, the forwarding
server MUST, if possible, include a TSIG of its own, to the
destination or the next forwarder. If no transaction security is
available to the destination and the message is a query then, if the
corresponding response has the AD flag (see [RFC4035]) set, the
forwarder MUST clear the AD flag before adding the TSIG to the
response and returning the result to the system from which it
received the query.
6. Algorithms and Identifiers
The only message digest algorithm specified in the first version of
these specifications [RFC2845] was "HMAC-MD5" (see [RFC1321],
[RFC2104]). Although a review of its security some years ago
[RFC6151] concluded that "it may not be urgent to remove HMAC-MD5
from the existing protocols", with the availability of more secure
alternatives the opportunity has been taken to make the
implementation of this algorithm optional.
[RFC4635] added mandatory support in TSIG for SHA-1 [FIPS180-4],
[RFC3174]. SHA-1 collisions have been demonstrated [SHA1SHAMBLES] so
the MD5 security considerations described in section 2 of [RFC6151]
apply to SHA-1 in a similar manner. Although support for hmac-sha1
in TSIG is still mandatory for compatibility reasons, existing uses
SHOULD be replaced with hmac-sha256 or other SHA-2 digest algorithms
[FIPS180-4], [RFC3874], [RFC6234].
Use of TSIG between two DNS agents is by mutual agreement. That
agreement can include the support of additional algorithms and
criteria as to which algorithms and truncations are acceptable,
subject to the restriction and guidelines in Section 5.2.2.1 above.
Key agreement can be by the TKEY mechanism [RFC2930] or some other
mutually agreeable method.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
Implementations that support TSIG MUST also implement HMAC SHA1 and
HMAC SHA256 and MAY implement gss-tsig and the other algorithms
listed below. SHA-1 truncated to 96 bits (12 octets) SHOULD be
implemented.
Name Implementation Use
------------------------ -------------- ---------------
HMAC-MD5.SIG-ALG.REG.INT MAY MUST NOT
gss-tsig MAY MAY
hmac-sha1 MUST NOT RECOMMENDED
hmac-sha224 MAY NOT RECOMMENDED
hmac-sha256 MUST RECOMMENDED
hmac-sha256-128 MAY MAY
hmac-sha384 MAY MAY
hmac-sha384-192 MAY MAY
hmac-sha512 MAY MAY
hmac-sha512-256 MAY MAY
Table 2
7. TSIG Truncation Policy
As noted above, two DNS agents (e.g., resolver and server) must
mutually agree to use TSIG. Implicit in such an "agreement" are
criteria as to acceptable keys and algorithms and, with the
extensions in this document, truncations. Local policies MAY require
the rejection of TSIGs, even though they use an algorithm for which
implementation is mandatory.
When a local policy permits acceptance of a TSIG with a particular
algorithm and a particular non-zero amount of truncation, it SHOULD
also permit the use of that algorithm with lesser truncation (a
longer MAC) up to the full keyed hash output.
Regardless of a lower acceptable truncated MAC length specified by
local policy, a reply SHOULD be sent with a MAC at least as long as
that in the corresponding request. Note if the request specified a
MAC length longer than the keyed hash output it will be rejected by
processing rules Section 5.2.2.1 case 1.
Implementations permitting multiple acceptable algorithms and/or
truncations SHOULD permit this list to be ordered by presumed
strength and SHOULD allow different truncations for the same
algorithm to be treated as separate entities in this list. When so
implemented, policies SHOULD accept a presumed stronger algorithm and
truncation than the minimum strength required by the policy.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
8. Shared Secrets
Secret keys are very sensitive information and all available steps
should be taken to protect them on every host on which they are
stored. Generally such hosts need to be physically protected. If
they are multi-user machines, great care should be taken that
unprivileged users have no access to keying material. Resolvers
often run unprivileged, which means all users of a host would be able
to see whatever configuration data is used by the resolver.
A name server usually runs privileged, which means its configuration
data need not be visible to all users of the host. For this reason,
a host that implements transaction-based authentication should
probably be configured with a "stub resolver" and a local caching and
forwarding name server. This presents a special problem for
[RFC2136] which otherwise depends on clients to communicate only with
a zone's authoritative name servers.
Use of strong random shared secrets is essential to the security of
TSIG. See [RFC4086] for a discussion of this issue. The secret
SHOULD be at least as long as the keyed hash output [RFC2104].
9. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry of algorithm names to be used as "Algorithm
Names" as defined in Section 4.2. Algorithm names are text strings
encoded using the syntax of a domain name. There is no structure to
the names, and algorithm names are compared as if they were DNS
names, i.e., comparison is case insensitive. Previous specifications
[RFC2845] and [RFC4635] defined values for the HMAC-MD5 and some
HMAC-SHA algorithms. IANA has also registered "gss-tsig" as an
identifier for TSIG authentication where the cryptographic operations
are delegated to the Generic Security Service (GSS) [RFC3645]. This
document adds to allowed algorithms, and the registry should be
updated with the names listed in Table 2.
New algorithms are assigned using the IETF Review policy defined in
[RFC8126]. The algorithm name HMAC-MD5.SIG-ALG.REG.INT looks like a
fully-qualified domain name for historical reasons; other algorithm
names are simple, single-component names.
IANA maintains a registry of RCODES (error codes), including "TSIG
Error values" to be used for "Error" values as defined in
Section 4.2. New error codes are assigned and specified as in
[RFC6895].
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
10. Security Considerations
The approach specified here is computationally much less expensive
than the signatures specified in DNSSEC. As long as the shared
secret key is not compromised, strong authentication is provided
between two DNS systems, e.g., for the last hop from a local name
server to the user resolver, or between primary and secondary
nameservers.
Recommendations for choosing and maintaining secret keys can be found
in [RFC2104]. If the client host has been compromised, the server
should suspend the use of all secrets known to that client. If
possible, secrets should be stored in encrypted form. Secrets should
never be transmitted in the clear over any network. This document
does not address the issue on how to distribute secrets except that
it mentions the possibilities of manual configuration and the use of
TKEY [RFC2930]. Secrets SHOULD NOT be shared by more than two
entities; any such additional sharing would allow any party knowing
the key to impersonate any other such party to members of the group.
This mechanism does not authenticate source data, only its
transmission between two parties who share some secret. The original
source data can come from a compromised zone master or can be
corrupted during transit from an authentic zone master to some
"caching forwarder." However, if the server is faithfully performing
the full DNSSEC security checks, then only security checked data will
be available to the client.
A fudge value that is too large may leave the server open to replay
attacks. A fudge value that is too small may cause failures if
machines are not time synchronized or there are unexpected network
delays. The RECOMMENDED value in most situations is 300 seconds.
To prevent cross-algorithm attacks, there SHOULD only be one
algorithm associated with any given key name.
In several cases where errors are detected, an unsigned error message
must be returned. This can allow for an attacker to spoof or
manipulate these responses. Section 5.4 recommends logging these as
errors and continuing to wait for a signed response until the request
times out.
Although the strength of an algorithm determines its security, there
have been some arguments that mild truncation can strengthen a MAC by
reducing the information available to an attacker. However,
excessive truncation clearly weakens authentication by reducing the
number of bits an attacker has to try to break the authentication by
brute force [RFC2104].
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
Significant progress has been made recently in cryptanalysis of hash
functions of the types used here. While the results so far should
not affect HMAC, the stronger SHA-256 algorithm is being made
mandatory as a precaution.
See also the Security Considerations section of [RFC2104] from which
the limits on truncation in this RFC were taken.
10.1. Issue Fixed in this Document
When signing a DNS reply message using TSIG, the MAC computation uses
the request message's MAC as an input to cryptographically relate the
reply to the request. The original TSIG specification [RFC2845]
required that the TIME values be checked before the request's MAC.
If the TIME was invalid, some implementations failed to carry out
further checks and could use an invalid request MAC in the signed
reply.
This document makes it a mandatory that the request MAC is considered
to be invalid until it has been validated: until then, any answer
must be unsigned. For this reason, the request MAC is now checked
before the TIME value.
10.2. Why not DNSSEC?
These extracts from the original document [RFC2845] (updated to
reference current standards) analyze DNSSEC in order to justify the
introduction of TSIG.
DNS has recently been extended by DNSSEC ([RFC4033], [RFC4034] and
[RFC4035]) to provide for data origin authentication, and public
key distribution, all based on public key cryptography and public
key based digital signatures. To be practical, this form of
security generally requires extensive local caching of keys and
tracing of authentication through multiple keys and signatures to
a pre-trusted locally configured key.
