Network Working Group W. Hardaker Internet-Draft USC/ISI Intended status: Best Current Practice V. Dukhovni Expires: August 22, 2021 Bloomberg, L.P. February 18, 2021 Guidance for NSEC3 parameter settings draft-hardaker-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-00 Abstract NSEC3 is a DNSSEC mechanism providing proof of non-existence by promising there are no names that exist between two domainnames within a zone. Unlike its counterpart NSEC, NSEC3 avoids directly disclosing the bounding domainname pairs. This document provides guidance on setting NSEC3 parameters based on recent operational deployment experience. 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 August 22, 2021. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 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 Hardaker & Dukhovni Expires August 22, 2021 [Page 1] Internet-Draft title February 2021 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Recommendation for zone publishers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.4. Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Recommendation for validating resolvers . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Appendix B. Github Version of this document . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Introduction As with NSEC [RFC4035], NSEC3 [RFC5155] provides proof of non- existence that consists of signed DNS records establishing the non- existence of a given name or associated Resource Record Type (RRTYPE) in a DNSSEC [RFC4035] signed zone. In the case of NSEC3, however, the names of valid nodes in the zone are obfuscated through (possibly multiple iterations of) hashing via SHA-1. (currently only SHA-1 is in use within the Internet). NSEC3 also provides "opt-out support", allowing for blocks of unsigned delegations to be covered by a single NSEC3 record. Opt-out blocks allow large registries to only sign as many NSEC3 records as there are signed DS or other RRsets in the zone - with opt-out, unsigned delegations don't require additional NSEC3 records. This sacrifices the tamper-resistance proof of non-existence offered by NSEC3 in order to reduce memory and CPU overheads. NSEC3 records have a number of tunable parameters that are specified via an NSEC3PARAM record at the zone apex. These parameters are the Hash Algorithm, processing Flags, the number of hash Iterations and the Salt. Each of these has security and operational considerations that impact both zone owners and validating resolvers. This document provides some best-practice recommendations for setting the NSEC3 parameters. Hardaker & Dukhovni Expires August 22, 2021 [Page 2] Internet-Draft title February 2021 1.1. Requirements notation 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. 2. Recommendation for zone publishers The following sections describe recommendations for setting parameters for NSEC3 and NSEC3PARAM. 2.1. Algorithms The algorithm field is not discussed by this document. 2.2. Flags The flags field currently contains a single flag, that of the "Opt- Out" flag [RFC5155], which specifies whether or not NSEC3 records provide proof of non-existence or not. In general, NSEC3 with the Opt-Out flag enabled should only be used in large, highly dynamic zones with a small percentage of signed delegations. Operationally, this allows for less signature creations when new delegations are inserted into a zone. This is typically only necessary for extremely large registration points providing zone updates faster than real- time signing allows. Smaller zones, or large but relatively static zones, are encouraged to use a Flags value of 0 (zero) and take advantage of DNSSEC's proof-of-non-existence support. 2.3. Iterations Generally increasing the number of iterations offers little improved protections for modern machinery. Although Section 10.3 of [RFC5155] specifies upper bounds for the number hash iterations to use, there is no published guidance on good values to select. Because hashing provides only moderate protection, as shown recently in academic studies of NSEC3 protected zones (tbd: insert ref), this document recommends using an iteration value of 0 (zero). This leaves the creating and verifying hashes with just one application of the hashing algorithm. 2.4. Salt Salts add yet another layer of protection against offline, stored dictionary attacks by using randomly generated values when creating new records. The length and usage of a salt value has little Hardaker & Dukhovni Expires August 22, 2021 [Page 3] Internet-Draft title February 2021 operational concerns beyond bandwidth requirements for transmitting the salt. Thus, the primary consideration is whether or not there is a security benefit to deploying signed zones with salt values. Operators may choose to use a salt for this reason, though it should be noted that the use of salts doesn't prevent against guess based approaches in offline attacks - only against memorization hash based lookups. Thus, the added value is minimal enough that operators may wish to deploy zones without a hash value at all. 3. Recommendation for validating resolvers Because there has been a large growth of open (public) DNSSEC validating resolvers that are subject to compute resource constraints when handling requests from anonymous clients, this document recommends that validating resolvers should change their behaviour with respect to large iteration values. Validating resolvers SHOULD return a SERVFAIL when processing NSEC3 records with iterations larger than 100. Note that this significantly decreases the requirements originally specified in Section 10.3 of [RFC5155]. 4. Security Considerations This entire document discusses security considerations with various parameters selections of NSEC3 and NSEC3PARAM fields. 5. Operational Considerations This entire document discusses operational considerations with various parameters selections of NSEC3 and NSEC3PARAM fields. 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [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, . [RFC5155] Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence", RFC 5155, DOI 10.17487/RFC5155, March 2008, . Hardaker & Dukhovni Expires August 22, 2021 [Page 4] Internet-Draft title February 2021 6.2. Informative References [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . Appendix A. Acknowledgments dns-operations discussion participants Appendix B. Github Version of this document While this document is under development, it can be viewed, tracked, issued, pushed with PRs, ... here: https://github.com/hardaker/draft-hardaker-dnsop-nsec3-guidance Authors' Addresses Wes Hardaker USC/ISI Email: ietf@hardakers.net Viktor Dukhovni Bloomberg, L.P. Email: ietf-dane@dukhovni.org Hardaker & Dukhovni Expires August 22, 2021 [Page 5]