Network Working Group S. Bortzmeyer
Internet-Draft AFNIC
Intended status: Informational October 22, 2014
Expires: April 25, 2015
DNS query name minimisation to improve privacy
draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00
Abstract
This document describes one of the techniques that could be used to
improve DNS privacy (see [I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy]), a
technique called "qname minimisation".
Discussions of the document should take place on the DNSOP working
group mailing list [dnsop].
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 http://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 April 25, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Bortzmeyer Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Qname minimisation October 2014
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Qname minimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Operational considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Other advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. An algorithm to find the zone cut . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction and background
The problem statement is exposed in
[I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy]. The terminology ("qname",
"resolver", etc) is also defined in this companion document. This
specific solution is not intended to completely solve the problem,
far from it. It is better to see it as one tool among a toolbox.
It follows the principle explained in section 6.1 of [RFC6973]: the
less data you send out, the less privacy problems you'll get.
2. Qname minimisation
The idea is to minimise the amount of data sent from the DNS
resolver. When a resolver receives the query "What is the AAAA
record for www.example.com?", it sends to the root (assuming a cold
resolver, whose cache is empty) the very same question. Sending
"What are the NS records for .com?" would be sufficient (since it
will be the answer from the root anyway). To do so would be
compatible with the current DNS system and therefore could be easily
deployable, since it is an unilateral change to the resolvers.
If "minimisation" is too long, you can write it "m12n".
Bortzmeyer Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Qname minimisation October 2014
To do such minimisation, the resolver needs to know the zone cut
[RFC2181]. There is not a zone cut at every label boundary. If we
take the name www.foo.bar.example, it is possible that there is a
zone cut between "foo" and "bar" but not between "bar" and "example".
So, assuming the resolver already knows the name servers of .example,
when it receives the query "What is the AAAA record of
www.foo.bar.example", it does not always know if the request should
be sent to the name servers of bar.example or to those of example.
[RFC2181] suggests a method to find the zone cut (section 6), so
resolvers may try it.
Note that DNSSEC-validating resolvers already have access to this
information, since they have to find the zone cut (the DNSKEY record
set is just below, the DS record set just above).
It can be noted that minimising the amount of data sent also
partially addresses the case of a wire sniffer, not just the case of
privacy invasion by the servers.
One should note that the behaviour suggested here (minimising the
amount of data sent in qnames) is NOT forbidden by the [RFC1034]
(section 5.3.3) or [RFC1035] (section 7.2). Sending the full qname
to the authoritative name server is a tradition, not a protocol
requirment.
3. Operational considerations
The administrators of the forwarders, and of the authoritative name
servers, will get less data, which will reduce the utility of the
statistics they can produce (such as the percentage of the various
qtypes). On the other hand, it will decrease their legal
responsability, in many cases.
Some broken name servers do not react properly to qtype=NS requests.
As an example of today, look at www.ratp.fr (not ratp.fr), which is
delegated to two name servers that reply properly to "A www.ratp.fr"
queries but send REFUSED to queries "NS www.ratp.fr". This behaviour
is a gross protocol violation and there is no need to stop improving
the DNS because of such brokenness. However, qname minimisation may
still work with such domains since they are only leaf domains (no
need to send them NS requests). Anyway, such setup breaks many
things (besides qname minimisation), it breaks negative answers as
the servers don't return the correct SOA. It also breaks anything
that depends on NS and SOA records existing at the top of the zone.
Another way to deal with such broken name servers would be to try
with A requests (A being choosen because it is the most common and
hence the least revealing qtype). Instead of querying name servers
Bortzmeyer Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Qname minimisation October 2014
with a query "NS example.com", we could use "A _.example.com" and see
if we get a referral.
Other strange and illegal practice may pose a problem: for instance,
there is a common DNS anti-pattern used by low-end web hosters that
also do DNS hosting that exploits the fact that the DNS protocol
(pre-DNSSEC) allows certain serious misconfigurations, such as parent
and child zones disagreeing on the location of a zone cut.
Basically, they have a single zone with wildcards like:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
*.com. 60 IN A 74.220.199.6
; and:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
*.uk. 60 IN A 74.220.199.6
; etc.
(It is not known why they don't just wildcard all of "*." and be done
with it.)
This lets them turn up tons of web hosting customers without having
to configure thousands of individual zones on their nameservers.
They just tell the prospective customer to point their NS records at
their nameservers, and the Web hoster doesn't have to provision
anything in order to make the customer's domain resolve.
Qname minimisation can decrease performance in some cases, for
instance for a deep domain name (like
www.host.group.department.example.com where
host.group.department.example.com is hosted on example.com's name
servers). For such a name, a cold resolver will, depending how qname
minimisation is implemented, send more queries. Once warm, there
will be no difference with a traditional resolver. A possible
solution is to always use the traditional algorithm when the cache is
cold and then to move to qname minimisation. This will decrease the
privacy a bit but will guarantee no degradation of performance.
4. Other advantages
The main goal of qname minimisation is to improve privacy, by sending
less data. However, it may have other advantages. For instance, if
a root name server receives a query from some resolver for A.CORP
followed by B.CORP followed by C.CORP, the result will be three
NXDOMAINs, since .CORP does not exist in the root zone. Under query
Bortzmeyer Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Qname minimisation October 2014
minimization, the root name servers would hear only one question (for
.CORP itself) to which they could answer NXDOMAIN, thus opening up a
negative caching opportunity in which the full resolver could know a
priori that neither B.CORP or C.CORP could exist. Thus in this
common case the total number of upstream queries under query
minimisation would be counter-intuitively less than the number of
queries under the traditional iteration (as described in the DNS
standard).
5. Security considerations
No security consequence (besides privacy improvment) is known at this
time.
6. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Olaf Kolkman for the original idea. Thanks to Mark Andrews
and Francis Dupont for the interesting discussions. Thanks to Mohsen
Souissi for proofreading. Thanks to Tony Finch for the zone cut
algorithm in Appendix A. Thanks to Paul Vixie for pointing out that
there are practical advantages (besides privacy) to qname m12n.
Thanks to Phillip Hallam-Baker for the fallback on A queries, to deal
with broken servers. Thanks to Robert Edmonds for an interesting
anti-pattern.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July
2013.
[I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy]
Bortzmeyer, S., "DNS privacy considerations", draft-
bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy-02 (work in progress), April
2014.
Bortzmeyer Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Qname minimisation October 2014
7.2. Informative References
[RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.
[dprive] IETF, , "The DPRIVE working group of IETF", March 2014,
.
[dnsop] IETF, , "The DNSOP working group of IETF", March 2014,
.
Appendix A. An algorithm to find the zone cut
Although a validating resolver already has the logic to find the zone
cut, other resolvers may be interested by this algorithm to follow in
order to locate this cut:
(0) If the query can be answered from the cache, do so, otherwise
iterate as follows:
(1) Find closest enclosing NS RRset in your cache. The owner of
this NS RRset will be a suffix of the QNAME - the longest suffix
of any NS RRset in the cache. Call this PARENT.
(2) Initialize CHILD to the same as PARENT.
(3) If CHILD is the same as the QNAME, resolve the original query
using PARENT's name servers, and finish.
(4) Otherwise, add a label from the QNAME to the start of CHILD.
(5) If you have a negative cache entry for the NS RRset at CHILD,
go back to step 3.
(6) Query for CHILD IN NS using PARENT's name servers. The
response can be:
(6a) A referral. Cache the NS RRset from the authority section
and go back to step 1.
(6b) An authoritative answer. Cache the NS RRset from the
answer section and go back to step 1.
(6c) An NXDOMAIN answer. Return an NXDOMAIN answer in response
to the original query and stop.
(6d) A NOERROR/NODATA answer. Cache this negative answer and
go back to step 3.
Bortzmeyer Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Qname minimisation October 2014
Author's Address
Stephane Bortzmeyer
AFNIC
1, rue Stephenson
Montigny-le-Bretonneux 78180
France
Phone: +33 1 39 30 83 46
Email: bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr
URI: http://www.afnic.fr/
Bortzmeyer Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 7]