📄 draft-ietf-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa-00.txt
字号:
IETF DNSOP Working Group Y. MorishitaInternet-Draft JPRSExpires: July 11, 2004 T. Jinmei Toshiba January 11, 2004 Common Misbehavior against DNS Queries for IPv6 Addresses draft-ietf-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa-00.txtStatus of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 11, 2004.Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.Abstract There is some known misbehavior of DNS authoritative servers when they are queried for AAAA resource records. Such behavior can block IPv4 communication which should actually be available, cause a significant delay in name resolution, or even make a denial of service attack. This memo describes details of the known cases and discusses the effect of the cases.1. Introduction Many DNS clients (resolvers) that support IPv6 first search for AAAA Resource Records (RRs) of a target host name, and then for A RRs ofMorishita & Jinmei Expires July 11, 2004 [Page 1]Internet-Draft Common Misbehavior against AAAA Queries January 2004 the same name. This fallback mechanism is based on the DNS specifications, which if not obeyed by authoritative servers can produce unpleasant results. In some cases, for example, a web browser fails to connect to a web server it could otherwise. In the following sections, this memo describes some typical cases of the misbehavior and its (bad) effects. Note that the misbehavior is not specific to AAAA RRs. In fact, all known examples also apply to the cases of queries for MX, NS, and SOA RRs. The authors even believe this can be generalized for all types of queries other than those for A RRs. In this memo, however, we concentrate on the case for AAAA queries, since the problem is particularly severe for resolvers that support IPv6, which thus affects many end users. Resolvers at end users normally send A and/or AAAA queries only, and so the problem for the other cases is relatively minor.2. Network Model In this memo, we assume a typical network model of name resolution environment using DNS. It consists of three components; stub resolvers, caching servers, and authoritative servers. A stub resolver issues a recursive query to a caching server, which then handles the entire name resolution procedure recursively. The caching server caches the result of the query as well as sends the result to the stub resolver. The authoritative servers respond to queries for names for which they have the authority, normally in a non-recursive manner.3. Expected Behavior Suppose that an authoritative server has an A RR but not a AAAA RR for a host name. Then the server should return a response to a query for a AAAA RR of the name with the RCODE being 0 (indicating no error) and with an empty answer section [1]. Such a response indicates that there is at least one RR of a different type than AAAA for the queried name, and the stub resolver can then look for A RRs. This way, the caching server can cache the fact that the queried name does not have a AAAA RR (but may have other types of RRs), and thus can improve the response time to further queries for a AAAA RR of the name.4. Problematic Behaviors There are some known cases at authoritative servers that do not conform to the expected behavior. This section describes those problematic cases.Morishita & Jinmei Expires July 11, 2004 [Page 2]Internet-Draft Common Misbehavior against AAAA Queries January 20044.1 Return NXDOMAIN This type of server returns a response with the RCODE being 3 (NXDOMAIN) to a query for a AAAA RR, indicating it does not have any RRs of any type for the queried name. With this response, the stub resolver may immediately give up and never fall back. Even if the resolver retries with a query for an A RR, the negative response for the name has been cached in the caching server, and the caching server will simply return the negative response. As a result, the stub resolver considers this as a fatal error in name resolution. There have been several known examples of this behavior, but all the examples that the authors know have changed their behavior as of this writing.4.2 Return NOTIMP Other authoritative servers return a response with the RCODE being 4 (NOTIMP), indicating the servers do not support the requested type of query. This case is less harmful than the previous one; if the stub resolver falls back to querying for an A RR, the caching server will process the query correctly and return an appropriate response. In this case, the caching server does not cache the fact that the queried name has no AAAA RR, resulting in redundant queries for AAAA RRs in the future. The behavior will waste network bandwidth and increase the load of the authoritative server. Using SERVFAIL or FORMERR would cause the same effect, though the authors have not seen such implementations yet.4.3 Return a Broken Response Another different type of authoritative servers returns broken responses to AAAA queries. A known behavior of this category is to return a response whose RR type is AAAA, but the length of the RDATA is 4 bytes. The 4-byte data looks like the IPv4 address of the queried host name. That is, the RR in the answer section would be described like this: www.bad.example. 600 IN AAAA 192.0.2.1 which is, of course, bogus (or at least meaningless).Morishita & Jinmei Expires July 11, 2004 [Page 3]Internet-Draft Common Misbehavior against AAAA Queries January 2004 A widely deployed caching server implementation transparently returns the broken response (as well as caches it) to the stub resolver. Another known server implementation parses the response by themselves, and sends a separate response with the RCODE being 2 (SERVFAIL). In either case, the broken response does not affect queries for an A RR of the same name. If the stub resolver falls back to A queries, it will get an appropriate response. The latter case, however, causes the same bad effect as that described in the previous section: redundant queries for AAAA RRs.4.4 Make Lame Delegation Some authoritative servers respond to AAAA queries in a way causing lame delegation. In this case the parent zone specifies that the authoritative server should have the authority of a zone, but the server does not return an authoritative response for AAAA queries within the zone (i.e., the AA bit in the response is not set). On the other hand, the authoritative server returns an authoritative response for A queries. When a caching server asks the server for AAAA RRs in the zone, it recognizes the delegation is lame, and return a response with the RCODE being 2 (SERVFAIL) to the stub resolver. Furthermore, some caching servers record the authoritative server as lame for the zone and will not use it for a certain period of time. With this type of caching server, even if the stub resolver falls back to querying for an A RR, the caching server will simply return a response with the RCODE being SERVFAIL, since all the servers are known to be "lame." There is also an implementation that relaxes the behavior a little bit. It basically tries to avoid using the lame server, but still continues to try it as a last resort. With this type of caching server, the stub resolver will get a correct response if it falls back after SERVFAIL. However, this still causes redundant AAAA queries as explained in the previous sections.4.5 Ignore Queries for AAAA Some authoritative severs seem to ignore queries for a AAAA RR, causing a delay at the stub resolver to fall back to a query for an A RR. This behavior may even cause a fatal timeout at the resolver.Morishita & Jinmei Expires July 11, 2004 [Page 4]Internet-Draft Common Misbehavior against AAAA Queries January 20045. Security Considerations The CERT/CC pointed out that the response with NXDOMAIN described in Section 4.1 can be used for a denial of service attack [2]. The same argument applies to the case of "lame delegation" described in Section 4.4 with a certain type of caching server.6. Acknowledgements Erik Nordmark encouraged the authors to publish this document as an Internet Draft. Akira Kato and Paul Vixie reviewed a preliminary version of this document. Pekka Savola carefully reviewed a previous version and provided detailed comments.Informative References [1] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES", RFC 1034, November 1987. [2] The CERT Coordination Center, "Incorrect NXDOMAIN responses from AAAA queries could cause denial-of-service conditions", March 2003, <http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/714121>.Authors' Addresses
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -