7 Network Working Group D. Eastlake 3rd
8 Request for Comments: 3110 Motorola
9 Obsoletes: 2537 May 2001
10 Category: Standards Track
13 RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System (DNS)
17 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
18 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
19 improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
20 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
21 and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
25 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
29 This document describes how to produce RSA/SHA1 SIG resource records
30 (RRs) in Section 3 and, so as to completely replace RFC 2537,
31 describes how to produce RSA KEY RRs in Section 2.
33 Since the adoption of a Proposed Standard for RSA signatures in the
34 DNS (Domain Name Space), advances in hashing have been made. A new
35 DNS signature algorithm is defined to make these advances available
36 in SIG RRs. The use of the previously specified weaker mechanism is
37 deprecated. The algorithm number of the RSA KEY RR is changed to
38 correspond to this new SIG algorithm. No other changes are made to
43 Material and comments from the following have been incorporated and
44 are gratefully acknowledged:
58 D. Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 1]
60 RFC 3110 RSA SIGs and KEYs in the DNS May 2001
65 1. Introduction................................................... 2
66 2. RSA Public KEY Resource Records................................ 3
67 3. RSA/SHA1 SIG Resource Records.................................. 3
68 4. Performance Considerations..................................... 4
69 5. IANA Considerations............................................ 5
70 6. Security Considerations........................................ 5
71 References........................................................ 5
72 Author's Address.................................................. 6
73 Full Copyright Statement.......................................... 7
77 The Domain Name System (DNS) is the global hierarchical replicated
78 distributed database system for Internet addressing, mail proxy, and
79 other information [RFC1034, 1035, etc.]. The DNS has been extended
80 to include digital signatures and cryptographic keys as described in
81 [RFC2535]. Thus the DNS can now be secured and used for secure key
84 Familiarity with the RSA and SHA-1 algorithms is assumed [Schneier,
85 FIP180] in this document.
87 RFC 2537 described how to store RSA keys and RSA/MD5 based signatures
88 in the DNS. However, since the adoption of RFC 2537, continued
89 cryptographic research has revealed hints of weakness in the MD5
90 [RFC1321] algorithm used in RFC 2537. The SHA1 Secure Hash Algorithm
91 [FIP180], which produces a larger hash, has been developed. By now
92 there has been sufficient experience with SHA1 that it is generally
93 acknowledged to be stronger than MD5. While this stronger hash is
94 probably not needed today in most secure DNS zones, critical zones
95 such a root, most top level domains, and some second and third level
96 domains, are sufficiently valuable targets that it would be negligent
97 not to provide what are generally agreed to be stronger mechanisms.
98 Furthermore, future advances in cryptanalysis and/or computer speeds
99 may require a stronger hash everywhere. In addition, the additional
100 computation required by SHA1 above that required by MD5 is
101 insignificant compared with the computational effort required by the
102 RSA modular exponentiation.
104 This document describes how to produce RSA/SHA1 SIG RRs in Section 3
105 and, so as to completely replace RFC 2537, describes how to produce
106 RSA KEY RRs in Section 2.
108 Implementation of the RSA algorithm in DNS with SHA1 is MANDATORY for
109 DNSSEC. The generation of RSA/MD5 SIG RRs as described in RFC 2537
114 D. Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 2]
116 RFC 3110 RSA SIGs and KEYs in the DNS May 2001
119 The key words "MUST", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
120 RECOMMENDED", and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as
121 described in RFC 2119.
123 2. RSA Public KEY Resource Records
125 RSA public keys are stored in the DNS as KEY RRs using algorithm
126 number 5 [RFC2535]. The structure of the algorithm specific portion
127 of the RDATA part of such RRs is as shown below.
131 exponent length 1 or 3 octets (see text)
132 exponent as specified by length field
133 modulus remaining space
135 For interoperability, the exponent and modulus are each limited to
136 4096 bits in length. The public key exponent is a variable length
137 unsigned integer. Its length in octets is represented as one octet
138 if it is in the range of 1 to 255 and by a zero octet followed by a
139 two octet unsigned length if it is longer than 255 bytes. The public
140 key modulus field is a multiprecision unsigned integer. The length
141 of the modulus can be determined from the RDLENGTH and the preceding
142 RDATA fields including the exponent. Leading zero octets are
143 prohibited in the exponent and modulus.
145 Note: KEY RRs for use with RSA/SHA1 DNS signatures MUST use this
146 algorithm number (rather than the algorithm number specified in the
149 Note: This changes the algorithm number for RSA KEY RRs to be the
150 same as the new algorithm number for RSA/SHA1 SIGs.
152 3. RSA/SHA1 SIG Resource Records
154 RSA/SHA1 signatures are stored in the DNS using SIG resource records
155 (RRs) with algorithm number 5.
