adulau/pdns-qof
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/adulau/pdns-qof.git synced 2024-12-23 01:05:58 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Merge branch 'master' of github.com:adulau/pdns-qof

Browse source 
Conflicts:
	i-d/pdns-qof.txt
This commit is contained in:
Alexandre Dulaunoy 2013-12-25 19:46:42 +01:00
commit df747947ad
2 changed files with 23 additions and 508 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

504
i-d/pdns-qof.txt
View file

@ -1,504 +0,0 @@
Internet Engineering Task Force A. Dulaunoy
Internet-Draft CIRCL
Intended status: Informational A. Kaplan
Expires: June 28, 2014 CERT.at
P. Vixie
H. Stern
Farsight Security, Inc.
December 25, 2013
Passive DNS - Common Output Format
draft-ietf-dulaunoy-kaplan-pDNS-cof-00
Abstract
This document describes a common output format of Passive DNS Servers
which clients can query. The output format description includes also
in addition a common semantic for each Passive DNS system. By having
multiple Passive DNS Systems adhere to the same output format for
queries, users of multiple Passive DNS servers will be able to
combine result sets easily.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 28, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 28, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Passive DNS - Common Output Format December 2013
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Common Output Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Mandatory Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3.1. rrname . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3.2. rrtype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3.3. rdata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3.4. time_first . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.5. time_last . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Optional Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.1. count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.2. Bailiwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Additional Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5.1. sensor_id . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5.2. zone_time_first . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5.3. zone_time_last . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. Additional Fields Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.3. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
Passive DNS is a technique described by Florian Weimer in 2005 in
Passive DNS replication, F Weimer - 17th Annual FIRST Conference on
Computer Security [WEINERPDNS]. Since then multiple Passive DNS
implementations evolved over time. Users of these Passive DNS
servers may query a server (often via WHOIS [RFC3912] or HTTP REST
[REST]), parse the results and process them in other applications.
There are multiple implementations of Passive DNS software. Users of
passive DNS query each implementation and aggregate the results for
Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 28, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Passive DNS - Common Output Format December 2013
their search. This document describes the output format of four
Passive DNS Systems ([DNSDB],[PDNSCERTAT], [PDNSCIRCL] and [PDNSCOF])
which are in use today and which already share a nearly identical
output format. As the format and the meaning of output fields from
each Passive DNS need to be consistent, we propose in this document a
solution to commonly name each field along with their corresponding
interpretation. The format follows a simple key-value structure in
JSON [RFC4627] format. The benefit of having a consistent Passive
DNS output format is that multiple client implementations can query
different servers without having to have a separate parser for each
individual server. passivedns-client [PDNSCLIENT]currently implements
multiple parsers due to a lack of standardization. The document does
not describe the protocol (e.g. WHOIS [RFC3912], HTTP REST [REST])
nor the query format used to query the Passive DNS. Neither does
this document describe "pre-recursor" Passive DNS Systems. Both of
these are separate topics and deserve their own RFC document.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Limitation
As a Passive DNS can include protection mechanisms for their
operation, results might be different due to those protection
measures. These mechanisms filter out DNS answers if they fail some
criteria. The bailiwick algorithm [BAILIWICK] protects the Passive
DNS Database from cache poisoning attacks [CACHEPOISONING]. Another
limitiation that clients querying the database need to be aware of is
that each query simply gets an snapshot-answer of the time of
querying. Clients MUST NOT rely on consistent answers. Nor must
they assume that answers must be identical across multiple Passive
DNS Servers.
3. Common Output Format
3.1. Overview
The formatting of the answer follows the JSON [RFC4627] format. The
order of the fields is not significant for the same resource type.
That means, the same name tuple plus timing information identifies a
unique answer per server.
The intent of this output format is to be easily parsable by scripts.
Every implementation MUST support the JSON output format.
Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 28, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Passive DNS - Common Output Format December 2013
3.2. Example
A sample output using the JSON format:
... (list of )...
{ "count": 97167,
"time_first": "1277353744",
"rrtype": "A", "rrname": "google-public-dns-a.google.com.",
"rdata": "8.8.8.8",
"time_last": "1386405372" }
... (separated by newline)...
3.3. Mandatory Fields
Implementation MUST support all the mandatory fields.
The tuple (rrname,rrtype,rdata) will always be unique within one
answer per server.
3.3.1. rrname
This field returns the name of the queried resource.
3.3.2. rrtype
This field returns the resource record type as seen by the passive
DNS. The key is rrtype and the value is in the interpreted record
type. If the value cannot be interpreted the decimal value is
returned following the principle of transparency as described in RFC
3597 [RFC3597]. The resource record type can be any values as
described by IANA in the DNS parameters document in the section 'DNS
Label types' (http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters).
Currently known and supported textual descriptions of rrtypes are: A,
AAAA, CNAME, PTR, SOA, TXT, DNAME, NS, SRV, RP, NAPTR, HINFO, A6. A
client MUST be able to understand these textual rtype values. In
addition, a client MUST be able to handle a decimal value (as
mentioned above) as answer.
3.3.3. rdata
This field returns the data of the queried resource. In general,
this is to be interpreted as string. Depending on the rtype, this
can be an IPv4 or IPv6 address, a domain name (as in the case of
CNAMEs), an SPF record, etc. A client MUST be able to interpret any
value which is legal as the right hand side in a DNS zone file RFC
1035 [RFC1035] and RFC 1034 [RFC1034]. If the rdata came from an
unknown DNS resource records, the server must follow the transparency
principle as described in RFC 3597 [RFC3597].
Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 28, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Passive DNS - Common Output Format December 2013
3.3.4. time_first
This field returns the first time that the record / unique tuple
(rrname, rrtype, rdata) has been seen by the passive DNS. The date
is expressed in seconds (decimal ASCII) since 1st of January 1970
(Unix timestamp). The time zone MUST be UTC.
3.3.5. time_last
This field returns the last time that the unique tuple (rrname,
rrtype, rdata) record has been seen by the passive DNS. The date is
expressed in seconds (decimal ASCII) since 1st of January 1970 (Unix
timestamp). The time zone MUST be UTC.
3.4. Optional Fields
Implementations SHOULD support one or more field.
3.4.1. count
Specifies how many authoritative DNS answers were received at the
Passive DNS Server's collectors with the set of answers (i.e. same
data). The number of requests is expressed as a decimal value.
Specifies the number of times this particular event denoted by the
other type fields has been seen in the given time interval (between
time_last and time_first). Decimal number.
3.4.2. Bailiwick
The bailiwick is the best estimate of the apex of the zone where this
data is authoritative. String.
3.5. Additional Fields
Implementations MAY support the following fields:
3.5.1. sensor_id
This field returns the sensor information where the record was seen.
The sensor_id is an opaque byte string as defined by RFC 5001 in
section 2.3 [RFC5001].
Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 28, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Passive DNS - Common Output Format December 2013
3.5.2. zone_time_first
This field returns the first time that the unique tuple (rrname,
rrtype, rdata) record has been seen via zone file import. The date
is expressed in seconds (decimal ASCII) since 1st of January 1970
(Unix timestamp). The time zone MUST be UTC.
3.5.3. zone_time_last
This field returns the last time that the unique tuple (rrname,
rrtype, rdata) record has been seen via zone file import. The date
is expressed in seconds (decimal ASCII) since 1st of January 1970
(Unix timestamp). The time zone MUST be UTC.
3.6. Additional Fields Registry
In accordance with [RFC6648], designers of new passive DNS
applications that would need additional fields can request and
register new field name at https://github.com/adulau/pdns-qof/wiki/
Additional-Fields.
4. Acknowledgements
Thanks to the Passive DNS developers who contributed to the document.
5. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
6. Security Considerations
In some cases, Passive DNS output might contain confidential
information and its access might be restricted. When a user is
querying multiple Passive DNS and aggregating the data, the
sensitivity of the data must be considered.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 28, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Passive DNS - Common Output Format December 2013
[RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
(RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
September 2004.
[RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
[RFC5001] Austein, R., "DNS Name Server Identifier (NSID) Option",
RFC 5001, August 2007.
[RFC6648] Saint-Andre, P., Crocker, D., and M. Nottingham,
"Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in
Application Protocols", BCP 178, RFC 6648, June 2012.
7.2. References
[BAILIWICK]
"Passive DNS Hardening", 2010, <https://
archive.farsightsecurity.com/Passive_DNS/
passive_dns_hardening_handout.pdf>.
[CACHEPOISONING]
"Black ops 2008: It's the end of the cache as we know
it.", 2008, <http://kurser.lobner.dk/dDist/DMK_BO2K8.pdf>.
[DNSDB] "DNSDB API", 2013, <https://api.dnsdb.info/>.
[PDNSCERTAT]
"pDNS presentation at 4th Centr R&D workshop Frankfurt Jun
5th 2012", 2012, <http://www.centr.org/system/files/agenda
/attachment/rd4-papst-passive_dns.pdf>.
[PDNSCIRCL]
"CIRCL Passive DNS", 2012, <http://pdns.circl.lu/>.
[PDNSCLIENT]
"Queries 5 major Passive DNS databases: BFK, CERTEE,
DNSParse, ISC, and VirusTotal.", 2013, <https://github.com
/chrislee35/passivedns-client>.
[PDNSCOF] "Passive DNS server interface using the common output
format", 2013, <https://github.com/adulau/pdns-qof-server/
>.
Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 28, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Passive DNS - Common Output Format December 2013
[REST] "Representational State Transfer (REST)", 2000,
<http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
rest_arch_style.htm>.
[WEINERPDNS]
"Passive DNS Replication", 2005, <http://www.enyo.de/fw/
software/dnslogger/first2005-paper.pdf>.
7.3. Informative References
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]
Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", draft-narten-iana-
considerations-rfc2434bis-09 (work in progress), March
2008.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July
2003.
Authors' Addresses
Alexandre Dulaunoy
CIRCL
41, avenue de la gare
Luxembourg L-1611
Luxembourg
Phone: (+352) 247 88444
Email: alexandre.dulaunoy@circl.lu
URI: http://www.circl.lu/
L. Aaron Kaplan
CERT.at
Karlsplatz 1/2/9
Vienna A-1010
Austria
Phone: +43 1 5056416 78
Email: kaplan@cert.at
URI: http://www.cert.at/
Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 28, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Passive DNS - Common Output Format December 2013
Paul Vixie
Farsight Security, Inc.
11400 La Honda Road
Woodside, California 94062
U.S.A.
Email: paul@redbarn.org
URI: https://www.farsightsecurity.com/
Henry Stern
Farsight Security, Inc.
1741 Brunswick Street, Suite 500
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3X8
Canada
Phone: +1 408 922 4555
Email: hestern@cisco.com
URI: http://www.cisco.com/security
Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 28, 2014 [Page 9]

