Internet Engineering Task Force Dulaunoy Internet-Draft CIRCL Intended status: Informational Kaplan Expires: June 20, 2014 CERT.at Vixie Farsight Security, Inc. hs. Stern Cisco December 17, 2013 Passive DNS - Common Output Format draft-ietf-dulaunoy-kaplan-pdns-cof-01 Abstract This document describes the output format used between Passive DNS query interface. The output format description includes also a common meaning per Passive DNS system. Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 20, 2014. Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 20, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title December 2013 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Common Output Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Overview and Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Mandatory Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.1. rrname . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.2. rrtype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.3. rdata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.4. time_first . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.5. time_last . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Optional Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3.1. count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3.2. bailiwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Additional Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4.1. sensor_id . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4.2. zone_time_first . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4.3. zone_time_last . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9 Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 20, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title December 2013 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. Since then multiple Passive DNS implementations evolved over time. Users of these Passive DNS servers query a server (often via Whois [Ref: WHOIS] or HTTP and ReST), parse the results and process them in other applications. There are multiple implementation of Passive DNS software. Users of passive DNS query each implementation and aggregate the results for their search. This document describes the output format of three Passive DNS Systems 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 format is following 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. [https://github.com/chrislee35/passivedns-client] currently implements multiple parsers due to a lack of standardization. The document does not describe the protocol (e.g. whois, HTTP REST or XMPP) nor the query format used to query the Passive DNS. Neither does this document describe "pre-recursor" Passive DNS Systems. 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 (c.f. http://www.isc.org/files/passive_dns_hardening_handout.pdf) protects the Passive DNS Database from cache poisoning attacks [ref: Dan Kaminsky]. 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. Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 20, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title December 2013 3. Common Output Format 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. 3.1. Overview and Example The intent of this output format is to be easily parseable by scripts. Every implementation MUST support the JSON output format. 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)... 3.2. Mandatory Fields Implementation MUST support all the mandatory fields. The tuple (rrtype,rrname,rdata) will always be unique within one answer per server. 3.2.1. rrname This field returns the name of the queried resource. 3.2.2. 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 descritptions 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. Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 20, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title December 2013 3.2.3. 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]. 3.2.4. 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. 3.2.5. 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. 3.3. Optional Fields Implementation SHOULD support one or more field. 3.3.1. count Specifies how many answers were received 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. 3.3.2. bailiwick The bailiwick is the best estimate of the apex of the zone where this data is authoritative. String. 3.4. Additional Fields Implementations MAY support the following fields: Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 20, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title December 2013 3.4.1. 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]. 3.4.2. 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. 3.4.3. 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. 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 an 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. Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 20, 2014 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title December 2013 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003. [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. [min_ref] authSurName, authInitials., "Minimal Reference", 2006. 7.2. 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. [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, June 1999. [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 2003. Appendix A. Appendix This becomes an Appendix. Authors' Addresses Alexandre Dulaunoy CIRCL 41, avenue de la gare Luxembourg, L-1611 LU Phone: (+352) 247 88444 Email: alexandre.dulaunoy@circl.lu URI: http://www.circl.lu/ Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 20, 2014 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title December 2013 Leon Aaron Kaplan CERT.at Karlsplatz 1/2/9 Vienna, A-1010 AT Phone: +43 1 5056416 78 Email: kaplan@cert.at URI: http://www.cert.at/ Paul Vixie Farsight Security, Inc. Phone: Email: paul@redbarn.org URI: / Henry Stern Cisco 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 20, 2014 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title December 2013 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2013). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Dulaunoy, et al. Expires June 20, 2014 [Page 9]