Login
This article originally appeared in The Domain Name Industry Brief (Volume 18, Issue 3)
Earlier this year, the Internet Engineering Task Force’s (IETF’s) Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) announced that several Proposed Standards related to the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP), including three that I co-authored, were being promoted to the prestigious designation of Internet Standard. Initially accepted as proposed standards six years ago, RFC 7480, RFC 7481, RFC 9082 and RFC 9083 now comprise the new Standard 95. RDAP allows users to access domain registration data and could one day replace its predecessor the WHOIS protocol. RDAP is designed to address some widely recognized deficiencies in the WHOIS protocol and can help improve the registration data chain of custody.
In the discussion that follows, I’ll look back at the registry data model, given the evolution from WHOIS to the RDAP protocol, and examine how the RDAP protocol can help improve upon the more traditional, WHOIS-based registry models.
In 1998, Network Solutions was responsible for providing both consumer-facing registrar and back-end registry functions for the legacy .com, .net and .org generic top-level domains (gTLDs). Network Solutions collected information from domain name registrants, used that information to process domain name registration requests, and published both collected data and data derived from processing registration requests (such as expiration dates and status values) in a public-facing directory service known as WHOIS.
From Network Solution’s perspective as the registry, the chain of custody for domain name registration data involved only two parties: the registrant (or their agent) and Network Solutions. With the introduction of a Shared Registration System (SRS) in 1999, multiple registrars began to compete for domain name registration business by using the registry services operated by Network Solutions. The introduction of additional registrars and the separation of registry and registrar functions added parties to the chain of custody of domain name registration data. Information flowed from the registrant, to the registrar, and then to the registry, typically crossing multiple networks and jurisdictions, as depicted in Figure 1.
Over time, new gTLDs and new registries came into existence, new WHOIS services (with different output formats) were launched, and countries adopted new laws and regulations focused on protecting the personal information associated with domain name registration data. As time progressed, it became clear that WHOIS lacked several needed features, such as:
The IETF made multiple attempts to add features to WHOIS to address some of these issues, but none of them were widely adopted. A possible replacement protocol known as the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) was standardized in 2005, but it was not widely adopted. Something else was needed, and the IETF went back to work to produce what became known as RDAP.
RDAP was specified in a series of five IETF Proposed Standard RFC documents, including the following, all of which were published in March 2015:
Only when RDAP was standardized did we start to see broad deployment of a possible WHOIS successor by domain name registries, domain name registrars and address registries.
The broad deployment of RDAP led to RFCs 7480 and 7481 becoming Internet Standard RFCs (part of Internet Standard 95) without modification in March 2021. As operators of registration data directory services implemented and deployed RDAP, they found places in the other specifications where minor corrections and clarifications were needed without changing the protocol itself. RFC 7482 was updated to become Internet Standard RFC 9082, which was published in June 2021. RFC 7483 was updated to become Internet Standard RFC 9083, which was also published in June 2021. All were added to Standard 95. As of the writing of this article, RFC 7484 is in the process of being reviewed and updated for elevation to Internet Standard status.
Operators of registration data directory services who implemented RDAP can take advantage of key features not available in the WHOIS protocol. I’ve highlighted some of these important features in the table below.
| RDAP Feature | Benefit |
| Standard, well-understood, and widely available HTTP transport | Relatively easy to implement, deploy and operate using common web service tools, infrastructure and applications. |
| Securable via HTTPS | Helps provide confidentiality for RDAP queries and responses, reducing the amount of information that is disclosed to monitors. |
| Structured output in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) | JSON is well-understood and tool friendly, which makes it easier for clients to parse and format responses from all servers without the need for software that’s customized for different service providers. |
| Easily extensible | Designed to support the addition of new features without breaking existing implementations. This makes it easier to address future function needs with less risk of implementation incompatibility. |
| Internationalized output, with full support for Unicode character sets | Allows implementations to provide human-readable inputs and outputs that are represented in a language appropriate to the local operating environment. |
| Referral capability, leveraging HTTP constructs | Provides information to software clients that allow the client to retrieve additional information from other RDAP servers. This can be used to hide complexity from human users. |
| Support of standardized authentication | RDAP can take full advantage of all of the client identification, authentication and authorization methods that are available to web services. This means that RDAP can be used to provide the basic framework for differentiated access to registration data based on attributes associated with the user and the user’s query. |
Verisign’s RDAP service, which was originally launched as an experimental implementation several years before gaining widespread adoption, allows users to look up records in the registry database for all registered .com, .net, .name, .cc and .tv domain names. It also supports Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).
We at Verisign were pleased not only to see the IETF recognize the importance of RDAP by elevating it to an Internet Standard, but also that the protocol became a requirement for ICANN-accredited registrars and registries as of August 2019. Widespread implementation of the RDAP protocol makes registration data more secure, stable and resilient, and we are hopeful that the community will evolve the prescribed implementation of RDAP such that the full power of this rich protocol will be deployed.
You can learn more in the RDAP Help section of the Verisign website, and access helpful documents such as the RDAP technical implementation guide and the RDAP response profile.
The post Industry Insights: RDAP Becomes Internet Standard appeared first on Verisign Blog.
This is the final in a multi-part series on cryptography and the Domain Name System (DNS).
In previous posts in this series, I’ve discussed a number of applications of cryptography to the DNS, many of them related to the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC).
