[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
[tor-dev] [draft] Proposal 219: Support for full DNS and DNSSEC resolution in Tor
This is a proposal of Ondrej's from last year that I've edited a
little, with permission. I'm assigning it a number so that we can
keep it on the radar. Discussion invited! Let's try to answer the
open questions too.
Filename: 219-expanded-dns.txt
Title: Support for full DNS and DNSSEC resolution in Tor
Authors: Ondrej Mikle
Created: 4 February 2012
Modified: 2 August 2013
Target: 0.2.5.x
Status: Draft
0. Overview
Adding support for any DNS query type to Tor.
0.1. Motivation
Many applications running over Tor need more than just resolving FQDN to
IPv4 and vice versa. Sometimes to prevent DNS leaks the applications have to
be hacked around to be supplied necessary data by hand (e.g. SRV records in
XMPP). TLS connections will benefit from planned TLSA record that provides
certificate pinning to avoid another Diginotar-like fiasco.
0.2. What about DNSSEC?
Routine DNSSEC resolution is not practical with this proposal alone,
because of round-trip issues: a single name lookup can require
dozens of round trips across a circuit, rendering it very slow. (We
don't want to add minutes to every webpage load time!)
For records like TLSA that need extra signing, this might not be an
unacceptable amount of overhead, but routine hostname lookup, it's
probably overkill.
[Further, thanks to the changes of proposal 205, DNSSEC for routine
hostname lookup is less useful in Tor than it might have been back
when we cached IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and used them across multiple
circuits and exit nodes.]
See section 8 below for more discussion of DNSSEC issues.
1. Design
1.1 New cells
There will be two new cells, RELAY_DNS_BEGIN and RELAY_DNS_RESPONSE (we'll
use DNS_BEGIN and DNS_RESPONSE for short below).
1.1.1. DNS_BEGIN
DNS_BEGIN payload:
FLAGS [2 octets]
DNS packet data (variable length, up to length of relay cell.)
The DNS packet must be generated internally by Tor to avoid
fingerprinting users by differences in client resolvers' behavior.
[XXXX We need to specify the exact behavior here: saying "Just do what
Libunbound does!" would make it impossible to implement a
Tor-compatible client without reverse-engineering libunbound. - NM]
The FLAGS field is reserved, and should be set to 0 by all clients.
Because of the maximum length of the RELAY cell, the DNS packet may
not be longer than 496 bytes. [XXXX Is this enough? -NM]
Some fields in the query must be omitted or set to zero: see section 3
below.
1.1.2. DNS_RESPONSE
DNS_RESPONSE payload:
STATUS [1 octet]
CONTENT [variable, up to length of relay cell]
If the low bit of STATUS is set, this is the last DNS_RESPONSE that
the server will send in response to the given DNS_BEGIN. Otherwise,
there will be more DNS_RESPONSE packets. The other bits are reserved,
and should be set to zero for now.
The CONTENT fields of the DNS_RESPONSE cells contain a DNS record,
split across multiple cells as needed, encoded as:
total length (2 octets)
data (variable)
So for example, if the DNS record R1 is only 300 bytes long, then it
is sent in a single DNS_RESPONSE cell with payload [01 01 2C] R1. But
if the DNS record R2 is 1024 bytes long, it's sent in 3 DNS_RESPONSE
cells, with contents: [00 04 00] R2[0:495], [00] R2[495:992], and
[01] R2[992:1024] respectively.
[NOTE: I'm using the length field and the is-this-the-last-cell
field to allow multi-packet responses in the future. -NM]
AXFR and IXRF are not supported in this cell by design (see
specialized tool below in section 5).
1.1.3. Matching queries to responses.
DNS_BEGIN must use a non-zero, distinct StreamID. The client MUST NOT
re-use the same stream ID until it has received a complete response
from the server or a RELAY_END cell.
The client may cancel a DNS_BEGIN request by sending a RELAY_END cell.
The server may refused to answer, or abort answering, a DNS_BEGIN cell
by sending a RELAY_END cell.
2. Interfaces to applications
DNSPort evdns - existing implementation will be updated to use
DNS_BEGIN.
[XXXX we should add a dig-like tool that can work over the socksport
via some extension, as tor-resolve does now. -NM]
3. Limitations on DNS query
Clients must only set query class to IN (INTERNET), since the only
other useful class CHAOS is practical for directly querying
authoritative servers (OR in this case acts as a recursive resolver).
Servers MUST return REFUSED for any for class other than IN.
Multiple questions in a single packet are not supported and OR will
respond with REFUSED as the DNS error code.
All query RR types are allowed.
[XXXX I originally thought about some exit policy like "basic RR types" and
"all RRs", but managing such list in deployed nodes with extra directory
flags outweighs the benefit. Maybe disallow ANY RR type? -OM]
Client as well as OR MUST block attempts to resolve local RFC 1918,
4193, or 4291 adresses (PTR). REFUSED will be returned as DNS error
code from OR. [XXXX Must they also refuse to report addresses that
resolve to these? -NM]
[XXX I don't think so. People often use public DNS
records that map to private adresses. We can't effectively separate
"truly public" records from the ones client's dnsmasq or similar DNS
resolver returns. - OM]
[XXX Then do you mean "must be returned as the DNS error from the OP"?]
