diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc2537.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc2537.txt | 339 |
1 files changed, 339 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2537.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2537.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cb75cf5 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2537.txt @@ -0,0 +1,339 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group D. Eastlake +Request for Comments: 2537 IBM +Category: Standards Track March 1999 + + + RSA/MD5 KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System (DNS) + +Status of this Memo + + This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the + Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for + improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet + Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state + and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract + + A standard method for storing RSA keys and and RSA/MD5 based + signatures in the Domain Name System is described which utilizes DNS + KEY and SIG resource records. + +Table of Contents + + Abstract...................................................1 + 1. Introduction............................................1 + 2. RSA Public KEY Resource Records.........................2 + 3. RSA/MD5 SIG Resource Records............................2 + 4. Performance Considerations..............................3 + 5. Security Considerations.................................4 + References.................................................4 + Author's Address...........................................5 + Full Copyright Statement...................................6 + +1. Introduction + + The Domain Name System (DNS) is the global hierarchical replicated + distributed database system for Internet addressing, mail proxy, and + other information. The DNS has been extended to include digital + signatures and cryptographic keys as described in [RFC 2535]. Thus + the DNS can now be secured and used for secure key distribution. + + + + + + + +Eastlake Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 2537 RSA/MD5 KEYs and SIGs in the DNS March 1999 + + + This document describes how to store RSA keys and and RSA/MD5 based + signatures in the DNS. Familiarity with the RSA algorithm is assumed + [Schneier]. Implementation of the RSA algorithm in DNS is + recommended. + + The key words "MUST", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", and "MAY" + in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. + +2. RSA Public KEY Resource Records + + RSA public keys are stored in the DNS as KEY RRs using algorithm + number 1 [RFC 2535]. The structure of the algorithm specific portion + of the RDATA part of such RRs is as shown below. + + Field Size + ----- ---- + exponent length 1 or 3 octets (see text) + exponent as specified by length field + modulus remaining space + + For interoperability, the exponent and modulus are each currently + limited to 4096 bits in length. The public key exponent is a + variable length unsigned integer. Its length in octets is + represented as one octet if it is in the range of 1 to 255 and by a + zero octet followed by a two octet unsigned length if it is longer + than 255 bytes. The public key modulus field is a multiprecision + unsigned integer. The length of the modulus can be determined from + the RDLENGTH and the preceding RDATA fields including the exponent. + Leading zero octets are prohibited in the exponent and modulus. + +3. RSA/MD5 SIG Resource Records + + The signature portion of the SIG RR RDATA area, when using the + RSA/MD5 algorithm, is calculated as shown below. The data signed is + determined as specified in [RFC 2535]. See [RFC 2535] for fields in + the SIG RR RDATA which precede the signature itself. + + + hash = MD5 ( data ) + + signature = ( 00 | 01 | FF* | 00 | prefix | hash ) ** e (mod n) + + + + + + + + + + +Eastlake Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 2537 RSA/MD5 KEYs and SIGs in the DNS March 1999 + + + where MD5 is the message digest algorithm documented in [RFC 1321], + "|" is concatenation, "e" is the private key exponent of the signer, + and "n" is the modulus of the signer's public key. 01, FF, and 00 + are fixed octets of the corresponding hexadecimal value. "prefix" is + the ASN.1 BER MD5 algorithm designator prefix specified in [RFC + 2437], that is, + + hex 3020300c06082a864886f70d020505000410 [NETSEC]. + + This prefix is included to make it easier to use RSAREF (or similar + packages such as EuroRef). The FF octet MUST be repeated the maximum + number of times such that the value of the quantity being + exponentiated is the same length in octets as the value of n. + + (The above specifications are identical to the corresponding part of + Public Key Cryptographic Standard #1 [RFC 2437].) + + The size of n, including most and least significant bits (which will + be 1) MUST be not less than 512 bits and not more than 4096 bits. n + and e SHOULD be chosen such that the public exponent is small. + + Leading zero bytes are permitted in the RSA/MD5 algorithm signature. + + A public exponent of 3 minimizes the effort needed to verify a + signature. Use of 3 as the public exponent is weak for + confidentiality uses since, if the same data can be collected + encrypted under three different keys with an exponent of 3 then, + using the Chinese Remainder Theorem [NETSEC], the original plain text + can be easily recovered. This weakness is not significant for DNS + security because we seek only authentication, not confidentiality. + +4. Performance Considerations + + General signature generation speeds are roughly the same for RSA and + DSA [RFC 2536]. With sufficient pre-computation, signature + generation with DSA is faster than RSA. Key generation is also + faster for DSA. However, signature verification is an order of + magnitude slower with DSA when the RSA public exponent is chosen to + be small as is recommended for KEY RRs used in domain name system + (DNS) data authentication. + + Current DNS implementations are optimized for small transfers, + typically less than 512 bytes including overhead. While larger + transfers will perform correctly and work is underway to make larger + + + + + + + +Eastlake Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 2537 RSA/MD5 KEYs and SIGs in the DNS March 1999 + + + transfers more efficient, it is still advisable at this time to make + reasonable efforts to minimize the size of KEY RR sets stored within + the DNS consistent with adequate security. Keep in mind that in a + secure zone, at least one authenticating SIG RR will also be + returned. + +5. Security Considerations + + Many of the general security consideration in [RFC 2535] apply. Keys + retrieved from the DNS should not be trusted unless (1) they have + been securely obtained from a secure resolver or independently + verified by the user and (2) this secure resolver and secure + obtainment or independent verification conform to security policies + acceptable to the user. As with all cryptographic algorithms, + evaluating the necessary strength of the key is essential and + dependent on local policy. + + For interoperability, the RSA key size is limited to 4096 bits. For + particularly critical applications, implementors are encouraged to + consider the range of available algorithms and key sizes. + +References + + [NETSEC] Kaufman, C., Perlman, R. and M. Speciner, "Network + Security: PRIVATE Communications in a PUBLIC World", + Series in Computer Networking and Distributed + Communications, 1995. + + [RFC 2437] Kaliski, B. and J. Staddon, "PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography + Specifications Version 2.0", RFC 2437, October 1998. + + [RFC 1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and + Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. + + [RFC 1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and + Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. + + [RFC 1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321 + April 1992. + + [RFC 2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", + RFC 2535, March 1999. + + [RFC 2536] EastLake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name + System (DNS)", RFC 2536, March 1999. + + + + + + +Eastlake Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 2537 RSA/MD5 KEYs and SIGs in the DNS March 1999 + + + [Schneier] Bruce Schneier, "Applied Cryptography Second Edition: + protocols, algorithms, and source code in C", 1996, John + Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0-471-11709-9. + +Author's Address + + Donald E. Eastlake 3rd + IBM + 65 Shindegan Hill Road, RR #1 + Carmel, NY 10512 + + Phone: +1-914-276-2668(h) + +1-914-784-7913(w) + Fax: +1-914-784-3833(w) + EMail: dee3@us.ibm.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Eastlake Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 2537 RSA/MD5 KEYs and SIGs in the DNS March 1999 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. + + This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to + others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it + or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published + and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any + kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are + included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this + document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing + the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other + Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of + developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for + copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be + followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than + English. + + The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be + revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. + + This document and the information contained herein is provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING + TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING + BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION + HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF + MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Eastlake Standards Track [Page 6] + |