In this final blog post, I’ll turn attention to another application that may appear at first to be the most natural, though as it turns out, may not always be the most necessary: DNS encryption. (I’ve also written about DNS encryption as well as minimization in a separate post on DNS information protection.)
In 2014, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) chartered the DNS PRIVate Exchange (dprive) working group to start work on encrypting DNS queries and responses exchanged between clients and resolvers.
That work resulted in RFC 7858, published in 2016, which describes how to run the DNS protocol over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol, also known as DNS over TLS, or DoT.
DNS encryption between clients and resolvers has since gained further momentum, with multiple browsers and resolvers supporting DNS over Hypertext Transport Protocol Security (HTTPS), or DoH, with the formation of the Encrypted DNS Deployment Initiative, and with further enhancements such as oblivious DoH.
The dprive working group turned its attention to the resolver-to-authoritative exchange during its rechartering in 2018. And in October of last year, ICANN’s Office of the CTO published its strategy recommendations for the ICANN-managed Root Server (IMRS, i.e., the L-Root Server), an effort motivated in part by concern about potential “confidentiality attacks” on the resolver-to-root connection.
From a cryptographer’s perspective the prospect of adding encryption to the DNS protocol is naturally quite interesting. But this perspective isn’t the only one that matters, as I’ve observed numerous times in previous posts.
A common theme in this series on cryptography and the DNS has been the question of whether the benefits of a technology are sufficient to justify its cost and complexity.
This question came up not only in my review of two newer cryptographic advances, but also in my remarks on the motivation for two established tools for providing evidence that a domain name doesn’t exist.
Recall that the two tools — the Next Secure (NSEC) and Next Secure 3 (NSEC3) records — were developed because a simpler approach didn’t have an acceptable risk / benefit tradeoff. In the simpler approach, to provide a relying party assurance that a domain name doesn’t exist, a name server would return a response, signed with its private key, “<name> doesn’t exist.”
From a cryptographic perspective, the simpler approach would meet its goal: a relying party could then validate the response with the corresponding public key. However, the approach would introduce new operational risks, because the name server would now have to perform online cryptographic operations.
The name server would not only have to protect its private key from compromise, but would also have to protect the cryptographic operations from overuse by attackers. That could open another avenue for denial-of-service attacks that could prevent the name server from responding to legitimate requests.
The designers of DNSSEC mitigated these operational risks by developing NSEC and NSEC3, which gave the option of moving the private key and the cryptographic operations offline, into the name server’s provisioning system. Cryptography and operations were balanced by this better solution. The theme is now returning to view through the recent efforts around DNS encryption.
Like the simpler initial approach for authentication, DNS encryption may meet its goal from a cryptographic perspective. But the operational perspective is important as well. As designers again consider where and how to deploy private keys and cryptographic operations across the DNS ecosystem, alternatives with a better balance are a desirable goal.
In addition to encryption, there has been research into other, possibly lower-risk alternatives that can be used in place of or in addition to encryption at various levels of the DNS.
We call these techniques collectively minimization techniques.
In “textbook” DNS resolution, a resolver sends the same full domain name to a root server, a top-level domain (TLD) server, a second-level domain (SLD) server, and any other server in the chain of referrals, until it ultimately receives an authoritative answer to a DNS query.
This is the way that DNS resolution has been practiced for decades, and it’s also one of the reasons for the recent interest in protecting information on the resolver-to-authoritative exchange: The full domain name is more information than all but the last name server needs to know.
One such minimization technique, known as qname minimization, was identified by Verisign researchers in 2011 and documented in RFC 7816 in 2016. (In 2015, Verisign announced a royalty-free license to its qname minimization patents.)
With qname minimization, instead of sending the full domain name to each name server, the resolver sends only as much as the name server needs either to answer the query or to refer the resolver to a name server at the next level. This follows the principle of minimum disclosure: the resolver sends only as much information as the name server needs to “do its job.” As Matt Thomas described in his recent blog post on the topic, nearly half of all .com and .net queries received by Verisign’s .com TLD servers were in a minimized form as of August 2020.
Other techniques that are part of this new chapter in DNS protocol evolution include NXDOMAIN cut processing [RFC 8020] and aggressive DNSSEC caching [RFC 8198]. Both leverage information present in the DNS to reduce the amount and sensitivity of DNS information exchanged with authoritative name servers. In aggressive DNSSEC caching, for example, the resolver analyzes NSEC and NSEC3 range proofs obtained in response to previous queries to determine on its own whether a domain name doesn’t exist. This means that the resolver doesn’t always have to ask the authoritative server system about a domain name it hasn’t seen before.
All of these techniques, as well as additional minimization alternatives I haven’t mentioned, have one important common characteristic: they only change how the resolver operates during the resolver-authoritative exchange. They have no impact on the authoritative name server or on other parties during the exchange itself. They thereby mitigate disclosure risk while also minimizing operational risk.
The resolver’s exchanges with authoritative name servers, prior to minimization, were already relatively less sensitive because they represented aggregate interests of the resolver’s many clients1. Minimization techniques lower the sensitivity even further at the root and TLD levels: the resolver sends only its aggregate interests in TLDs to root servers, and only its interests in SLDs to TLD servers. The resolver still sends the aggregate interests in full domain names at the SLD level and below2, and may also include certain client-related information at these levels, such as the client-subnet extension. The lower levels therefore may have different protection objectives than the upper levels.
