]> Microsoft

tojens@microsoft.com

Microsoft

jess.krynitsky@microsoft.com

Amazon

jdamick@amazon.com

Amazon

mengskow@amazon.com

DNS encrypted DNS authentication client authentication mTLS For privacy reasons, encrypted DNS clients need to be anonymous to their encrypted DNS servers to prevent third parties from correlating client DNS queries with other data for surveillance or data mining purposes. However, there are cases where the client and server have a pre-existing relationship and each peer wants to prove its identity to the other. For example, an encrypted DNS server may only wish to accept resolutions from encrypted DNS clients that are managed by the same enterprise. This requires mutual authentication. This document defines when using client authentication with encrypted DNS is appropriate, the benefits and limitations of doing so, and the recommended authentication mechanism(s) when communicating with TLS-based encrypted DNS protocols.

Introduction There are times when a client needs to identify itself to a DNS server. One example would be when an encrypted DNS server only accepts connections from pre-approved clients, such as an encrypted DNS service provided by an enterprise for its remote employees to access when they are not connecting to the Internet through a network managed by that enterprise. Encrypted DNS clients trying to connect to such a server would likely run into refused connections if they did not provide authentication that proves they have that enterprise's permission to query this server. This is different from general use of encrypted DNS by anonymous clients to public DNS resolvers, where it is bad practice to provide any kind of identifying information to an encrypted DNS server. For example, Section 8.2 of RFC 8484 {todo: ref} discourages use of HTTP cookies with DoH. This ensures that clients provide a minimal amount of identifiable or correlatable information to servers that do not need to know anything about the client in order to provide name resolution. Because of the significant difference in these scenarios, it is important to define the situations in which interoperable encrypted DNS clients can use client authentication without regressing the privacy value provided by encrypted DNS in the first place. Even then, it is important to recognize what value client authentication provides to encrypted DNS clients versus encrypted DNS servers in the context of both connection management and DNS resolution utility. This document will go through these topics as well as make best practice recommendations for authentication.

Conventions and Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Benefits of client authentication with encrypted DNS Strong identification of encrypted DNS clients by the encrypted DNS server allows the DNS server to apply client-specific resolution policies in a securely verifiable way. Today, a common practice is to establish client-specific resolution policies that differentiate clients based on their observed IP address. This is not only an insecure method that cannot account for clients routing requests through proxies, but it can only be used when expected IP addresses are known in advance. This is not practical for enterprises with remote employees without introducing a dependency on tunneling DNS traffic to a managed gateway or proxy whose IP address is known. This in turn forces enterprises to choose between running proxy or gateway infrastructure per client (or at least per-client IP address mappings) or losing client identification. Strong identification of encrypted DNS clients by the encrypted DNS server also brings identification up to the application layer, which encapsulates this identity management away from network topology changes (whenever IP address ranges need to change, name resolutions have to as well without some form of client authentication).

Drawbacks of client authentication with encrypted DNS While there are benefits in limited circumstances for using client authentication with encrypted DNS, it has drawbacks that make it inappropriate in the general case. The biggest reason client authentication is generally deemed a bad practice with encrypted DNS is the obvious identification of clients and the association of their queries across connections. If a public DNS server, which responds to anonymous clients over the Internet, were to challenge clients for authentication it would be forced de-anonymization of the client's domain name history. This is unacceptable practice. A less egregious drawback to client authentication with encrypted DNS is the required management of client identities and the complexity of matrixing domain name allow- and block-lists against client identities for policy enforcement. This will be significantly more challenging for encrypted DNS server operators to deploy and require industry-wide adoption. This drawback will reduce over time as support for client authentication in encrypted DNS stacks is added.

When to use client authentication with encrypted DNS Client authentication with encrypted DNS SHOULD NOT be used outside the situations described in this section to avoid regressing the privacy model of encrypted DNS. It also needs to be acceptable to both peers. Only encrypted DNS protocols that use TLS or dTLS (such as DoH , DoT , and DoQ ) are in scope for this document.

When servers should require client authentication Encrypted DNS servers MUST NOT challenge clients for authentication if they do not need to restrict connections to a set of clients they have a pre-existing relationship with as defined in , regardless of whether or not the requirements in apply. Encrypted DNS servers that meet the requirements in MAY challenge clients to authenticate to avoid achieving the same goal of identifying clients through other, less secure means (such as IP address or data in the DNS query payload).

Restricting connections to allowed clients Some encrypted DNS servers provide DNS services to a specific set of clients and refuse service to all other clients. One example of this may be an encrypted DNS server owned by an enterprise that only allows connections from devices managed by that same enterprise. Encrypted DNS servers SHOULD NOT challenge clients to authenticate when the server knows it does not have a securely verifiable identity (such as when it is expecting clients to connect opportunistically as defined in ). Such servers do not need to identify allowed clients, since security-minded clients need to know to whom they are authenticating.