27
i-d/pdns-qof.xml
View file

@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
<!ENTITY RFC3597 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3597.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3912 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3912.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6648 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6648.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2234 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2234.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml">
]>
@ -179,11 +180,28 @@ The document does not describe the protocol (e.g. <xref target="RFC3912">WHOIS</
... (separated by newline)...
]]></artwork></figure>
</section>
<section title="ABNF grammar">
<figure><preamble>Formal grammar as defined in <xref target="RFC2234">ABNF</xref></preamble><artwork><![CDATA[
answer = entries
entries = * ( entry CR)
entry = "{" keyvallist "}"
keyvallist = [ member *( value-separator member ) ]
member = field name-separator value
name-separator = ws %x3A ws ; : colon
value = value ; as defined in the JSON RFC
field = "rrame" | "rrtype" | "rdata" | "time_first" |
"time_last" | "count" | "bailiwick" | "sensor_id" |
"zone_time_first" | "zone_time_last" | futureField
futureField = string
CR = %x0D
]]></artwork></figure>
<t>Note that value is defined in <xref target="RFC4627">JSON</xref> and has the exact same specification as there. The same goes for the definition of string.</t>
</section>
<section title="Mandatory Fields">
<t>Implementation MUST support all the mandatory fields.</t>
<t>The tuple (rrname,rrtype,rdata) will always be unique within one answer per server.</t>
<t>Implementation MUST support all the mandatory fields.</t>
<t>Uniqueness property: the tuple (rrname,rrtype,rdata) will always be unique within one answer per server. While rrname and rrtype are always individual JSON primitive types (strings, numbers, booleans or null), rdata MAY be an array as defined in <xref target="RFC4627">JSON</xref>. Implementors of this draft MUST be able to deal with rdata being returned as JSON array or alternatively as a JSON string. <!-- MOTE: this is not good --></t>
<section title="rrname">
<t>This field returns the name of the queried resource.</t>
<t>This field returns the name of the queried resource.</t>
</section>
<section title="rrtype">
<t>This field returns the resource record type as seen by the passive DNS. The key is rrtype and the value is in the interpreted record type. If the value cannot be interpreted the
@ -210,7 +228,7 @@ The document does not describe the protocol (e.g. <xref target="RFC3912">WHOIS</
<t>Specifies how many authoritative DNS answers were received at the Passive DNS Server's collectors with the set of answers (i.e. same data). The number of requests is expressed as a decimal value.</t>
<t>Specifies the number of times this particular event denoted by the other type fields has been seen in the given time interval (between time_last and time_first). Decimal number.</t>
</section>
<section title="Bailiwick">
<section title="bailiwick">
<t>The bailiwick is the best estimate of the apex of the zone where this data is authoritative. String.</t>
</section>
</section>
@ -281,6 +299,7 @@ The document does not describe the protocol (e.g. <xref target="RFC3912">WHOIS</
&RFC5001;
&RFC3597;
&RFC6648;
&RFC2234;
</references>
<references>
<reference anchor="WEINERPDNS" target="http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/dnslogger/first2005-paper.pdf">