Minimization techniques and encryption together give DNS designers additional tools for protecting DNS information — tools that when deployed carefully can balance between cryptographic and operational perspectives.
These tools complement those I’ve described in previous posts in this series. Some have already been deployed at scale, such as a DNSSEC with its NSEC and NSEC3 non-existence proofs. Others are at various earlier stages, like NSEC5 and tokenized queries, and still others contemplate “post-quantum” scenarios and how to address them. (And there are yet other tools that I haven’t covered in this series, such as authenticated resolution and adaptive resolution.)
Modern cryptography is just about as old as the DNS. Both have matured since their introduction in the late 1970s and early 1980s respectively. Both bring fundamental capabilities to our connected world. Both continue to evolve to support new applications and to meet new security objectives. While they’ve often moved forward separately, as this blog series has shown, there are also opportunities for them to advance together. I look forward to sharing more insights from Verisign’s research in future blog posts.
Read the complete six blog series:
1. This argument obviously holds more weight for large resolvers than for small ones — and doesn’t apply for the less common case of individual clients running their own resolvers. However, small resolvers and individual clients seeking additional protection retain the option of sending sensitive queries through a large, trusted resolver, or through a privacy-enhancing proxy. The focus in our discussion is primarily on large resolvers.
2. In namespaces where domain names are registered at the SLD level, i.e., under an effective TLD, the statements in this note about “root and TLD” and “SLD level and below” should be “root through effective TLD” and “below effective TLD level.” For simplicity, I’ve placed the “zone cut” between TLD and SLD in this note.
The post Information Protection for the Domain Name System: Encryption and Minimization appeared first on Verisign Blog.
This is the fifth in a multi-part series on cryptography and the Domain Name System (DNS).
In my last article, I described efforts underway to standardize new cryptographic algorithms that are designed to be less vulnerable to potential future advances in quantum computing. I also reviewed operational challenges to be considered when adding new algorithms to the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC).
In this post, I’ll look at hash-based signatures, a family of post-quantum algorithms that could be a good match for DNSSEC from the perspective of infrastructure stability.
I’ll also describe Verisign Labs research into a new concept called synthesized zone signing keys that could mitigate the impact of the large signature size for hash-based signatures, while still maintaining this family’s protections against quantum computing.
(Caveat: The concepts reviewed in this post are part of Verisign’s long-term research program and do not necessarily represent Verisign’s plans or positions on new products or services. Concepts developed in our research program may be subject to U.S. and/or international patents and/or patent applications.)
The DNS community’s root key signing key (KSK) rollover illustrates how complicated a change to DNSSEC infrastructure can be. Although successfully accomplished, this change was delayed by ICANN to ensure that enough resolvers had the public key required to validate signatures generated with the new root KSK private key.
Now imagine the complications if the DNS community also had to ensure that enough resolvers not only had a new key but also had a brand-new algorithm.
Imagine further what might happen if a weakness in this new algorithm were to be found after it was deployed. While there are procedures for emergency key rollovers, emergency algorithm rollovers would be more complicated, and perhaps controversial as well if a clear successor algorithm were not available.
I’m not suggesting that any of the post-quantum algorithms that might be standardized by NIST will be found to have a weakness. But confidence in cryptographic algorithms can be gained and lost over many years, sometimes decades.
From the perspective of infrastructure stability, therefore, it may make sense for DNSSEC to have a backup post-quantum algorithm built in from the start — one for which cryptographers already have significant confidence and experience. This algorithm might not be as efficient as other candidates, but there is less of a chance that it would ever need to be changed. This means that the more efficient candidates could be deployed in DNSSEC with the confidence that they have a stable fallback. It’s also important to keep in mind that the prospect of quantum computing is not the only reason system developers need to be considering new algorithms from time to time. As public-key cryptography pioneer Martin Hellman wisely cautioned, new classical (non-quantum) attacks could also emerge, whether or not a quantum computer is realized.
The 1970s were a foundational time for public-key cryptography, producing not only the RSA algorithm and the Diffie-Hellman algorithm (which also provided the basic model for elliptic curve cryptography), but also hash-based signatures, invented in 1979 by another public-key cryptography founder, Ralph Merkle.
Hash-based signatures are interesting because their security depends only on the security of an underlying hash function.
It turns out that hash functions, as a concept, hold up very well against quantum computing advances — much better than currently established public-key algorithms do.
This means that Merkle’s hash-based signatures, now more than 40 years old, can rightly be considered the oldest post-quantum digital signature algorithm.
If it turns out that an individual hash function doesn’t hold up — whether against a quantum computer or a classical computer — then the hash function itself can be replaced, as cryptographers have been doing for years. That will likely be easier than changing to an entirely different post-quantum algorithm, especially one that involves very different concepts.
The conceptual stability of hash-based signatures is a reason that interoperable specifications are already being developed for variants of Merkle’s original algorithm. Two approaches are described in RFC 8391, “XMSS: eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme” and RFC 8554, “Leighton-Micali Hash-Based Signatures.” Another approach, SPHINCS+, is an alternate in NIST’s post-quantum project.
Hash-based signatures can potentially be applied to any part of the DNSSEC trust chain. For example, in Figure 1, the DNS record sets can be signed with a zone signing key (ZSK) that employs a hash-based signature algorithm.