Resolving names differently per client Some encrypted DNS servers need to change their resolution behavior based on the identity of the client that issued the query because some clients have permission to resolve names that other clients do not. Encrypted DNS servers SHOULD NOT attempt to authenticate clients when the difference in resolution behavior between them is opted into by the client rather than required by the authority operating the encrypted DNS server. For example, some public DNS services offer multiple servers that each have different resolution behavior. One might resolve almost every name, whereas another may try to refuse to resolve names associated with social media sites, or advertisers, or other categories customers find useful. This can be met by defining these endpoints as separate servers on different dedicated IP addresses or using different domain names in their encryped DNS configuration (such as DoH template), or both.

When clients should attempt to authenticate Encrypted DNS clients MUST NOT offer authentication to any encrypted DNS server unless it was specifically configured to expect that server to require authentication, independent of the mechanism by which the client was configured with or discovered the encrypted DNS server. Encrypted DNS clients MUST NOT offer authentication when the server connection was established via DDR , even if the IP address of the original DNS server was specifically configured for the encrypted DNS client as one that might require authentication. This is because in that circumstance there is not a pre-existing relationship with the encrypted DNS server (or else DDR bootstrapping into encrypted DNS would not have been necessary). TBD: what to do with EDSR destinations Otherwise, an encrypted DNS client MAY choose to present authentication to a server that requests it, but is not required to just because it was challenged to do so if the client would rather not use the server altogether. The presented client identity SHOULD be unique per server identity to avoid becoming a correlatable identity between colluding encrypted DNS servers.

Recommendations The following requirements were considered when formulating the recommended authentication mechanism for encrypted DNS clients: - SHOULD be per-connection, not per-query (avoid unnecessary payload overheads) - SHOULD use existing open standards (avoid vendor lock-in and specialized cryptography) - SHOULD be reusable across multiple encrypted DNS protocols (avoid protocol preference) - SHOULD NOT require human user interaction to complete authentication This document concludes that the current best mechanism for encrypted DNS client authentication is mTLS for the following reasons: - mTLS identifies and authenticates clients, not users, per-connection - mTLS is an exiting standard and is often already configured for TLS clients - x.509 certificates used for TLS client authentication allow the server to identify the client's organization via PKI heiracrchy - mTLS is reusable across multiple encrypted DNS protocols - mTLS allows session resumption - mTLS does not require user interaction or apaplication layer input for authentication Encrypted DNS clients and servers that support offering or requesting client authentication MUST support at least the use of mTLS in addition to whatever other mechanism they wish to support. Encrypted DNS clients and servers SHOULD prefer long-lived connections when using client authentication to minimize the cost over time of doing repeated TLS handshakes and identity verification.

Why these requirements were chosen

Per-connection scope Any data added to each DNS message will have greater bandwidth and processing costs than presenting authentication once per connection. This is especially true in this case because the drawback of having long-running encrypted DNS connections is the decreased privacy through increased volume of directly correlatable queries. However, this privacy threat does not apply to this situation because the client's queries can already be correlated by the identity it presents. Therefore, per-connection bandwidth and data processing overhead is expected to be much lower than per-query because there is no incentive for clients and servers to not have long-running encrypted DNS connections. This is not expected to create excessive cost for server operators because supporting encrypted DNS without client authentication already requires per-connection state management.

Reuse open standards Reusing open standards ensures wide interoperability between vendors that choose to implement client authentication in their encrypted DNS stacks.

Reusable across protocols If a client authentication method for encrypted DNS were defined or recommended that would only be usable by some TLS-encrypted DNS protocols, it would encourage the development of a second or even third solution later.

Do not require human interaction Humans using devices that use encrypted DNS, when given any kind of prompt or login relating to establishing encrypted DNS connectivity, are unlikely to understand what is happening and why. This will inevitably lead to click-through behavior. Because the scope of scenarios where client authentication for encrypted DNS is limited to pre-existing relationships between the client and server, there should be no need for at-run-time intervention by a human user.

Why alternatives are not recommended

Web tokens OAuth or JSON web tokens alone require HTTP to validate, so would not be a solution for encrypted DNS protocols other than DoH. Web access tokens can be used as certificate-bound access tokens in combination with mTLS if they are needed to prove identity with another authorization server, as described in .

HTTP authentication HTTP authentication as defined in provides a basic authentication scheme for the HTTP protocol. Unless it is used with TLS, i.e. over HTTPS, the credentials are encoded but not encrypted which is insecure. As TLS is already used by the encrypted DNS protocols in this document's scope, it is simpler to handle client authentication and authorization at the TLS layer. Additionally, mTLS is more broadly adopted than HTTP authentication. HTTP authentication would only be a viable option for DoH, and not extensible to other encrypted DNS solutions.

FIDO Web Authentication (WebAuthN) and the FIDO2 Client to Authenticator Protocol (CTAP) use CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE), described in . FIDO and WebAuthN are passkey solutions designed to replace passwords for user authentication for online services, and they are not typically used for general client authentication. Passkeys are unique for each online service and require user input for registration, and would require DNS servers to support the WebAuthN protocol. Additionally, each sign-in requires user input for local verification, using biometric, local PIN, or a FIDO security key.

