Internet Engineering Task Force A.D. Dulaunoy Internet-Draft CIRCL Intended status: Informational L.A. Kaplan Expires: July 15, 2013 CERT.at January 2013 Passive DNS - Common Output Format draft-ietf-xml2rfc-template-05 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 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 15, 2013. 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Mandatory Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. first_seen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2. last_seen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.3. rrtype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.4. rrname . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Optional Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. sensor_id . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.3. ttl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.4. bailiwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Dulaunoy & Kaplan info [Page 1] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 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]), 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 cor responding interpretation. The format format is following a simple key-value structure. 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. [http://code.google.com/p/passive-dns-query- tool/] currently implements multiple parsers due to a lack of standardization. The document does not describe the protocol (e.g. whois ref:TOADD) used to query the Passive DNS. 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. Mandatory Fields A field is composed a key followed by a value separated by the single ':' character and a space before the value. The format is based on the initial work done by Florian Weimer and the RIPE whois format (ref:http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/dnslogger/whois.html). The ordered of the fields is not significant for the same resource type, name tuple. 2.1. first_seen This field returns the first time that the record has been seen by the passive DNS. The date is expressed in ISO 8601 and UTC. 2.2. last_seen This field returns the last time that the record has been seen by the passive DNS. The date is expressed in ISO 8601 and UTC. 2.3. rrtype Dulaunoy & Kaplan info [Page 2] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013 This field returns the resource record type as seen by the passive DNS. The key is rr-type and the value is in the interpreted record type. If the value cannot be interpreted the decimal value is returned. 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). 2.4. rrname This field returns the name of the queried resource. 3. Optional Fields 3.1. sensor_id 3.2. count Specifies how many authoritative answers were received with the set of answers (i.e. same data) over all sensors. The number of requests is expressed as a decimal value. 3.3. ttl 3.4. bailiwick 4. Acknowledgements This template was derived from an initial version written by Pekka Savola and contributed by him to the xml2rfc project. This document is part of a plan to make xml2rfc indispensable [DOMINATION]. 5. IANA Considerations This memo includes no request to IANA. All drafts are required to have an IANA considerations section (see the update of RFC 2434 [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] for a guide). If the draft does not require IANA to do anything, the section contains an explicit statement that this is the case (as above). If there are no requirements for IANA, the section will be removed during conversion into an RFC by the RFC Editor. 6. Security Considerations All drafts are required to have a security considerations section. See RFC 3552 [RFC3552] for a guide. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Dulaunoy & Kaplan info [Page 3] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013 [min_ref] authSurName, authInitials, "Minimal Reference", 2006. 7.2. Informative References [DOMINATION] Mad Dominators, Inc., "Ultimate Plan for Taking Over the World", 1984, . [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] Narten, T and H Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", Internet-Draft draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-09, March 2008. [RFC2629] Rose, M.T., "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. Additional Stuff 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/ Leon Aaron Kaplan CERT.at Karlsplatz 1/2/9 Wien, A-1010 AT Phone: +43 1 5056416 78 Email: kaplan@cert.at URI: http://www.cert.at/ Dulaunoy & Kaplan info [Page 4]