157 The signature portion of the SIG RR RDATA area, when using the
158 RSA/SHA1 algorithm, is calculated as shown below. The data signed is
159 determined as specified in RFC 2535. See RFC 2535 for fields in the
160 SIG RR RDATA which precede the signature itself.
164 signature = ( 01 | FF* | 00 | prefix | hash ) ** e (mod n)
170 D. Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 3]
172 RFC 3110 RSA SIGs and KEYs in the DNS May 2001
175 where SHA1 is the message digest algorithm documented in [FIP180],
176 "|" is concatenation, "e" is the private key exponent of the signer,
177 and "n" is the modulus of the signer's public key. 01, FF, and 00
178 are fixed octets of the corresponding hexadecimal value. "prefix" is
179 the ASN.1 BER SHA1 algorithm designator prefix required in PKCS1
182 hex 30 21 30 09 06 05 2B 0E 03 02 1A 05 00 04 14
184 This prefix is included to make it easier to use standard
185 cryptographic libraries. The FF octet MUST be repeated the maximum
186 number of times such that the value of the quantity being
187 exponentiated is one octet shorter than the value of n.
189 (The above specifications are identical to the corresponding parts of
190 Public Key Cryptographic Standard #1 [RFC2437].)
192 The size of "n", including most and least significant bits (which
193 will be 1) MUST be not less than 512 bits and not more than 4096
194 bits. "n" and "e" SHOULD be chosen such that the public exponent is
195 small. These are protocol limits. For a discussion of key size see
198 Leading zero bytes are permitted in the RSA/SHA1 algorithm signature.
200 4. Performance Considerations
202 General signature generation speeds are roughly the same for RSA and
203 DSA [RFC2536]. With sufficient pre-computation, signature generation
204 with DSA is faster than RSA. Key generation is also faster for DSA.
205 However, signature verification is an order of magnitude slower with
206 DSA when the RSA public exponent is chosen to be small as is
207 recommended for KEY RRs used in domain name system (DNS) data
210 A public exponent of 3 minimizes the effort needed to verify a
211 signature. Use of 3 as the public exponent is weak for
212 confidentiality uses since, if the same data can be collected
213 encrypted under three different keys with an exponent of 3 then,
214 using the Chinese Remainder Theorem [NETSEC], the original plain text
215 can be easily recovered. If a key is known to be used only for
216 authentication, as is the case with DNSSEC, then an exponent of 3 is
217 acceptable. However other applications in the future may wish to
218 leverage DNS distributed keys for applications that do require
219 confidentiality. For keys which might have such other uses, a more
220 conservative choice would be 65537 (F4, the fourth fermat number).
226 D. Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 4]
228 RFC 3110 RSA SIGs and KEYs in the DNS May 2001
231 Current DNS implementations are optimized for small transfers,
232 typically less than 512 bytes including DNS overhead. Larger
233 transfers will perform correctly and extensions have been
234 standardized [RFC2671] to make larger transfers more efficient, it is
235 still advisable at this time to make reasonable efforts to minimize
236 the size of KEY RR sets stored within the DNS consistent with
237 adequate security. Keep in mind that in a secure zone, at least one
238 authenticating SIG RR will also be returned.
240 5. IANA Considerations
242 The DNSSEC algorithm number 5 is allocated for RSA/SHA1 SIG RRs and
245 6. Security Considerations
247 Many of the general security considerations in RFC 2535 apply. Keys
248 retrieved from the DNS should not be trusted unless (1) they have
249 been securely obtained from a secure resolver or independently
250 verified by the user and (2) this secure resolver and secure
251 obtainment or independent verification conform to security policies
252 acceptable to the user. As with all cryptographic algorithms,
253 evaluating the necessary strength of the key is essential and
254 dependent on local policy. For particularly critical applications,
255 implementers are encouraged to consider the range of available
256 algorithms and key sizes. See also RFC 2541, "DNS Security
257 Operational Considerations".
261 [FIP180] U.S. Department of Commerce, "Secure Hash Standard", FIPS
262 PUB 180-1, 17 Apr 1995.
264 [NETSEC] Network Security: PRIVATE Communications in a PUBLIC
265 World, Charlie Kaufman, Radia Perlman, & Mike Speciner,
266 Prentice Hall Series in Computer Networking and
267 Distributed Communications, 1995.
269 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities",
270 STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
272 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
273 Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
275 [RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
282 D. Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 5]
284 RFC 3110 RSA SIGs and KEYs in the DNS May 2001
287 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
288 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
290 [RFC2437] Kaliski, B. and J. Staddon, "PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography
291 Specifications Version 2.0", RFC 2437, October 1998.
293 [RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
294 RFC 2535, March 1999.
296 [RFC2536] Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System
297 (DNS)", RFC 2536, March 1999.
299 [RFC2537] Eastlake, D., "RSA/MD5 KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name
300 System (DNS)", RFC 2537, March 1999.
302 [RFC2541] Eastlake, D., "DNS Security Operational Considerations",
303 RFC 2541, March 1999.
305 [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC
308 [Schneier] Bruce Schneier, "Applied Cryptography Second Edition:
309 protocols, algorithms, and source code in C", 1996, John
310 Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0-471-11709-9.
314 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
317 Milford, MA 01757 USA
319 Phone: +1-508-261-5434 (w)
321 Fax +1-508-261-4777 (w)
322 EMail: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com
338 D. Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 6]
340 RFC 3110 RSA SIGs and KEYs in the DNS May 2001
343 Full Copyright Statement
345 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
347 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
348 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
349 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
350 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
351 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
352 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
353 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
354 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
355 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
356 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
357 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
358 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
361 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
362 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
364 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
365 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
366 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
367 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
368 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
369 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
373 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
394 D. Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 7]