Designing a novel solution Designing a novel solution is never recommended when there is an existing standard that meets the requirements. Doing so would make the encrypted DNS solution more difficult and time-consuming to adopt, and most likely would introduce vendor lock-in.

Deployment Considerations

Avoiding connectivity deadlocks Deployers should carefully consider how they will handle certificate rollover and revocation. If an encrypted DNS server only allows connections from clients with valid certificates, and the client is configured to only use the encrypted DNS server, then there will be a deadlock when the certificate expires or is revoked such that the client device will not have the connectivity needed to renew or replace its certificate. Encrypted DNS servers that challenge clients for authentication SHOULD have a separate resolution policy for clients that do not have valid credentials that allows them to resolve the subset of names needed to connect to the infrastructure needed to acquire certificates. Alternatively, encrypted DNS clients that are configured to use encrypted DNS servers that will require authentication MAY consider configuring knowledge of certificate issuing infrastructure in advance so that the DNS deadlock can be avoided without introducing less secure DNS servers to their configuration (i.e. hard coding IP addresses and host names for certificate checking).

Security Considerations This document describes when and how encrypted DNS clients can authenticate themselves to an encrypted DNS server. It does not introduce any new security considerations not already covered by TLS and mTLS. This document does not define recommendations for when and how to use encrypted DNS client authentication for encrypted DNS protocols that are not TLS-based.

IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions.

References Normative References In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. Informative References This document defines a protocol for sending DNS queries and getting DNS responses over HTTPS. Each DNS query-response pair is mapped into an HTTP exchange. This document describes the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide privacy for DNS. Encryption provided by TLS eliminates opportunities for eavesdropping and on-path tampering with DNS queries in the network, such as discussed in RFC 7626. In addition, this document specifies two usage profiles for DNS over TLS and provides advice on performance considerations to minimize overhead from using TCP and TLS with DNS. This document focuses on securing stub-to-recursive traffic, as per the charter of the DPRIVE Working Group. It does not prevent future applications of the protocol to recursive-to-authoritative traffic. This document describes the use of QUIC to provide transport confidentiality for DNS. The encryption provided by QUIC has similar properties to those provided by TLS, while QUIC transport eliminates the head-of-line blocking issues inherent with TCP and provides more efficient packet-loss recovery than UDP. DNS over QUIC (DoQ) has privacy properties similar to DNS over TLS (DoT) specified in RFC 7858, and latency characteristics similar to classic DNS over UDP. This specification describes the use of DoQ as a general-purpose transport for DNS and includes the use of DoQ for stub to recursive, recursive to authoritative, and zone transfer scenarios. This document defines Discovery of Designated Resolvers (DDR), a set of mechanisms for DNS clients to use DNS records to discover a resolver's encrypted DNS configuration. An Encrypted DNS Resolver discovered in this manner is referred to as a "Designated Resolver". These mechanisms can be used to move from unencrypted DNS to encrypted DNS when only the IP address of a resolver is known. These mechanisms are designed to be limited to cases where Unencrypted DNS Resolvers and their Designated Resolvers are operated by the same entity or cooperating entities. It can also be used to discover support for encrypted DNS protocols when the name of an Encrypted DNS Resolver is known. This document describes OAuth client authentication and certificate-bound access and refresh tokens using mutual Transport Layer Security (TLS) authentication with X.509 certificates. OAuth clients are provided a mechanism for authentication to the authorization server using mutual TLS, based on either self-signed certificates or public key infrastructure (PKI). OAuth authorization servers are provided a mechanism for binding access tokens to a client's mutual-TLS certificate, and OAuth protected resources are provided a method for ensuring that such an access token presented to it was issued to the client presenting the token. This document describes a mechanism that enables the Transport Layer Security (TLS) server to resume sessions and avoid keeping per-client session state. The TLS server encapsulates the session state into a ticket and forwards it to the client. The client can subsequently resume a session using the obtained ticket. This document obsoletes RFC 4507. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application- level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. This document defines the HTTP Authentication framework. The W3C Web Authentication (WebAuthn) specification and the FIDO Alliance FIDO2 Client to Authenticator Protocol (CTAP) specification use CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) algorithm identifiers. This specification registers the following algorithms (which are used by WebAuthn and CTAP implementations) in the IANA "COSE Algorithms" registry: RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 using SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512, and SHA-1; and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) using the secp256k1 curve and SHA-256. It registers the secp256k1 elliptic curve in the IANA "COSE Elliptic Curves" registry. Also, for use with JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE), it registers the algorithm ECDSA using the secp256k1 curve and SHA-256 in the IANA "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms" registry and the secp256k1 elliptic curve in the IANA "JSON Web Key Elliptic Curve" registry.

Acknowledgments TODO acknowledge.