Request for special names (.onion, .exit, .noconnect) must never be
sent, and will return REFUSED.
The DNS transaction ID field MUST be set to zero in all requests and
replies; the stream ID field plays the same function in Tor.
4. Implementation notes
Client will periodically purge incomplete DNS replies. Any unexpected
DNS_RESPONSE will be dropped.
AD flag must be zeroed out on client unless validation is performed.
[XXXX libunbound lowlevel API, Tor+libunbound libevent loop
libunbound doesn't publicly expose all the necessary parts of low-level API.
It can return the received DNS packet, but not let you construct a packet
and get it in wire-format, for example.
Options I see:
a) patch libunbound to be able feed wire-format DNS packets and add API to
obtain constructed packets instead of sending over network
b) replace bufferevents for sockets in unbound with something like
libevent's paired bufferevents. This means that data extracted from
DNS_RESPONSE/DNS_BEGIN cells would be fed directly to some evbuffers that
would be picked up by libunbound. It could possibly result in avoiding
background thread of libunbound's ub_resolve_async running separate libevent
loop.
c) bind to some arbitrary local address like 127.1.2.3:53 and use it as
forwarder for libunbound. The code there would pack/unpack the DNS packets
from/to libunbound into DNS_BEGIN/DNS_RESPONSE cells. It wouldn't require
modification of libunbound code, but it's not pretty either. Also the bind
port must be 53 which usually requires superuser privileges.
Code of libunbound is fairly complex for me to see outright what would the
best approach be.
]
5. Separate tool for AXFR
The AXFR tool will have similar interface like tor-resolve, but will
return raw DNS data.
Parameters are: query domain, server IP of authoritative DNS.
The tool will transfer the data through "ordinary" tunnel using RELAY_BEGIN
and related cells.
This design decision serves two goals:
- DNS_BEGIN and DNS_RESPONSE will be simpler to implement (lower chance of
bugs)
- in practice it's often useful do AXFR queries on secondary authoritative
DNS servers
IXFR will not be supported (infrequent corner case, can be done by manual
tunnel creation over Tor if truly necessary).
6. Security implications
As proposal 171 mentions, we need mitigate circuit correlation. One solution
would be keeping multiple streams to multiple exit nodes and picking one at
random for DNS resolution. Other would be keeping DNS-resolving circuit open
only for a short time (e.g. 1-2 minutes). Randomly changing the circuits
however means that it would probably incur additional latency since there
would likely be a few cache misses on the newly selected exits.
[This needs more analysis; We need to consider the possible attacks
here. It would be good to have a way to tie requests to
SocksPorts, perhaps? -NM]
7. TTL normalization idea
A bit complex on implementation, because it requires parsing DNS packets at
exit node.
TTL in reply DNS packet MUST be normalized at exit node so that client won't
learn what other clients queried. The normalization is done in following
way:
- for a RR, the original TTL value received from authoritative DNS server
should be used when sending DNS_RESPONSE, trimming the values to interval
[5, 600]
- does not pose "ghost-cache-attack", since once RR is flushed from
libunbound's cache, it must be fetched anew
8. DNSSEC notes
8.1. Where to do the resolution?
DNSSEC is part of the DNS protocol and the most appropriate place for DNSSEC
API would be probably in OS libraries (e.g. libc). However that will
probably take time until it becomes widespread.
On the Tor's side (as opposed to application's side), DNSSEC will provide
protection against DNS cache-poisoning attacks (provided that exit is not
malicious itself, but still reduces attack surface).
8.2. Round trips and serialization
Following are two examples of resolving two A records. The one for
addons.mozila.org is an example of a "common" RR without CNAME/DNAME, the
other for www.gov.cn an extreme example chained through 5 CNAMEs and 3 TLDs.
The examples below are shown for resolving that started with an empty DNS
cache.
Note that multiple queries are made by libunbound as it tries to adjust for
the latency of network. "Standard query response" below that does not list
RR type is a negative NOERROR reply with NSEC/NSEC3 (usually reply to DS
query).
The effect of DNS cache plays a great role - once DS/DNSKEY for root and a
TLD is cached, at most 3 records usually need to be fetched for a record
that does not utilize CNAME/DNAME (3 roundtrips for DS, DNSKEY and the
record itself if there are no zone cuts below).
