Network Working Group F. Denis Internet-Draft Individual Contributor Intended status: Informational 15 April 2025 Expires: 17 October 2025 The DNSCrypt Protocol draft-denis-dprive-dnscrypt-06 Abstract The DNSCrypt protocol is designed to encrypt and authenticate DNS traffic between clients and resolvers. This document specifies the protocol and its implementation, providing a standardized approach to securing DNS communications. DNSCrypt improves confidentiality, integrity, and resistance to attacks affecting the original DNS protocol while maintaining compatibility with existing DNS infrastructure. About This Document This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://dnscrypt.github.io/dnscrypt-protocol/. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-denis-dprive-dnscrypt/. Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/DNSCrypt/dnscrypt-protocol. 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 https://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 17 October 2025. Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2025 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 (https://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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions And Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Protocol Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Protocol Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3. Session Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4. Query Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4.1. Padding For Client Queries Over UDP . . . . . . . . . 10 5.4.2. Client Queries Over UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.4.3. Padding For Client Queries Over TCP . . . . . . . . . 11 5.4.4. Client Queries Over TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.5. Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.1. Protocol Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.2. Implementation Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.3. Attack Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.5. Operational Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Anonymized DNSCrypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.1. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.2. Client Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.3. Relay Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 11. Appendix 1: The Box-XChaChaPoly Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . 22 11.1. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 11.2. HChaCha20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 11.3. Test Vector For The HChaCha20 Block Function . . . . . . 23 11.4. ChaCha20_DJB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 11.5. XChaCha20_DJB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 11.6. XChaCha20_DJB-Poly1305 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 11.7. The Box-XChaChaPoly Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1. Introduction The Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1035] is a critical component of Internet infrastructure, but its original design did not include security features to protect the confidentiality and integrity of queries and responses. This document defines the DNSCrypt protocol, which encrypts and authenticates DNS queries and responses, improving confidentiality, integrity, and resistance to attacks affecting the original DNS protocol. The protocol is designed to be lightweight, extensible, and simple to implement securely on top of an existing DNS client, server or proxy. It provides a standardized approach to securing DNS communications while maintaining compatibility with existing DNS infrastructure. 2. Conventions And Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 3. Protocol Flow The DNSCrypt protocol consists of two distinct phases: 1. *Initial Setup Phase* (one-time): * The client requests the server's certificate * The server responds with its certificate containing public keys 2. *Ongoing Communication Phase* (repeated as needed): * The client sends encrypted DNS queries * The server responds with encrypted DNS responses The following diagram illustrates the complete protocol flow: Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 +--------+ +--------+ | | | | | Client | | Server | | | | | +--------+ +--------+ | | | 1. Request Certificate | |---------------------------->| | | | 2. Certificate Response | |<----------------------------| | | | 3. Encrypted Query | |---------------------------->| | | | 4. Encrypted Query | |---------------------------->| | | | 5. Encrypted Response | |<----------------------------| | | | 6. Encrypted Response | |<----------------------------| | | | 7. Encrypted Query | |---------------------------->| | | | 8. Encrypted Response | |<----------------------------| | | | | The initial setup phase (steps 1-2) occurs only when: * A client first starts using a DNSCrypt server * The client's cached certificate expires * The client detects a certificate with a higher serial number After the initial setup, the client and server engage in the ongoing communication phase (steps 3-8), where encrypted queries and responses are exchanged as needed. This phase can be repeated indefinitely until the certificate expires or a new certificate is available. Key characteristics of the ongoing communication phase: Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 1. *Stateless Operation*: Each query and response is independent. The server does not maintain state between queries. 2. *Out-of-Order Responses*: Responses may arrive in a different order than the queries were sent. Each response is self- contained and can be processed independently. 3. *Multiple Responses*: A single query may result in multiple responses, and responses can be received without sending new queries. For example, a server might send additional responses for a query that has multiple answers or requires additional processing. 4. *Asynchronous Communication*: The protocol does not require strict request-response pairing. A client can send multiple queries before receiving responses, and responses can be processed as they arrive. 