dns privacy
play

DNS Privacy dnsprivacy.org Sara Dickinson Sinodun sara@sinodun.com - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

DNS Privacy dnsprivacy.org Sara Dickinson Sinodun sara@sinodun.com RMLL, Saint-tienne, France July 2017 Overview The problem: Why Internet privacy and DNS Privacy are


  1. DNS Privacy dnsprivacy.org Sara Dickinson Sinodun sara@sinodun.com RMLL, Saint-Étienne, France July 2017

  2. Overview • The problem: Why Internet privacy and DNS Privacy are important (DNS leakage) • Recent Progress: Chart progress during last 3-4 years (DPRIVE) in open standards and open source software • Where are we now? Present current status and tools DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 2

  3. 
 IETF Open Standards and Privacy March 2011 I-D: Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols (IAB) Snowdon What timing! June 2013 revelations RFC6973: Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols July 2013 RFC7258 : Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack: 
 “ PM is an attack on the privacy of Internet users May 2014 and organisations .” DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 3

  4. DNS Privacy - A brief history DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 4

  5. DNS is part of the Internet ‘leaky boat’ problem DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 5

  6. DNS Privacy (in 2013) • DNS is 30 year old! [RFC1034/5 (1987)] • Original design: availability, redundancy and speed! • DNS is an ‘enabler’ • DNS standards: DNS sent in clear text • UDP (99% of traffic to root) NSA: MORECOWBELL • TCP only for ‘fallback’ (pre 2010) • Perception: The DNS is public, right? It is not sensitive/personal information….it doesn’t need to be protected/encrypted DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 6

  7. DNS Disclosure Example 1 Root Rec Auth for .org Auth for ietf.org DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 7

  8. DNS Disclosure Example 1 Root Rec Auth for .org Auth for Stub ietf.org DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 7

  9. DNS Disclosure Example 1 Root Rec Auth for .org Auth for Stub Recursive ietf.org DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 7

  10. DNS Disclosure Example 1 Root Rec Auth for .org Auth for Stub Recursive ietf.org Authoritative DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 7

  11. DNS Disclosure Example 1 Root Rec Auth for .org Auth for ietf.org DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 7

  12. DNS Disclosure Example 1 Root Rec datatracker.ietf.org Auth for .org Auth for ietf.org DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 7

  13. DNS Disclosure Example 1 datatracker.ietf.org Root Rec datatracker.ietf.org Auth datatracker.ietf.org for .org Auth for ietf.org datatracker.ietf.org DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 7

  14. DNS Disclosure Example 1 datatracker.ietf.org datatracker.ietf.org Leak information Root Rec datatracker.ietf.org Auth datatracker.ietf.org datatracker.ietf.org for .org Auth for ietf.org datatracker.ietf.org DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 7

  15. EDNS0 problem • RFC6891 (2013): Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) Intended to enhance DNS protocol capabilities • But…. mechanism enabled addition of end-user data into DNS queries (non-standard options) 8 DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017

  16. EDNS0 problem • RFC6891 (2013): Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) Intended to enhance DNS protocol capabilities • But…. mechanism enabled addition of end-user data into DNS queries (non-standard options) ISP justification: Parental Filtering (per user) CDN justification: Faster content (geo location) 8 DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017

  17. DNS Disclosure Example 2 Parental Filtering ietf.org ? [00:00:53:00:53:00] Auth Rec Stub CPE [User src address] MAC address or id in DNS query DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 9

  18. DNS Disclosure Example 2 Parental Filtering CDN Geo-location ietf.org ? ? ietf.org ? [00:00:53:00:53:00] [192.168.1] Auth Rec Stub CPE [User src address] Client Subnet (RFC7871) MAC address or id contains source subnet in DNS query in DNS query DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 9

  19. DNS Disclosure Example 2 Auth Rec Stub CPE Even behind a NAT, Even behind a recursive do do not have not have anonymity! anonymity! DNS Privacy Tutorial @ IETF 97 Nov 2016, Seoul 10

  20. DNS Disclosure Example 2 afnic.fr ? parisinfo.com ? dnsreactions.tumblr.com? Auth Rec Stub CPE Even behind a NAT, Even behind a recursive do do not have not have anonymity! anonymity! DNS Privacy Tutorial @ IETF 97 Nov 2016, Seoul 10

  21. DNS Disclosure Example 2 afnic.fr ? afnic.fr ? parisinfo.com ? parisinfo.com ? dnsreactions.tumblr.com? dnsreactions.tumblr.com? Auth Rec Stub CPE Even behind a NAT, Even behind a recursive do do not have not have anonymity! anonymity! DNS Privacy Tutorial @ IETF 97 Nov 2016, Seoul 10

