1 / 6

TCP for DNS security considerations

TCP for DNS security considerations. Fernando Gont project carried out on behalf of UK CPNI 76th IETF meeting, November 8-13, 2009 Hiroshima, Japan. What are the issues?. TCP may be needed for DNS as a fall-back transport protocol when the answer to the query is large.

jimbo
Télécharger la présentation

TCP for DNS security considerations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TCP for DNS security considerations Fernando Gont project carried out on behalf of UK CPNI 76th IETF meeting, November 8-13, 2009 Hiroshima, Japan

  2. What are the issues? • TCP may be needed for DNS as a fall-back transport protocol when the answer to the query is large. • Relying on TCP for DNS is going from stateless to stateful • This opens the door to a number of Denial of Service vulnerabilities that are typical for a connection-oriented protocol: • Connection-flooding attacks: Naptha, FIN-WAIT-2 flooding, etc. • Send buffer issues: Netkill, closed windows, etc • Receive buffer issues: holes in the data stream • Blind attacks: that depend on predictable ISNs, ephemeral ports, etc. • Overhead issues arising from connection establishment/teardown

  3. Background needed to understand them • “Security Assessment of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)”, published by UK CPNI, available at: http://www.cpni.gov.uk/Docs/tn-03-09-security-assessment-TCP.pdf • An IETF I-D version of the document is currently a TCPM WG item: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security (but you probably want to look at draft-gont-tcp-security instead)

  4. What alternatives exist? • Go with larger UDP responses – this might lead to fragmentation… and fragmentation brings a lot of other issues (see draft-ietf-opsec-ip-security) • Use some other connection-oriented protocol – probably with the same issues as TCP… (and additional issues for NAT traversal). • A DNS-specific transport protocol? (e.g., draft-barwood-dnsext-dns-transport) • Use a tuned/hardened TCP – i.e., configure TCP settings so that the aforementioned issues are less of an issue (better if much of the resiliency machinery is “built-in”).

  5. Choices that need to be made • If connection establishment/teardown is a concern, some might think (actually, *have* thought) about “persistent connections” (as in HTTP) • Do they really make sense?? • To minimize state at the DNS server, the client could be required to perform the active close. Otherwise (e.g., idle connection) the server resets (RST) it. • How “liberal” we are with respect to the client behavior? • Number of concurrent connections • Idle-connections • Connections in, e.g., FIN-WAIT-2 state, TIME-WAIT state, etc. • Timing issues: RTO, closed windows, etc.

  6. Possible way forward • TCP for DNS tuning document? (in DNSEXT or DNSOP?) • Update Section 4.2.2 (“TCP usage”) in RFC 1035 in a DNSEXT document? • draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements currently has *some* text on the subject • Others?

More Related