The main challenge with hash-based signatures is that the signature size is large, on the order of tens or even hundreds of thousands of bits. This is perhaps why they haven’t seen significant adoption in security protocols over the past four decades.
Verisign Labs has been exploring how to mitigate the size impact of hash-based signatures on DNSSEC, while still basing security on hash functions only in the interest of stable post-quantum protections.
One of the ideas we’ve come up with uses another of Merkle’s foundational contributions: Merkle trees.
Merkle trees authenticate multiple records by hashing them together in a tree structure. The records are the “leaves” of the tree. Pairs of leaves are hashed together to form a branch, then pairs of branches are hashed together to form a larger branch, and so on. The hash of the largest branches is the tree’s “root.” (This is a data-structure root, unrelated to the DNS root.)
Each individual leaf of a Merkle tree can be authenticated by retracing the “path” from the leaf to the root. The path consists of the hashes of each of the adjacent branches encountered along the way.
Authentication paths can be much shorter than typical hash-based signatures. For instance, with a tree depth of 20 and a 256-bit hash value, the authentication path for a leaf would only be 5,120 bits long, yet a single tree could authenticate more than a million leaves.
Returning to the example above, suppose that instead of signing each DNS record set with a hash-based signature, each record set were considered a leaf of a Merkle tree. Suppose further that the root of this tree were to be published as the ZSK public key (see Figure 2). The authentication path to the leaf could then serve as the record set’s signature.
The validation logic at a resolver would be the same as in ordinary DNSSEC:
The only difference on the resolver’s side would be that signature validation would involve retracing the authentication path to the ZSK public key, rather than a conventional signature validation operation.
The ZSK public key produced by the Merkle tree approach would be a “synthesized” public key, in that it is obtained from the records being signed. This is noteworthy from a cryptographer’s perspective, because the public key wouldn’t have a corresponding private key, yet the DNS records would still, in effect, be “signed by the ZSK!”
In this type of DNSSEC implementation, the Merkle tree approach only applies to the ZSK level. Hash-based signatures would still be applied at the KSK level, although their overhead would now be “amortized” across all records in the zone.
In addition, each new ZSK would need to be signed “on demand,” rather than in advance, as in current operational practice.
This leads to tradeoffs, such as how many changes to accumulate before constructing and publishing a new tree. Fewer changes and the tree will be available sooner. More changes and the tree will be larger, so the per-record overhead of the signatures at the KSK level will be lower.
My last few posts have discussed cryptographic techniques that could potentially be applied to the DNS in the long term — or that might not even be applied at all. In my next post, I’ll return to more conventional subjects, and explain how Verisign sees cryptography fitting into the DNS today, as well as some important non-cryptographic techniques that are part of our vision for a secure, stable and resilient DNS.
Read the complete six blog series:
The post Securing the DNS in a Post-Quantum World: Hash-Based Signatures and Synthesized Zone Signing Keys appeared first on Verisign Blog.
This is the fourth in a multi-part series on cryptography and the Domain Name System (DNS).
One of the “key” questions cryptographers have been asking for the past decade or more is what to do about the potential future development of a large-scale quantum computer.
If theory holds, a quantum computer could break established public-key algorithms including RSA and elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), building on Peter Shor’s groundbreaking result from 1994.
This prospect has motivated research into new so-called “post-quantum” algorithms that are less vulnerable to quantum computing advances. These algorithms, once standardized, may well be added into the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) — thus also adding another dimension to a cryptographer’s perspective on the DNS.
(Caveat: Once again, the concepts I’m discussing in this post are topics we’re studying in our long-term research program as we evaluate potential future applications of technology. They do not necessarily represent Verisign’s plans or position on possible new products or services.)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started a Post-Quantum Cryptography project in 2016 to “specify one or more additional unclassified, publicly disclosed digital signature, public-key encryption, and key-establishment algorithms that are capable of protecting sensitive government information well into the foreseeable future, including after the advent of quantum computers.”
Security protocols that NIST is targeting for these algorithms, according to its 2019 status report (Section 2.2.1), include: “Transport Layer Security (TLS), Secure Shell (SSH), Internet Key Exchange (IKE), Internet Protocol Security (IPsec), and Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC).”
The project is now in its third round, with seven finalists, including three digital signature algorithms, and eight alternates.
NIST’s project timeline anticipates that the draft standards for the new post-quantum algorithms will be available between 2022 and 2024.
It will likely take several additional years for standards bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task (IETF) to incorporate the new algorithms into security protocols. Broad deployments of the upgraded protocols will likely take several years more.
Post-quantum algorithms can therefore be considered a long-term issue, not a near-term one. However, as with other long-term research, it’s appropriate to draw attention to factors that need to be taken into account well ahead of time.
The three candidate digital signature algorithms in NIST’s third round have one common characteristic: all of them have a key size or signature size (or both) that is much larger than for current algorithms.
Key and signature sizes are important operational considerations for DNSSEC because most of the DNS traffic exchanged with authoritative data servers is sent and received via the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), which has a limited response size.
Response size concerns were evident during the expansion of the root zone signing key (ZSK) from 1024-bit to 2048-bit RSA in 2016, and in the rollover of the root key signing key (KSK) in 2018. In the latter case, although the signature and key sizes didn’t change, total response size was still an issue because responses during the rollover sometimes carried as many as four keys rather than the usual two.