Query for addons.mozilla.org, 6 roundtrips (not counting retries):
Standard query A addons.mozilla.org
Standard query A addons.mozilla.org
Standard query A addons.mozilla.org
Standard query A addons.mozilla.org
Standard query A addons.mozilla.org
Standard query response A 63.245.217.112 RRSIG
Standard query response A 63.245.217.112 RRSIG
Standard query response A 63.245.217.112 RRSIG
Standard query A addons.mozilla.org
Standard query response A 63.245.217.112 RRSIG
Standard query response A 63.245.217.112 RRSIG
Standard query A addons.mozilla.org
Standard query response A 63.245.217.112 RRSIG
Standard query response A 63.245.217.112 RRSIG
Standard query DNSKEY <Root>
Standard query DNSKEY <Root>
Standard query response DNSKEY DNSKEY RRSIG
Standard query response DNSKEY DNSKEY RRSIG
Standard query DS org
Standard query response DS DS RRSIG
Standard query DNSKEY org
Standard query response DNSKEY DNSKEY DNSKEY DNSKEY RRSIG RRSIG
Standard query DS mozilla.org
Standard query response DS RRSIG
Standard query DNSKEY mozilla.org
Standard query response DNSKEY DNSKEY DNSKEY RRSIG RRSIG
Query for www.gov.cn, 16 roundtrips (not counting retries):
Standard query A www.gov.cn
Standard query A www.gov.cn
Standard query A www.gov.cn
Standard query A www.gov.cn
Standard query A www.gov.cn
Standard query response CNAME www.gov.chinacache.net CNAME
www.gov.cncssr.chinacache.net CNAME www.gov.foreign.ccgslb.com CNAME
wac.0b51.edgecastcdn.net CNAME gp1.wac.v2cdn.net A 68.232.35.119
Standard query response CNAME www.gov.chinacache.net CNAME
www.gov.cncssr.chinacache.net CNAME www.gov.foreign.ccgslb.com CNAME
wac.0b51.edgecastcdn.net CNAME gp1.wac.v2cdn.net A 68.232.35.119
Standard query A www.gov.cn
Standard query response CNAME www.gov.chinacache.net CNAME
www.gov.cncssr.chinacache.net CNAME www.gov.foreign.ccgslb.com CNAME
wac.0b51.edgecastcdn.net CNAME gp1.wac.v2cdn.net A 68.232.35.119
Standard query response CNAME www.gov.chinacache.net CNAME
www.gov.cncssr.chinacache.net CNAME www.gov.foreign.ccgslb.com CNAME
wac.0b51.edgecastcdn.net CNAME gp1.wac.v2cdn.net A 68.232.35.119
Standard query response CNAME www.gov.chinacache.net CNAME
www.gov.cncssr.chinacache.net CNAME www.gov.foreign.ccgslb.com CNAME
wac.0b51.edgecastcdn.net CNAME gp1.wac.v2cdn.net A 68.232.35.119
Standard query A www.gov.cn
Standard query response CNAME www.gov.chinacache.net CNAME
www.gov.cncssr.chinacache.net CNAME www.gov.foreign.ccgslb.com CNAME
wac.0b51.edgecastcdn.net CNAME gp1.wac.v2cdn.net A 68.232.35.119
Standard query response CNAME www.gov.chinacache.net CNAME
www.gov.cncssr.chinacache.net CNAME www.gov.foreign.ccgslb.com CNAME
wac.0b51.edgecastcdn.net CNAME gp1.wac.v2cdn.net A 68.232.35.119
Standard query A www.gov.chinacache.net
Standard query response CNAME www.gov.cncssr.chinacache.net CNAME
www.gov.foreign.ccgslb.com CNAME wac.0b51.edgecastcdn.net CNAME
gp1.wac.v2cdn.net A 68.232.35.119
Standard query A www.gov.cncssr.chinacache.net
Standard query response CNAME www.gov.foreign.ccgslb.com CNAME
wac.0b51.edgecastcdn.net CNAME gp1.wac.v2cdn.net A 68.232.35.119
Standard query A www.gov.foreign.ccgslb.com
Standard query response CNAME wac.0b51.edgecastcdn.net CNAME
gp1.wac.v2cdn.net A 68.232.35.119
Standard query A wac.0b51.edgecastcdn.net
Standard query response CNAME gp1.wac.v2cdn.net A 68.232.35.119
Standard query A gp1.wac.v2cdn.net
Standard query response A 68.232.35.119
Standard query DNSKEY <Root>
Standard query response DNSKEY DNSKEY RRSIG
Standard query DS cn
Standard query response
Standard query DS net
Standard query response DS RRSIG
Standard query DNSKEY net
Standard query response DNSKEY DNSKEY RRSIG
Standard query DS chinacache.net
Standard query response
Standard query DS com
Standard query response DS RRSIG
Standard query DNSKEY com
Standard query response DNSKEY DNSKEY RRSIG
Standard query DS ccgslb.com
Standard query response
Standard query DS edgecastcdn.net
Standard query response
Standard query DS v2cdn.net
Standard query response
An obvious idea to avoid so many roundtrips is to serialize them together.
There has been an attempt to standardize such "DNSSEC stapling" [1], however
it's incomplete for the general case, mainly due to various intricacies -
proofs of non-existence, NSEC3 opt-out zones, TTL handling (see RFC 4035
section 5).
References:
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg02823.html
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev