Why I have set-up DNSSEC here

In recent times it is likely that http access to this website is going to be blocked and https will become the preferred system, and doing nothing may no longer be a good option.

https also lets access between here and readers be obfuscated so that intermediaries will find it difficult to read.

We have a big problem in that https needs an introducer to get the remote end to trust our keys. The common system is a certificate authority that user software trusts. I am not too fond of making a guarantee of the legal sort to keep keys secret, though it is not ruled out and may go for this. In recent times the user agreement of free CA has softened, making "reasonable".

Something wrong with the trust model?

https has the idea of certificate authorities, and sets of these are distributed with web browsers and operating systems. This has the effect of making the browser supplier into a hyper certificate authority, deciding exactly for its users what they should trust, in a top down model.

This vetting is supposedly more rigorous than that ran by such CA, that is, check out the holder of a public key holds a specific domain or, maybe, try to discover if it is a specific organisation.

Installing itself as a master-ca does put the browser vendor in effective control of users reading list, possibly ready for discrete seizure by its host country.

How I might like it to be.

Saying that a public key belongs to a domain names attracts a technical resolution. The DNSSEC with TLSA provides this chain. There are then no new contracts to sign beyond the one we already have with the domain registry.

Traditional CA may try to fight this as it will be no longer necessary to sign keys on the basis of domain control, and it looks like they are out of business; They are not, because there remains much use for trust chains independent of the domain system.

The preferable resolution may be of a web of trust, where the server public key to be signed many times, in different certificates, from various trust sources.

If I look at a https connection, for a low risk transaction such as casual web browsing then only the DNSSEC asserted TLSA may be satisfactory.

If it is more important then the website's certificate shall be countersigned in x509 by the regulators of the activity it carries out, so I can tell if it has consumer protection. The browser will show carry the national flag of the country of the regulation, and a small logo of the regulated activity in the trust padlock.

Multiple regulated activities or valid countries are less likely, though better be handled.

If it is even more important, it is my friend website, then an exchange of roots via business card can be considered.

DNSSEC distrust issues

Weak keys at the root

It is asserted that 1024 bits is too weak and 2048 and even 4096 is wanted.

Browsers might well not be interested in embedding my keys or having a shadow registry of all sites. This is even as there are many activities covering surveys.

They might like to manually collect the KSK of the top level domains where these are stronger, and trust those, maybe registry can send them in as a QR code as a postcard, or display it on their building.

Also, are a big internet company with its own registered autonomous system and exchange directly with the top level domain operator might assess record accuracy directly.

Can you hide records?

I think so. I can operate sub-domains replete with DS record which point at substation primaries that are not accessible to the internet, so you can have hidden.sub.my.example.

These machines might even be completely disconnected, since it is just given the KSK private part, with the public part generating the DS which goes in the upstream zone, and only when rolling over KSK, the machine gets updates, and never need to send data outside.

The KSK will be accessible, and the private half given to the hidden server, just to sign its internal ZSK.

This seems to be asked in the context of enterprises who want confidential branches of the DNS.

Even with that, there is NSEC3

DNSSEC and DDoS

Has to do with replies being bigger than their requests. Generic resolution would be to pad requests to the expected response size.

Domain Seizure / Governments / etc …

Though can't have a domain that is permanently mine per standard, the counter signatory should negate this, as the transferred domain will have a different key unless the seizure included the original key.

Make the counter signatory time line short, and they refuse to sign the subverted key.

System Implementation

So many algorithms to choose from

We can dump the list of methods presented by ldns-keygen -k -a list

LabelIndex numberCommentary
RSAMD5001MD5 is very weak against attacks.
RSASHA1005SHA1 still quite weak
RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1007Same thing as RSASHA1 with a hint that NSEC3 is in use.
RSASHA256008SHA256, probbaly NSEC3+ assumed from here onwards.
RSASHA512010SHA512 stronger still
ECC-GOST012First elliptic curve
ECDSAP256SHA256013Elliptic curve with a stronger hash
ECDSAP384SHA384014Elliptic curve stronger hash

Rebuild a zone

Herein follows the nearly actual scripts used to rebuild my certs automatically on Certificate Saturday. It is essential to script it. First thing is a script to sign the indiviual zone.

I am using nsd and unbound on Debian, some nsd config is needed to tell it to read .zone.signed files instead.

  1. #!/bin/bash
  2. shopt -s nullglob
  3. Z=$1
  4. DOMAIN=${Z:0:$(( ${#Z} -5 )) }
  5. ZSK=0
  6. KSK=0
  7. for N in K${DOMAIN}.+???+?????.key;
  8. do
    1. F="$(<$N cut -f4 | cut -d" " -f1)";
    2. if test "${F}" = "256";
    3. then
      1. ZSK=$(( $ZSK + 1));
    4. fi;
    5. if test "${F}" = "257";
    6. then
      1. KSK=$(( $KSK + 1));
    7. fi;
  9. done
  10. if test "${ZSK}" -eq 0
  11. then
    1. echo creating zsk
    2. ldns-keygen -a RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 -b 2048 ${DOMAIN}
    3. #ldns-keygen -a ECDSAP384SHA384 -b 2048 ${DOMAIN}
  12. fi
  13. if test "${KSK}" -eq 0
  14. then
    1. ldns-keygen -k -a RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 -b 4096 ${DOMAIN}
    2. #ldns-keygen -k -a ECDSAP384SHA384 -b 4096 ${DOMAIN}
  15. fi
  16. KEYS=`for N in K${DOMAIN}.+???+?????.private; do echo ${N:0:$(( ${#N} - 8)) }; done| sort | uniq`
  17. dns-signzone -n -p -s $(hexdump -ve \"%08x\" -n 8 /dev/random) $DOMAIN.zone $KEYS
  18. ldns-key2ds -n -1 $DOMAIN.zone.signed && ldns-key2ds -n -2 $DOMAIN.zone.signed

Could run as if rebuild my.example.zone; nsd-control reload; killall -HUP nsd

This is for signing a zone with a ZSK, itself signed by a KSK.

If the keys need changing because they are stale or did not exist before, they are regenerated, though if KSK is updated the new key must be added to the upstream zone in the from of DS records for the delegation to remain valid.

To aid in key rotation, the delegation is to be treated as valid if any DS are correct so the DS records for disused and especially weak or compromised keys should be removed quickly.

Since this step has to be rerun everytime that there are zonefile changes it is useful to keep it in a separate file, then NSD is told to reload the zone to make it available.

Templating OpenSSL

I found it is useful to make separate .cnf file for each certificate being maintained, here e.g. _5269._tcp.xmpp.my.example.cnf

  1. oid_section = new_oids
  2. [ new_oids ]
    1. dnssecEmbeddedChain = 1.3.6.1.4.1.11129.2.1.4
    2. xmppAddr = 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8.5
  3. [ req ]
    1. default_bits = 4096
    2. distinguished_name = req_distinguished_name
    3. attributes = req_attributes
    4. x509_extensions = example_extensions
    5. req_extensions = example_extensions
    6. utf8 = yes
  4. [ req_distinguished_name ]
    1. commonName =
    2. commonName_default = "my.example"
  5. [ req_attributes ]
  6. [ example_extensions ]
    1. #dnssecEmbeddedChain = ASN1:FORMAT:HEX,OCT:${ENV::CHAIN}
    2. dnssecEmbeddedChain = DER:${ENV::CHAIN}
    3. basicConstraints = CA:FALSE
    4. #keyUsage = digitalSignature,keyEncipherment
    5. #extendedKeyUsage = serverAuth
    6. subjectKeyIdentifier=hash
    7. subjectAltName=@example_alt_names
  7. [ example_alt_names ]
    1. DNS.0 = my.example
    2. DNS.1 = chat.my.example
    3. DNS.2 = xmpp.my.example
    4. otherName.0 = xmppAddr;UTF8:my.example
    5. otherName.1 = xmppAddr;UTF8:chat.my.example