  22. 
 DNS: It’s not just for names • MX records (email domain) • SRV records (services) • OPENPGPKEY (email addresses) • …this is only going to increase…. 
 DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 11

  23. 
 DNS: It’s not just for names • MX records (email domain) • SRV records (services) • OPENPGPKEY (email addresses) • …this is only going to increase…. 
 DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 11

  24. DNS Disclosure Example 3 • (AUTH) Who monitors or has access here ISP/ government/NSA/Passive DNS? • (AUTH) Does my ISP sell my (anonymous) data? • (UNAUTH) How safe is this data? Root Rec Auth for .org • When at home… • When in a coffee shop… DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 12

  25. DNS Disclosure Example 3 • (AUTH) Who monitors or has access here ISP/ Who monitors or has government/NSA/Passive DNS? access here? • (AUTH) Does my ISP sell my (anonymous) data? • (UNAUTH) How safe is this data? Root Rec Auth for .org • When at home… • When in a coffee shop… Who monitors or has access here? DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 12

  26. DNS - leakage • Basic problem is leakage of meta data • Allows fingerprinting and re-identification of individuals • Even without user meta data traffic analysis is possible based just on timings and cache snooping • Operators see (and log) your 
 DNS queries DNS Privacy Tutorial @ IETF 97 13 Nov 2016, Seoul

  27. DNS - leakage • Basic problem is leakage of meta data • Allows fingerprinting and re-identification of individuals • Even without user meta data traffic analysis is possible based just on timings and cache snooping • Operators see (and log) your 
 DNS queries DNS Privacy Tutorial @ IETF 97 13 Nov 2016, Seoul

  28. 
 
 DNS Risk Matrix In-Flight At Rest Risk Stub => Rec Rec => Auth At 
 At 
 Recursive Authoritative Passive Monitoring Active Monitoring Other Disclosure Risks e.g. Data breaches DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 14

  29. DPRIVE WG et al. DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 15

  30. 
 IETF DPRIVE WG • DPRIVE WG create in 2014 
 Charter: Primary Focus is Privacy 
 for Stub to recursive Why not tackle whole problem? • • Don’t boil the ocean, stepwise solution • Stub to Rec reveals most information • Rec to Auth is a particularly hard problem DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 16

  31. Problem statement: RFC 7626 DNS Privacy Considerations: 
 Expert coverage of risks throughout DNS ecosystem • Rebuts “alleged public nature of DNS data” • The data may be public, but a DNS 
 ‘ transaction ’ is not/should not be. “A typical example from outside the DNS world is: the web site of Alcoholics Anonymous is public; the fact that you visit it should not be.” DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 17

  32. Stub/Rec Encryption Options Pros Cons • Port 53 • Downgrade attack on negotiation • Known technique • Port 53 - middleboxes blocking? STARTTLS • Incrementation deployment • Latency from negotiation • New DNS port 
 TLS • New port assignment (no interference with port 53) • Scalability? (new port) • Existing implementations • Truncation of DNS messages • UDP based DTLS (just like UDP) • Not as widely used/ ➡ Fallback to TLS or clear text (new port) deployed ❌ Can’t be standalone solution DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 18

  33. Stub/Rec Encryption Options Pros Cons • Port 53 • Downgrade attack on negotiation • Known technique • Port 53 - middleboxes blocking? STARTTLS • Incrementation deployment • Latency from negotiation • New DNS port 
 TLS • New port assignment (no interference with port 53) • Scalability? (new port) • Existing implementations • Truncation of DNS messages • UDP based DTLS (just like UDP) • Not as widely used/ ➡ Fallback to TLS or clear text (new port) deployed ❌ Can’t be standalone solution DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 18

  34. Stub/Rec Encryption Options Pros Cons • Port 53 • Downgrade attack on negotiation • Known technique • Port 53 - middleboxes blocking? STARTTLS • Incrementation deployment • Latency from negotiation • New DNS port 
 TLS • New port assignment (no interference with port 53) • Scalability? (new port) • Existing implementations • Truncation of DNS messages • UDP based DTLS (just like UDP) • Not as widely used/ ➡ Fallback to TLS or clear text (new port) deployed ❌ Can’t be standalone solution DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 18

  35. Encrypted DNS ‘TODO’ list 1. Get a new port 2. DNS-over-TCP/TLS: Address issues in standards and implementations 3. Tackle authentication of DNS servers (bootstrap problem) 4. What about traffic analysis of encrypted traffic - msg size & timing still tell a lot! DNS Privacy @ RMLL July 2017 19

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend