<?xml version='1.0'encoding='utf-8'?>encoding='UTF-8'?> <!DOCTYPE rfcSYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"[ <!ENTITYRFC2119 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">nbsp " "> <!ENTITYRFC3110 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3110.xml">zwsp "​"> <!ENTITYRFC4033 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4033.xml">nbhy "‑"> <!ENTITYRFC4034 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4034.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC4035 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4035.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC4509 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4509.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC5208 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5208.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC5280 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5280.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC5933 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5933.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC6840 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6840.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC6986 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6986.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC7091 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7091.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC7836 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7836.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC9215 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9215.xml">wj "⁠"> ]> <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" docName="draft-makarenko-gost2012-dnssec-05" number="9558" category="info"ipr="trust200902"> <?rfc strict="yes"?> <?rfc compact="yes"?> <?rfc subcompact="no"?> <?rfc symrefs="yes"?> <?rfc sortrefs="no"?> <?rfc text-list-symbols="o*+-"?> <?rfc toc="yes"?>ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="independent" xml:lang="en" symRefs="true" sortRefs="false" tocInclude="true" version="3"> <front> <title abbrev="Use of GOST 2012 Signatures in DNSSEC"> Use of GOST 2012 Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC </title> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9558"/> <author fullname="Boris Makarenko" initials="B." surname="Makarenko"> <organization>The Technical center of Internet, LLC</organization> <address> <postal> <street>8 martastr.,St., 1,bldBldg. 12</street> <city>Moscow</city> <code>127083</code> <country>Russian Federation</country> </postal> <email>bmakarenko@tcinet.ru</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Vasily Dolmatov" initials="V." surname="Dolmatov" role="editor"> <organization>JSC "NPK Kryptonite"</organization> <address> <postal> <street>Spartakovskayasq.,Sq., 14,bld 2, JSC "NPK Kryptonite"</street>Bldg. 2</street> <city>Moscow</city> <code>105082</code> <country>Russian Federation</country> </postal> <email>vdolmatov@gmail.com</email> </address> </author> <datemonth="January" year="2024" day="25"/>month="March" year="2024"/> <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> <keyword>example</keyword> <abstract> <t> This document describes how to produce digital signatures and hash functions using the GOST R 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012 algorithms for DNSKEY, RRSIG, and DS resource records, for use in the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC). </t> </abstract> </front> <middle> <sectiontitle="Introduction">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Introduction</name> <t> The Domain Name System (DNS) is theglobalglobal, hierarchically distributed database for Internet Naming. The DNS has been extended to use cryptographic keys and digital signatures for the verification of the authenticity and integrity of its data. RFC 4033 <xreftarget="RFC4033"/>,target="RFC4033" format="default"/>, RFC 4034 <xreftarget="RFC4034"/>,target="RFC4034" format="default"/>, and RFC 4035 <xreftarget="RFC4035"/>target="RFC4035" format="default"/> describe these DNS Security Extensions, called DNSSEC. </t> <t> RFC 4034 describes how to store DNSKEY and RRSIG resourcerecords,records and specifies a list of cryptographic algorithms to use. This document extends that list with the signature and hash algorithms GOST R 34.10-2012 (<xreftarget="RFC7091"/>)target="RFC7091" format="default"/>) and GOST R 34.11-2012 (<xreftarget="RFC6986"/>),target="RFC6986" format="default"/>), and it specifies how to store DNSKEY data and how to produce RRSIG resource records with these algorithms. </t> <t>Algorithms GOsudarstvennyy STandart(GOST)GOST R 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012 are Russian national standards. Their cryptographic properties haven't been independently verified. </t> <t> Familiarity with DNSSEC and with GOST signature and hash algorithms is assumed in this document. </t> <t> Caution: </t> <t> This specification is not a standard and does not have IETF community consensus. It makes use of a cryptographic algorithm that is a national standard for Russia. Neither the IETF nor the IRTF has analyzed that algorithm for suitability for any given application, and it may contain either intended or unintended weaknesses. </t> <sectiontitle="Terminology">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Terminology</name> <t> The key words"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY","<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and"OPTIONAL""<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as described inBCP 14BCP 14 <xreftarget="RFC2119" />target="RFC2119"/> <xreftarget="RFC8174" />target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. </t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="DNSKEYnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>DNSKEY ResourceRecords">Records</name> <t> The format of the DNSKEY RR can be found in RFC 4034 <xreftarget="RFC4034"/>.target="RFC4034" format="default"/>. </t> <t> GOST R 34.10-2012 public keys are stored with the algorithm numberTBA1.23. </t> <t> According to RFC 7091 <xreftarget="RFC7091"/>,target="RFC7091" format="default"/>, a GOST R 34.10-2012 public key is a point on the elliptic curve Q =(x,y).(x, y). The wire representation of a public keyMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> contain 64 octets, where the first 32 octets contain the little-endian representation of x and the second 32 octets contain the little-endian representation of y. </t> <t> As RFC 6986 and RFC 7091allows 2allow two variants of the length of the output hash and the signature and many variants of parameters of the digital signature, for the purpose of this document we use the 256-bit variant of the digital signature algorithm, corresponding with the 256-bit variant of the digest algorithm. We select the parameters for the digital signature algorithm to be id-tc26-gost-3410-2012-256-paramSetA as specified in RFC 7836 <xreftarget="RFC7836"/>.target="RFC7836" format="default"/>; this document refers to it as "parameter set A". </t> <sectiontitle="Usingnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Using a Public Key with Existing CryptographicLibraries">Libraries</name> <t> At the time of this writing, existing GOST-aware cryptographic libraries are capable of reading GOST R 34.10-2012 public keys via a generic X.509 API if the key is encoded according to RFC 9215 <xreftarget="RFC9215"/>, Section 4.target="RFC9215" section="4" sectionFormat="comma" format="default"/>. </t> <t> To make this encoding from the wire format of a GOST R 34.10-2012 public key with the parameters used in this document, prepend the 64 octets of key data with the following 30-byte sequence: </t><figure> <artwork><artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0x30 0x5c 0x30 0x17 0x06 0x08 0x2a 0x85 0x03 0x07 0x01 0x01 0x01 0x01 0x30 0x0b 0x06 0x09 0x2a 0x85 0x03 0x07 0x01 0x02 0x01 0x01 0x01 0x03 0x41 0x00</artwork> </figure>]]></artwork> <t> These bytes provide the following ASN.1 structure suitable for parsing by cryptographic toolkits: </t><figure> <artwork><sourcecode type="asn.1"><![CDATA[ 0 92: SEQUENCE { 2 23: SEQUENCE { 4 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER '1 2 643 7 1 1 1 1' 14 11: SEQUENCE { 16 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER '1 2 643 7 1 2 1 1 1' : } : } 27 65: BIT STRING</artwork> </figure>]]></sourcecode> <t> The OIDs in the structure above represent a GOST R 34.10-2012 public key with256 bitsa 256-bit private key lengthalgorithmandParameterparameter set A. The structure itself represents SubjectPublicKeyInfo field of an X.509 certificate as defined in RFC 5280 <xreftarget="RFC5280"/>, Section 4.1.target="RFC5280" section="4.1" sectionFormat="comma" format="default"/> </t> </section> <sectiontitle="GOSTnumbered="true" toc="default" anchor="gost_dnskey_rr_ex"> <name>GOST DNSKEY RRExample">Example</name> <t> Given a private key with the following value: </t><figure> <artwork><artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ Private-key-format: v1.2 Algorithm:TBA123 (ECC-GOST12) Gost12Asn1:MD4CAQAwFwYIKoUDBwEBAQEwCwYJKoUDBwECAQEBBCD/Mw9o6R5lQHJ13jz0 W+C1tdsS4W7RJn04rk9MGJq3Hg== </artwork> </figure>MD4CAQAwFwYIKoUDBwEBAQEwCwYJKoUDBwECAQEBBCD/Mw9o6R5lQHJ13 jz0W+C1tdsS4W7RJn04rk9MGJq3Hg== ]]></artwork> <t> The following DNSKEY RR stores a DNS zone key for example: </t><figure> <artwork><sourcecode type="dns-rr"><![CDATA[ example. 600 IN DNSKEY 256 3TBA123 ( XGiiHlKUJd5fSeAK5O3L4tUNCPxs4pGqum6wKbqjdkqu IQ8nOXrilXZ9HcY8b2AETkWrtWHfwvJD4twPPJFQSA== ) ;{id = 47355 (zsk), size = 512b}</artwork> </figure>]]></sourcecode> <t> The private key here is presented in PrivateKeyInfo ASN.1 structure, as described inRFC5208RFC 5958 <xreftarget="RFC5208"/>, Section 5.target="RFC5958" sectionFormat="comma" section="2"/>. </t> <t>PublicThe public key can be calculated from the private key using algorithm described in RFC 7091 <xreftarget="RFC7091"/>. </t> <t> [RFC Editor note: Note: Algorithm numbers 23 and 5 are used as an example in this document, as actual numbers have not yet been assigned. If the assigned values will differ, the example keys and signatures will have to be recalculated before the official publication of the RFC.]target="RFC7091" format="default"/>. </t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="RRSIGnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>RRSIG ResourceRecords">Records</name> <t> The value of the signature field in the RRSIG RR follows RFC 7091 <xreftarget="RFC7091"/>target="RFC7091" format="default"/> and is calculated as follows. The values for the RDATA fields that precede the signature data are specified in RFC 4034 <xreftarget="RFC4034"/>.target="RFC4034" format="default"/>. </t><figure> <artwork><artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ hash = GOSTR3411-2012(data)</artwork> </figure>]]></artwork> <t> where "data" is the wire format data of the resource record set that is signed, as specified in RFC 4034 <xreftarget="RFC4034"/>.target="RFC4034" format="default"/>. </t> <t> The signature is calculated from the hash according totheGOST R34.10-2012 standard,34.10-2012, and its wire format is compatible with RFC 7091 <xreftarget="RFC7091"/>.target="RFC7091" format="default"/>. </t> <sectiontitle="RRSIGnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>RRSIG RRExample">Example</name> <t> Consider a given RRset consisting of one MX RR to be signed with the private key described inSection 2.2<xref target="gost_dnskey_rr_ex"/> of this document: </t><figure><artwork><sourcecode type="dns-rr"><![CDATA[ example. 600 IN MX 10mail.example.</artwork> </figure>mail.example.]]></sourcecode> <t> Setting the inception date to 2022-10-06 12:32:30 UTC and the expiration date to 2022-11-03 12:32:30 UTC, the following signature RR will be valid: </t><figure> <artwork><sourcecode type="dns-rr"><![CDATA[ example. 600 IN RRSIG MXTBA123 1 600 20221103123230 ( 20221006123230 47355 example. EuLO0Qpn6zT1pzj9T2H5AWjcgzfmjNiK/vj811bExa0V HMOVD9ma8rpf0B+D+V4Q0CWu1Ayzu+H/SyndnOWGxw== )</artwork> </figure>]]></sourcecode> <t> The GOST R 34.10-2012 signature algorithm uses random (pseudorandom) integer k as described inSection 6.1 of RFC 7091<xreftarget="RFC7091"/>.target="RFC7091" section="6.1" sectionFormat="of" format="default">RFC 7091</xref>. The following value for k was used to produce the signature example.</t><figure> <artwork><artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ k = 8BBD0CE7CAF3FC1C2503DF30D13ED5DB75EEC44060FA22FB7E29628407C1E34</artwork> </figure>]]></artwork> <t> This value for kMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be used when computing GOST R 34.10-2012 signatures. It is provided only so the above signature example can be reproduced. The actual signature value will differ between signature calculations. </t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="DSnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>DS ResourceRecords">Records</name> <t> The GOST R 34.11-2012 digest algorithm is denoted in DS RRs by the digest typeTBA2.5. The wire format of a digest value is compatible with RFC 6986 <xreftarget="RFC6986"/>.target="RFC6986" format="default"/>. </t> <sectiontitle="DSnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>DS RRExample">Example</name> <t> For Key Signing Key (KSK): </t><figure> <artwork><sourcecode type="dns-rr"><![CDATA[ example. IN DNSKEY 257 3TBA123 ( p8Req8DLJOfPymO5vExuK4gCcihF5N1YL7veCJ47av+w h/qs9yJpD064k02rYUHfWnr7IjvJlbn3Z0sTZe9GRQ== ) ;{id = 29468 (ksk), size = 512b}</artwork> </figure>]]></sourcecode> <t> The DS RR will be: </t><figure> <artwork><sourcecode type="dns-rr"><![CDATA[ example. IN DS 29468TBA1 TBA223 5 ( 6033725b0ccfc05d1e9d844d49c6cf89 0b13d5eac9439189947d5db6c8d1c1ec )</artwork> </figure>]]></sourcecode> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="Operational Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Operational Considerations</name> <sectiontitle="Key Sizes">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Key Sizes</name> <t> The key size of GOST R 34.10-2012 public keys conforming to this specificationMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be 512 bits according to RFC 7091 <xreftarget="RFC7091"/>.target="RFC7091" format="default"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Signature Sizes">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Signature Sizes</name> <t> The size of a GOST R 34.10-2012 signature conforming to this specificationMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be 512 bits according to RFC 7091 <xreftarget="RFC7091"/>.target="RFC7091" format="default"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Digest Sizes">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Digest Sizes</name> <t> The size of a GOST R 34.11-2012 digest conforming to this specificationMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be 256 bits according to RFC 6986 <xreftarget="RFC6986"/>.target="RFC6986" format="default"/>. </t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="Implementation Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Implementation Considerations</name> <t> The support of this cryptographic suite in DNSSEC-aware systems isOPTIONAL.<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>. According toRFC6840RFC 6840 <xreftarget="RFC6840"/>, Section 5.2target="RFC6840" section="5.2" sectionFormat="comma" format="default"/>, systems that do not support these algorithmsMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ignore the RRSIG,DNSKEYDNSKEY, and DS resource records associated with the GOST R 34.10-2012 digital signature algorithm. </t><t> [(To be removed in RFC). To check the correctness of the implementation, authors recommend using OpenSSL 1.1.1 or 3.0.x series, a fork of ldns available at https://github.com/beldmit/ldns/tree/gost2012, and a reference implementation of GOST crypto algorithms available at https://github.com/gost-engine/engine.] </t></section> <sectiontitle="IANA Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IANA Considerations</name> <t>This document updatesThe following entry has been added to the IANA registry for "DNS Security AlgorithmNumbers".Numbers": </t> <table> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Number</th> <th align="left">Description</th> <th align="left">Mnemonic</th> <th align="left">Zone Signing</th> <th align="left">Trans. Sec.