Thanks to careful design and implementation, response sizes during these transitions generally stayed within typical UDP limits. Equally important, response sizes also appeared to have stayed within the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) of most networks involved, thereby also avoiding the risk of packet fragmentation. (You can check how well your network handles various DNSSEC response sizes with this tool developed by Verisign Labs.)
The larger sizes associated with certain post-quantum algorithms do not appear to be a significant issue either for TLS, according to one benchmarking study, or for public-key infrastructures, according to another report. However, a recently published study of post-quantum algorithms and DNSSEC observes that “DNSSEC is particularly challenging to transition” to the new algorithms.
Verisign Labs offers the following observations about DNSSEC-related queries that may help researchers to model DNSSEC impact:
A typical resolver that implements both DNSSEC validation and qname minimization will send a combination of queries to Verisign’s root and top-level domain (TLD) servers.
Because the resolver is a validating resolver, these queries will all have the “DNSSEC OK” bit set, indicating that the resolver wants the DNSSEC signatures on the records.
The content of typical responses by Verisign’s root and TLD servers to these queries are given in Table 1 below. (In the table, <SLD>.<TLD> are the final two labels of a domain name of interest, including the TLD and the second-level domain (SLD); record types involved include A, Name Server (NS), and DNSKEY.)
| Name Server | Resolver Query Scenario | Typical Response Content from Verisign’s Servers |
| Root | DNSKEY record set for root zone | • DNSKEY record set including root KSK RSA-2048 public key and root ZSK RSA-2048 public key • Root KSK RSA-2048 signature on DNSKEY record set |
| A or NS record set for <TLD> — when <TLD> exists | • NS referral to <TLD> name server • DS record set for <TLD> zone • Root ZSK RSA-2048 signature on DS record set |
|
| A or NS record set for <TLD> — when <TLD> doesn’t exist | • Up to two NSEC records for non-existence of <TLD> • Root ZSK RSA-2048 signatures on NSEC records |
|
| .com / .net | DNSKEY record set for <TLD> zone | • DNSKEY record set including <TLD> KSK RSA-2048 public key and <TLD> ZSK RSA-1280 public key • <TLD> KSK RSA-2048 signature on DNSKEY record set |
| A or NS record set for <SLD>.<TLD> — when <SLD>.<TLD> exists | • NS referral to <SLD>.<TLD> name server • DS record set for <SLD>.<TLD> zone (if <SLD>.<TLD> supports DNSSEC) • <TLD> ZSK RSA-1280 signature on DS record set (if present) |
|
| A or NS record set for <SLD>.<TLD> — when <SLD>.<TLD> doesn’t exist | • Up to three NSEC3 records for non-existence of <SLD>.<TLD> • <TLD> ZSK RSA-1280 signatures on NSEC3 records |
For an A or NS query, the typical response, when the domain of interest exists, includes a referral to another name server. If the domain supports DNSSEC, the response also includes a set of Delegation Signer (DS) records providing the hashes of each of the referred zone’s KSKs — the next link in the DNSSEC trust chain. When the domain of interest doesn’t exist, the response includes one or more Next Secure (NSEC) or Next Secure 3 (NSEC3) records.
Researchers can estimate the effect of post-quantum algorithms on response size by replacing the sizes of the various RSA keys and signatures with those for their post-quantum counterparts. As discussed above, it is important to keep in mind that the number of keys returned may be larger during key rollovers.
Most of the queries from qname-minimizing, validating resolvers to the root and TLD name servers will be for A or NS records (the choice depends on the implementation of qname minimization, and has recently trended toward A). The signature size for a post-quantum algorithm, which affects all DNSSEC-related responses, will therefore generally have a much larger impact on average response size than will the key size, which affects only the DNSKEY responses.
Post-quantum algorithms are among the newest developments in cryptography. They add another dimension to a cryptographer’s perspective on the DNS because of the possibility that these algorithms, or other variants, may be added to DNSSEC in the long term.
In my next post, I’ll make the case for why the oldest post-quantum algorithm, hash-based signatures, could be a particularly good match for DNSSEC. I’ll also share the results of some research at Verisign Labs into how the large signature sizes of hash-based signatures could potentially be overcome.
Read the complete six blog series:
The post Securing the DNS in a Post-Quantum World: New DNSSEC Algorithms on the Horizon appeared first on Verisign Blog.
This is the third in a multi-part blog series on cryptography and the Domain Name System (DNS).
In my last post, I looked at what happens when a DNS query renders a “negative” response – i.e., when a domain name doesn’t exist. I then examined two cryptographic approaches to handling negative responses: NSEC and NSEC3. In this post, I will examine a third approach, NSEC5, and a related concept that protects client information, tokenized queries.
The concepts I discuss below are topics we’ve studied in our long-term research program as we evaluate new technologies. They do not necessarily represent Verisign’s plans or position on a new product or service. Concepts developed in our research program may be subject to U.S. and international patents and patent applications.
NSEC5 is a result of research by cryptographers at Boston University and the Weizmann Institute. In this approach, which is still in an experimental stage, the endpoints are the outputs of a verifiable random function (VRF), a cryptographic primitive that has been gaining interest in recent years. NSEC5 is documented in an Internet Draft (currently expired) and in several research papers.
A VRF is like a hash function but with two important differences:
So, it’s not only hard for an adversary to reverse the VRF – which is also a property the hash function has – but it’s also hard for the adversary to compute the VRF in the forward direction, thus preventing dictionary attacks. And yet a relying party can still confirm that the VRF output for a given input is correct, because of the proof.