One difficulty with the DNSSEC scheme is that common DNS
implementations include simple "stub" resolvers which do not have
caches. Such resolvers typically rely on a caching DNS server on
another host. It is impractical for these stub resolvers to
perform general DNSSEC authentication and they would naturally
depend on their caching DNS server to perform such services for
them. To do so securely requires secure communication of queries
and responses. DNSSEC provides public key transaction signatures
to support this, but such signatures are very expensive
computationally to generate. In general, these require the same
complex public key logic that is impractical for stubs.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
and
A second area where use of straight DNSSEC public key based
mechanisms may be impractical is authenticating dynamic update
[RFC2136] requests. DNSSEC provides for request signatures but
with DNSSEC they, like transaction signatures, require
computationally expensive public key cryptography and complex
authentication logic. Secure Domain Name System Dynamic Update
([RFC3007]) describes how different keys are used in dynamically
updated zones.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[FIPS180-4]
National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure
Hash Standard (SHS)", FIPS PUB 180-4, August 2015.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2845] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B.
Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS
(TSIG)", RFC 2845, DOI 10.17487/RFC2845, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2845>.
[RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
(RR) Types", RFC 3597, DOI 10.17487/RFC3597, September
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3597>.
[RFC4635] Eastlake 3rd, D., "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message Authentication
Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm Identifiers",
RFC 4635, DOI 10.17487/RFC4635, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4635>.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References
[BCP201] Housley, R., "Guidelines for Cryptographic Algorithm
Agility and Selecting Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms",
BCP 201, RFC 7696, DOI 10.17487/RFC7696, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp201>.
[CVE-2017-11104]
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures, "CVE-2017-11104:
Improper TSIG validity period check can allow TSIG
forgery", June 2017, <https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/
cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-11104>.
[CVE-2017-3142]
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures, "CVE-2017-3142: An
error in TSIG authentication can permit unauthorized zone
transfers", June 2017, <https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/
cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-3142>.
[CVE-2017-3143]
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures, "CVE-2017-3143: An
error in TSIG authentication can permit unauthorized
dynamic updates", June 2017, <https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-
bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-3143>.
[RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1321, April 1992,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1321>.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
[RFC2136] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
RFC 2136, DOI 10.17487/RFC2136, April 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2136>.
[RFC2930] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY
RR)", RFC 2930, DOI 10.17487/RFC2930, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2930>.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
[RFC3007] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic
Update", RFC 3007, DOI 10.17487/RFC3007, November 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3007>.
[RFC3174] Eastlake 3rd, D. and P. Jones, "US Secure Hash Algorithm 1
(SHA1)", RFC 3174, DOI 10.17487/RFC3174, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3174>.
[RFC3645] Kwan, S., Garg, P., Gilroy, J., Esibov, L., Westhead, J.,
and R. Hall, "Generic Security Service Algorithm for
Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (GSS-TSIG)",
RFC 3645, DOI 10.17487/RFC3645, October 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3645>.
[RFC3874] Housley, R., "A 224-bit One-way Hash Function: SHA-224",
RFC 3874, DOI 10.17487/RFC3874, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3874>.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
[RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>.
[RFC6151] Turner, S. and L. Chen, "Updated Security Considerations
for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms",
RFC 6151, DOI 10.17487/RFC6151, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6151>.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
[RFC6234] Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
(SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234>.
[RFC6895] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 6895, DOI 10.17487/RFC6895,
April 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6895>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[SHA1SHAMBLES]
Leurent, G. and T. Peyrin, "SHA-1 is a Shambles", January
2020, <https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/014.pdf>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
This document consolidates and updates the earlier documents by the
authors of [RFC2845] (Paul Vixie, Olafur Gudmundsson, Donald E.
Eastlake 3rd and Brian Wellington) and [RFC4635] (Donald E. Eastlake
3rd).
The security problem addressed by this document was reported by
Clement Berthaux from Synacktiv.
Note for the RFC Editor (to be removed before publication): the first
'e' in Clement is a fact a small 'e' with acute, unicode code U+00E9.
I do not know if xml2rfc supports non ASCII characters so I prefer to
not experiment with it. BTW I am French too so I can help if you
have questions like correct spelling...
Peter van Dijk, Benno Overeinder, Willem Toroop, Ondrej Sury, Mukund
Sivaraman and Ralph Dolmans participated in the discussions that
prompted this document. Mukund Sivaraman, Martin Hoffman and Tony
Finch made extremely helpful suggestions concerning the structure and
wording of the updated document.
Appendix B. Change History (to be removed before publication)
RFC EDITOR: Please remove this appendix before publication.
draft-dupont-dnsop-rfc2845bis-00
[RFC4635] was merged.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
Authors of original documents were moved to Acknowledgments
(Appendix A).
Section 2 was updated to [RFC8174] style.
Spit references into normative and informative references and
updated them.
Added a text explaining why this document was written in the
Abstract and at the beginning of the introduction.
Clarified the layout of TSIG RDATA.
Moved the text about using DNSSEC from the Introduction to the end
of Security Considerations.
Added the security clarifications:
1. Emphasized that MAC is invalid until it is successfully
validated.
2. Added requirement that a request MAC that has not been
successfully validated MUST NOT be included into a response.
3. Added requirement that a request that has not been validated
MUST NOT generate a signed response.
4. Added note about MAC too short for the local policy to
Section 5.3.2.
5. Changed the order of server checks and swapped corresponding
sections.
6. Removed the truncation size limit "also case" as it does not
apply and added confusion.
7. Relocated the error provision for TSIG truncation to the new
Section 5.2.4. Moved from RCODE 22 to RCODE 9 and TSIG ERROR
22, i.e., aligned with other TSIG error cases.
8. Added Section 5.4.4 about truncation error handling by
clients.
9. Removed the limit to HMAC output in replies as a request
which specified a MAC length longer than the HMAC output is
invalid according to the first processing rule in
Section 5.2.2.1.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
10. Promoted the requirement that a secret length should be at
least as long as the HMAC output to a SHOULD [RFC2119] key
word.
11. Added a short text to explain the security issue.
draft-dupont-dnsop-rfc2845bis-01
Improved wording (post-publication comments).
Specialized and renamed the "TSIG on TCP connection"
(Section 5.3.1) to "TSIG on zone transfer over a TCP connection".
Added a SHOULD for a TSIG in each message (was envelope) for new
implementations.
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-00
Adopted by the IETF DNSOP working group: title updated and version
counter reset to 00.
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-01
Relationship between protocol change and principle of assuming the
request MAC is invalid until validated clarified. (Jinmei Tatuya)
Cross reference to considerations for forwarding servers added.
(Bob Harold)
Added text from [RFC3645] concerning the signing behavior if a
secret key is added during a multi-message exchange.
Added reference to [RFC6895].
Many improvements in the wording.
Added RFC 2845 authors as co-authors of this document.
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-02
Added a recommendation to copy time fields in BADKEY errors.
(Mark Andrews)
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-03
Further changes as a result of comments by Mukund Sivaraman.
Miscellaneous changes to wording.
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-04
Major restructuring as a result of comprehensive review by Martin
Hoffman. Amongst the more significant changes:
* More comprehensive introduction.
* Merged "Protocol Description" and "Protocol Details" sections.
* Reordered sections so as to follow message exchange through
"client "sending", "server receipt", "server sending", "client
receipt".
* Added miscellaneous clarifications.
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-05
Make implementation of HMAC-MD5 optional.
Require that the Fudge field in BADTIME response be equal to the
Fudge field received from the client.
Added comment concerning the handling of BADTIME messages due to
out of order packet reception.
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-06
Wording changes and minor corrections after feedback.
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-07
Updated text about use of hmac-sha1 using suggestion from Tony
Finch.
Corrected name of review policy used for new algorithms.
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-08
Addressed comments from IESG review. These can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis/
ballot. Significant changes are:
* Added references to CVEs that initiated this draft.
* Added reference to paper describing SHA1 collisions.
* Modified some paragraphs to remove language that has not "aged
well".
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
* Mentioned that multiple keys allows for periodic key rotation.
* Noted that TSIG detects interruption of packet sequence but not
premature termination.
* Added new algorithms to the algorithm list.
* Marked hmac-sha224 as NOT RECOMMENDED.
* Added recommendation that there should only be one algorithm
for each key.
* Added some paragraphs to the security recommendations section.
Other changes:
* Explicitly define contents Error field in requests. State that
"Other Data" currently has no meaning in requests.
* Reworked the section on client processing of response to remove
ambiguity.
* Section on TSIG over TCP now mentions zone transfer as an
example, rather than the entire section being about zone
transfers.
* Note that quote from RFC2845 in "What is DNSSEC?" section has
been edited to refer to the latest standards.
Authors' Addresses
Francis Dupont
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
PO Box 360
Newmarket, NH 03857
United States of America
Email: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Stephen Morris
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
PO Box 360
Newmarket, NH 03857
United States of America
Email: sa.morris8@gmail.com
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft DNS TSIG May 2020
Paul Vixie
Farsight Security Inc
177 Bovet Road, Suite 180
San Mateo, CA 94402
United States of America
Email: paul@redbarn.org
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Futurewei Technologies
2386 Panoramic Circle
Apopka, FL 32703
United States of America
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Olafur Gudmundsson
Cloudflare
San Francisco, CA 94107
United States of America
Email: olafur+ietf@cloudflare.com
Brian Wellington
Akamai
United States of America
Email: bwelling@akamai.com
Dupont, et al. Expires November 5, 2020 [Page 29]