</th> <th align="left">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">23</td> <td align="left">GOST R 34.10-2012</td> <td align="left">ECC-GOST12</td> <td align="left">Y</td> <td align="left">*</td> <td align="left">RFC 9558</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t> The followingentries haveentry has been added to theregistry: </t> <figure> <artwork> Zone Trans. Value Algorithm Mnemonic Signing Sec. References TBA1 GOST R 34.10-2012 ECC-GOST12 Y * RFC TBA </artwork> </figure> <t> This document updates theIANA registry for "Digest Algorithms" in the "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms"regsitry group by adding an entry for the GOST R 34.11-2012 algorithm: </t> <figure> <artwork> Value Algorithm Status TBA2 GOST R 34.11-2012 OPTIONAL </artwork> </figure> <t> [RFC editor note: For the purpose of example computations, the following values were used: TBA1 = 23, TBA2 = 5. If the assigned values will differ, the example keys and signatures will have to be recalculated before the official publication of the RFC.]registry group: </t> <table> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Value</th> <th align="left">Description</th> <th align="left">Status</th> <th align="left">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">5</td> <td align="left">GOST R 34.11-2012</td> <td align="left">OPTIONAL</td> <td align="left">RFC 9558</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Security Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Security Considerations</name> <t> It is recommended to use a dual KSK algorithm signed zone until GOST-aware DNSSEC softwarebecomebecomes more widespread, unless GOST-only cryptography isrequired.to be used. Otherwise, GOST-signed zones may be considered unsigned by the DNSSEC software currently in use. </t> <t>Currently, the cryptographic resistance of theLike all algorithms, it is possible that a signficant flaw could be discovered with GOST R34.10-2012 digital signature algorithm is estimated as 2**128 operations of multiple elliptic curve point computations34.11-2012. In that case, deployments should roll over to another algorithm. See RFC 7583 <xref target="RFC7583"/> onprime modulus of order 2**256. </t> <t> Currently,thecryptographic collision resistancetiming ofthe GOST R 34.11-2012 hash algorithm is estimated as 2**128 operations of computations of a step hash function.such changes. </t> </section> </middle> <back> <references> <name>References</name> <references> <name>Normative References</name> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3110.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4033.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4034.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4035.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6840.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6986.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7091.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7583.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7836.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/> </references> <references> <name>Informative References</name> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4509.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5280.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5933.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5958.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9215.xml"/> </references> </references> <sectiontitle="Acknowledgments">numbered="false" toc="default"> <name>Acknowledgments</name> <t> This document is a minor extension to RFC 4034 <xreftarget="RFC4034"/>.target="RFC4034" format="default"/>. Also, we tried to follow the documents RFC 3110 <xreftarget="RFC3110"/>,target="RFC3110" format="default"/>, RFC 4509 <xreftarget="RFC4509"/>,target="RFC4509" format="default"/>, and RFC 5933 <xreftarget="RFC5933"/>target="RFC5933" format="default"/> for consistency. The authors of and contributors to these documents are gratefully acknowledged for their hard work. </t> <t> The following people provided additional feedback, text, and valuable assistance:Alexander Venedyukhin, Michael StJohns, Valery Smyslov, Tim Wicinski, Stephane Bortzmeyer.<contact fullname="Alexander Venedyukhin" />, <contact fullname="Michael StJohns" />, <contact fullname="Valery Smyslov" />, <contact fullname="Tim Wicinski" />, and <contact fullname="Stéphane Bortzmeyer" />. </t> </section></middle> <back> <references title="Normative References"> &RFC2119; &RFC3110; &RFC4033; &RFC4034; &RFC4035; &RFC6840; &RFC6986; &RFC7091; &RFC7836; &RFC8174; </references> <references title="Informative References"> &RFC4509; &RFC5208; &RFC5280; &RFC5933; &RFC9215; </references></back> </rfc>