How does this work in practice? As in NSEC and NSEC3, range statements are prepared in advance and signed with the zone signing key (ZSK). With NSEC5, however, the range endpoints are two consecutive tokens.
When a domain name doesn’t exist, the name server applies the VRF to the domain name to obtain a token and a proof. The name sever then returns a range statement where the token falls within the range, as well as the proof, as shown in the figure below. Note that the token values are for illustration only.
Because the range statement reveals only tokenized versions of other domain names in a zone, an adversary who doesn’t know the private key doesn’t learn any new existing domain names from the response. Indeed, to find out which domain name corresponds to one of the tokenized endpoints, the adversary would need access to the VRF itself to see if a candidate domain name has a matching hash value, which would involve an online dictionary attack. This significantly reduces disclosure risk.
The name server needs a copy of the zone’s NSEC5 private key so that it can generate proofs for non-existent domain names. The ZSK itself can stay in the provisioning system. As the designers of NSEC5 have pointed out, if the NSEC5 private key does happen to be compromised, this only makes it possible to do a dictionary attack offline— not to generate signatures on new range statements, or on new positive responses.
NSEC5 is interesting from a cryptographer’s perspective because it uses a less common cryptographic technique, a VRF, to achieve a design goal that was at best partially met by previous approaches. As with other new technologies, DNS operators will need to consider whether NSEC5’s benefits are sufficient to justify its cost and complexity. Verisign doesn’t have any plans to implement NSEC5, as we consider NSEC and NSEC3 adequate for the name servers we currently operate. However, we will continue to track NSEC5 and related developments as part of our long-term research program.
A few years before NSEC5 was published, Verisign Labs had started some research on an opposite application of tokenization to the DNS, to protect a client’s information from disclosure.
In our approach, instead of asking the resolver “What is <name>’s IP address,” the client would ask “What is token 3141…’s IP address,” where 3141… is the tokenization of <name>.
(More precisely, the client would specify both the token and the parent zone that the token relates to, e.g., the TLD of the domain name. Only the portion of the domain name below the parent would be obscured, just as in NSEC5. I’ve omitted the zone information for simplicity in this discussion.)
Suppose now that the domain name corresponding to token 3141… does exist. Then the resolver would respond with the domain name’s IP address as usual, as shown in the next figure.
In this case, the resolver would know that the domain name associated with the token does exist, because it would have a mapping between the token and the DNS record, i.e., the IP address. Thus, the resolver would effectively “know” the domain name as well for practical purposes. (We’ve developed another approach that can protect both the domain name and the DNS record from disclosure to the resolver in this case, but that’s perhaps a topic for another post.)
Now, consider a domain name that doesn’t exist and suppose that its token is 2718… .
In this case, the resolver would respond that the domain name doesn’t exist, as usual, as shown below.
But because the domain name is tokenized and no other information about the domain name is returned, the resolver would only learn the token 2718… (and the parent zone), not the actual domain name that the client is interested in.
The resolver could potentially know that the name doesn’t exist via a range statement from the parent zone, as in NSEC5.
How does the client tokenize the domain name, if it doesn’t have the private key for the VRF? The name server would offer a public interface to the tokenization function. This can be done in what cryptographers call an “oblivious” VRF protocol, where the name server doesn’t see the actual domain name during the protocol, yet the client still gets the token.
To keep the resolver itself from using this interface to do an online dictionary attack that matches candidate domain names with tokens, the name server could rate-limit access, or restrict it only to authorized requesters.
Additional details on this technology may be found in U.S. Patent 9,202,079B2, entitled “Privacy preserving data querying,” and related patents.
It’s interesting from a cryptographer’s perspective that there’s a way for a client to find out whether a DNS record exists, without necessarily revealing the domain name of interest. However, as before, the benefits of this new technology will be weighed against its operational cost and complexity and compared to other approaches. Because this technique focuses on client-to-resolver interactions, it’s already one step removed from the name servers that Verisign currently operates, so it is not as relevant to our business today in a way it might have been when we started the research. This one will stay under our long-term tracking as well.
The examples I’ve shared in these last two blog posts make it clear that cryptography has the potential to bring interesting new capabilities to the DNS. While the particular examples I’ve shared here do not meet the criteria for our product roadmap, researching advances in cryptography and other techniques remains important because new events can sometimes change the calculus. That point will become even more evident in my next post, where I’ll consider the kinds of cryptography that may be needed in the event that one or more of today’s algorithms is compromised, possibly through the introduction of a quantum computer.
Read the complete six blog series:
The post Newer Cryptographic Advances for the Domain Name System: NSEC5 and Tokenized Queries appeared first on Verisign Blog.
This is the second in a multi-part blog series on cryptography and the Domain Name System (DNS).
In my previous post, I described the first broad scale deployment of cryptography in the DNS, known as the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC). I described how a name server can enable a requester to validate the correctness of a “positive” response to a query — when a queried domain name exists — by adding a digital signature to the DNS response returned.
The designers of DNSSEC, as well as academic researchers, have separately considered the answer of “negative” responses – when the domain name doesn’t exist. In this case, as I’ll explain, responding with a signed “does not exist” is not the best design. This makes the non-existence case interesting from a cryptographer’s perspective as well.
