Dear DNSOP,

RFC 7344 describes DS rollovers using CDS/CDNSKEY records. It does not 
prescribe how the CDS/CDNSKEY records should be retrieved. On the contrary, it 
is fully left open (Section 6.1):

   How the Parental Agent gets the CDS/CDNSKEY RRset may differ.  Below
   are two examples of how this can take place.

This poses a problem in conjunction with multi-signer setups, which may be 
gaining traction (RFC 8901, draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-automation).


The problem is: when the CDS/CDNSKEY are retrieved "normally" using a 
validating resolver (and then checked as required in Section 4.1), chances are that 
records are retrieved from one nameserver only (that is, without checking for consistency 
across other NS hostnames).

In a multi-signer setup, this means that a single provider can (accidentally or 
maliciously) roll the DS record at the parent. IMO the most likely scenario 
would be that a provider performs a key rollover and then accidentally 
publishes CDS/CDNSKEY records for its own keys. As a result, the other 
providers' DS records would be removed from the parent, breaking the zone for 
some or all queries.


Regardless of whether that's likely to happen or not: a single provider should 
not be in the position to remove the other providers' trust anchors. It is 
therefore necessary to either

(1) require the parent to make sure that other provider's DS records remain 
available (but there is no reliable way of ascribing them, especially for 
pre-published standby DS records); or

(2) require providers to agree on what are the proper CDS/CDNSKEY record sets, 
so that any error by a single party is effectively vetoed.

I thus propose to update RFC 7344 along the lines of (2), such that it is 
REQUIRED to retrieve CDS/CDNSKEY records using queries to all authoritative 
nameservers.

Such a change would also prevent CDS/CDNSKEY loops, where one secondary has a 
replication issue and keeps announcing an old C* RRset (and the parent happens 
to retrieve alternating information during daily scans, for example).

Does the WG think this is a reasonable thing to pursue?

Thoughts welcome.

Best,
Peter

--
https://desec.io/

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to