Consider a domain name like example.arpa that doesn’t exist.
If it did exist, then as I described in my previous post, the second-level domain (SLD) server for example.arpa would return a response signed by example.arpa’s zone signing key (ZSK).
So a first try for the case that the domain name doesn’t exist is for the SLD server to return the response “example.arpa doesn’t exist,” signed by example.arpa’s ZSK.
However, if example.arpa doesn’t exist, then example.arpa won’t have either an SLD server or a ZSK to sign with. So, this approach won’t work.
A second try is for the parent name server — the .arpa top-level domain (TLD) server in the example — to return the response “example.arpa doesn’t exist,” signed by the parent’s ZSK.
This could work if the .arpa DNS server knows the ZSK for .arpa. However, for security and performance reasons, the design preference for DNSSEC has been to keep private keys offline, within the zone’s provisioning system.
The provisioning system can precompute statements about domain names that do exist — but not about every possible individual domain name that doesn’t exist. So, this won’t work either, at least not for the servers that keep their private keys offline.
The third try is the design that DNSSEC settled on. The parent name server returns a “range statement,” previously signed with the ZSK, that states that there are no domain names in an ordered sequence between two “endpoints” where the endpoints depend on domain names that do exist. The range statements can therefore be signed offline, and yet the name server can still choose an appropriate signed response to return, based on the (non-existent) domain name in the query.
The DNS community has considered several approaches to constructing range statements, and they have varying cryptographic properties. Below I’ve described two such approaches. For simplicity, I’ve focused just on the basics in the discussion that follows. The astute reader will recognize that there are many more details involved both in the specification and the implementation of these techniques.
The first approach, called NSEC, involved no additional cryptography beyond the DNSSEC signature on the range statement. In NSEC, the endpoints are actual domain names that exist. NSEC stands for “Next Secure,” referring to the fact that the second endpoint in the range is the “next” existing domain name following the first endpoint.
The NSEC resource record is documented in one of the original DNSSEC specifications, RFC4033, which was co-authored by Verisign.
The .arpa zone implements NSEC. When the .arpa server receives the request “What is the IP address of example.arpa,” it returns the response “There are no names between e164.arpa and home.arpa.” This exchange is shown in the figure below and is analyzed in the associated DNSviz graph. (The response is accurate as of the writing of this post; it could be different in the future if names were added to or removed from the .arpa zone.)
NSEC has a side effect: responses immediately reveal unqueried domain names in the zone. Depending on the sensitivity of the zone, this may be undesirable from the perspective of the minimum disclosure principle.
A second approach, called NSEC3 reduces the disclosure risk somewhat by defining the endpoints as hashes of existing domain names. (NSEC3 is documented in RFC 5155, which was also co-authored by Verisign.)
An example of NSEC3 can be seen with example.name, another domain that doesn’t exist. Here, the .name TLD server returns a range statement that “There are no domain names with hashes between 5SU9… and 5T48…”. Because the hash of example.name is “5SVV…” the response implies that “example.name” doesn’t exist.
This statement is shown in the figure below and in another DNSviz graph. (As above, the actual response could change if the .name zone changes.)
To find out which domain name corresponds to one of the hashed endpoints, an adversary would have to do a trial-and-error or “dictionary” attack across multiple guesses of domain names, to see if any has a matching hash value. Such a search could be performed “offline,” i.e., without further interaction with the name server, which is why the disclosure risk is only somewhat reduced.
NSEC and NSEC3 are mutually exclusive. Nearly all TLDs, including all TLDs operated by Verisign, implement NSEC3. In addition to .arpa, the root zone also implements NSEC.
In my next post, I’ll describe NSEC5, an approach still in the experimental stage, that replaces the hash function in NSEC3 with a verifiable random function (VRF) to protect against offline dictionary attacks. I’ll also share some research Verisign Labs has done on a complementary approach that helps protect a client’s queries for non-existent domain names from disclosure.
Read the complete six blog series:
The post Cryptographic Tools for Non-Existence in the Domain Name System: NSEC and NSEC3 appeared first on Verisign Blog.
This is the first in a multi-part blog series on cryptography and the Domain Name System (DNS).
As one of the earliest protocols in the internet, the DNS emerged in an era in which today’s global network was still an experiment. Security was not a primary consideration then, and the design of the DNS, like other parts of the internet of the day, did not have cryptography built in.
Today, cryptography is part of almost every protocol, including the DNS. And from a cryptographer’s perspective, as I described in my talk at last year’s International Cryptographic Module Conference (ICMC20), there’s so much more to the story than just encryption.
The first broad-scale deployment of cryptography in the DNS was not for confidentiality but for data integrity, through the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC), introduced in 2005.
The story begins with the usual occurrence that happens millions of times a second around the world: a client asks a DNS resolver a query like “What is example.com’s Internet Protocol (IP) address?” The resolver in this case answers: “example.com’s IP address is 93.184.216.34”. (This is the correct answer.)
If the resolver doesn’t already know the answer to the request, then the process to find the answer goes something like this:
But how does the resolver know that the answer it ultimately receives is correct? The process defined by DNSSEC follows the same “delegation” model from root to TLD to SLD as I’ve described above.
Indeed, DNSSEC provides a way for the resolver to check that the answer is correct by validating a chain of digital signatures, by examining digital signatures at each level of the DNS hierarchy (or technically, at each “zone” in the delegation process). These digital signatures are generated using public key cryptography, a well-understood process that involves encryption using key pairs, one public and one private.
In a typical DNSSEC deployment, there are two active public keys per zone: a Key Signing Key (KSK) public key and a Zone Signing Key (ZSK) public key. (The reason for having two keys is so that one key can be changed locally, without the other key being changed.)
The responses returned to the resolver include digital signatures generated by either the corresponding KSK private key or the corresponding ZSK private key.
Using mathematical operations, the resolver checks all the digital signatures it receives in association with a given query. If they are valid, the resolver returns the “Digital Signature Validated” indicator to the client that initiated the query.
A convenient way to visualize the collection of digital signatures is as a “trust chain” from a “trust anchor” to the DNS record of interest, as shown in the figure above. The chain includes “chain links” at each level of the DNS hierarchy. Here’s how the “chain links” work:
The root KSK public key is the “trust anchor.” This key is widely distributed in resolvers so that they can independently authenticate digital signatures on records in the root zone, and thus authenticate everything else in the chain.
The root zone chain links consist of three parts:
The TLD zone chain links also consist of three parts:
The SLD zone chain links once more consist of three parts:
A resolver (or anyone else) can thereby verify the signature on any set of DNS records given the chain of public keys leading up to the trust anchor.
Note that this is a simplified view, and there are other details in practice. For instance, the various KSK public keys are also signed by their own private KSK, but I’ve omitted these signatures for brevity. The DNSViz tool provides a very nice interactive interface for browsing DNSSEC trust chains in detail, including the trust chain for example.com discussed here.
The effort to update the root KSK public key, the aforementioned “trust anchor” was one of the challenging and successful projects by the DNS community over the past couple of years. This initiative – the so-called “root KSK rollover” – was challenging because there was no easy way to determine whether resolvers actually had been updated to use the latest root KSK — remember that cryptography and security was added on rather than built into the DNS. There are many resolvers that needed to be updated, each independently managed.
The research paper “Roll, Roll, Roll your Root: A Comprehensive Analysis of the First Ever DNSSEC Root KSK Rollover” details the process of updating the root KSK. The paper, co-authored by Verisign researchers and external colleagues, received the distinguished paper award at the 2019 Internet Measurement Conference.
I’ve focused here on how a resolver validates correctness when the response to a query has a “positive” answer — i.e., when the DNS record exists. Checking correctness when the answer doesn’t exist gets even more interesting from a cryptographer’s perspective. I’ll cover this topic in my next post.
Read the complete six blog series:
The post The Domain Name System: A Cryptographer’s Perspective appeared first on Verisign Blog.
As we begin a new year, it is important to look back and reflect on our accomplishments and how we can continue to improve. A significant positive the DNS community could appreciate from 2020 is the receptiveness and responsiveness of the Chromium team to address the large amount of DNS queries being sent to the root server system.
In a previous blog post, we quantified that upwards of 45.80% of total DNS traffic to the root servers was, at the time, the result of Chromium intranet redirection detection tests. Since then, the Chromium team has redesigned its code to disable the redirection test on Android systems and introduced a multi-state DNS interception policy that supports disabling the redirection test for desktop browsers. This functionality was released mid-November of 2020 for Android systems in Chromium 87 and, quickly thereafter, the root servers experienced a rapid decline of DNS queries.
The figure below highlights the significant decline of query volume to the root server system immediately after the Chromium 87 release. Prior to the software release, the root server system saw peaks of ~143 billion queries per day. Traffic volumes have since decreased to ~84 billion queries a day. This represents more than a 41% reduction of total query volume.
This type of broad root system measurement is facilitated by ICANN’s Root Server System Advisory Committee standards document RSSAC002, which establishes a set of baseline metrics for the root server system. These root server metrics are readily available to the public for analysis, monitoring, and research. These metrics represent another milestone the DNS community could appreciate and continue to support and refine going forward.
Rightly noted in ICANN’s Root Name Service Strategy and Implementation publication, the root server system currently “faces growing volumes of traffic” from legitimate users but also from misconfigurations, misuse, and malicious actors and that “the costs incurred by the operators of the root server system continue to climb to mitigate these attacks using the traditional approach”.
As we reflect on how Chromium’s large impact to root server traffic was identified and then resolved, we as a DNS community could consider how outreach and engagement should be incorporated into a traditional approach of addressing DNS security, stability, and resiliency. All too often, technologists solve problems by introducing additional layers of technology abstractions and disregarding simpler solutions, such as outreach and engagement.
We believe our efforts show how such outreach and community engagement can have significant impact both to the parties directly involved, and to the broader community. Chromium’s actions will directly aide and ease the operational costs to mitigate attacks at the root. Reducing the root server system load by 41%, with potential further reduction depending on future Chromium deployment decisions, will lighten operational costs incurred to mitigate attacks by relinquishing their computing and network resources.
In pursuit of maintaining a responsible and common-sense root hygiene regimen, Verisign will continue to analyze root telemetry data and engage with entities such as Chromium to highlight operational concerns, just as Verisign has done in the past to address name collisions problems. We’ll be sharing more information on this shortly.
This piece was co-authored by Matt Thomas and Duane Wessels, Distinguished Engineers at Verisign.
The post Chromium’s Reduction of Root DNS Traffic appeared first on Verisign Blog.
FreshRSS 