4. Protocol Components Definitions for client queries: * : * : a 8 byte identifier for the resolver certificate chosen by the client. * : the client's public key, whose length depends on the encryption algorithm defined in the chosen certificate. * : the client's secret key. * : the resolver's public key. * : a unique query identifier for a given (, ) tuple. The same query sent twice for the same (, ) tuple MUST use two distinct values. The length of is determined by the chosen encryption algorithm. * AE: the authenticated encryption function. * : AE( , ) Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 * : the shared key derived from and , using the key exchange algorithm defined in the chosen certificate. * : the unencrypted client query. The query is not modified; in particular, the query flags are not altered and the query length MUST be kept in queries prepared to be sent over TCP [RFC7766]. * : length is half the nonce length required by the encryption algorithm. In client queries, the other half, is filled with NUL bytes. * : the variable-length padding. Definitions for server responses: * : * : the 0x72 0x36 0x66 0x6e 0x76 0x57 0x6a 0x38 byte sequence * : * : the nonce sent by the client in the related query. * : the client's public key. * : the resolver's secret key. * : a unique response identifier for a given (, ) tuple. The length of depends on the chosen encryption algorithm. * DE: the authenticated decryption function. * : DE(, , ) * : the shared key derived from and , using the key exchange algorithm defined in the chosen certificate. * : the unencrypted resolver response. The response is not modified; in particular, the query flags are not altered and the response length MUST be kept in responses prepared to be sent over TCP [RFC7766]. Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 * : the variable-length padding. The following diagram shows the structure of a DNSCrypt query packet: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Client Magic | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Client Public Key + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Client Nonce + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Encrypted Query + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The following diagram shows the structure of a DNSCrypt response packet: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Resolver Magic | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Nonce + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Encrypted Response + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 5. Protocol Description 5.1. Overview The DNSCrypt protocol operates through the following steps: 1. The DNSCrypt client sends a DNS query to a DNSCrypt server to retrieve the server's public keys. Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 2. The client generates its own key pair. 3. The client encrypts unmodified DNS queries using a server's public key, padding them as necessary, and concatenates them to a nonce and a copy of the client's public key. The resulting output is transmitted to the server via standard DNS transport mechanisms [RFC1035]. 4. Encrypted queries are decrypted by the server using the attached client public key and the server's own secret key. The output is a regular DNS packet that doesn't require any special processing. 5. To send an encrypted response, the server adds padding to the unmodified response, encrypts the result using the client's public key and the client's nonce, and truncates the response if necessary. The resulting packet, truncated or not, is sent to the client using standard DNS mechanisms. 6. The client authenticates and decrypts the response using its secret key, the server's public key, the client's nonce included in the response, and the client's original nonce. If the response was truncated, the client MAY adjust internal parameters and retry over TCP [RFC7766]. If not, the output is a regular DNS response that can be directly forwarded to applications and stub resolvers. Key features of the DNSCrypt protocol include: * Stateless operation: Every query can be processed independently from other queries, with no session identifiers required. * Flexible key management: Clients can replace their keys whenever they want, without extra interactions with servers. * Proxy support: DNSCrypt packets can securely be proxied without having to be decrypted, allowing client IP addresses to be hidden from resolvers ("Anonymized DNSCrypt"). * Shared infrastructure: Recursive DNS servers can accept DNSCrypt queries on the same IP address and port used for regular DNS traffic. * Attack mitigation: DNSCrypt mitigates two common security vulnerabilities in regular DNS over UDP: amplification [RFC5358] and fragmentation attacks. Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 5.2. Transport The DNSCrypt protocol can use the UDP and TCP transport protocols. DNSCrypt clients and resolvers SHOULD support the protocol via UDP, and MUST support it over TCP. Both TCP and UDP connections using DNSCrypt SHOULD employ port 443 by default. 5.3. Session Establishment From the client's perspective, a DNSCrypt session is initiated when the client sends an unauthenticated DNS query to a DNSCrypt-capable resolver. This DNS query contains encoded information about the certificate versions supported by the client and a public identifier of the desired provider. The resolver sends back a collection of signed certificates that the client MUST verify using the pre-distributed provider public key. Each certificate includes a validity period, a serial number, a version that defines a key exchange mechanism, an authenticated encryption algorithm and its parameters, as well as a short-term public key, known as the resolver public key. Resolvers have the ability to support various algorithms and can concurrently advertise multiple short-term public keys (resolver public keys). The client picks the one with the highest serial number among the currently valid ones that match a supported protocol version. Every certificate contains a unique magic number that the client MUST include at the beginning of their queries. This allows the resolver to identify which certificate the client selected for crafting a particular query. The encryption algorithm, resolver public key, and client magic number from the chosen certificate are then used by the client to send encrypted queries. These queries include the client public key. With the knowledge of the chosen certificate and corresponding secret key, along with the client's public key, the resolver is able to verify, decrypt the query, and then encrypt the response utilizing identical parameters. 5.4. Query Processing Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 5.4.1. Padding For Client Queries Over UDP Before encryption takes place, queries are padded according to the ISO/IEC 7816-4 standard. Padding begins with a single byte holding the value 0x80, succeeded by any number of NUL bytes. MUST be at least bytes. In this context, represents the original client query, while denotes the added padding. Should the client query's length fall short of bytes, the padding length MUST be adjusted in order to satisfy the length requirement. is a variable length, initially set to 256 bytes, and MUST be a multiple of 64 bytes. It represents the minimum permitted length for a client query, inclusive of padding. 5.4.2. Client Queries Over UDP UDP-based client queries need to follow the padding guidelines outlined in section 3. Each UDP packet MUST hold one query, with the complete content comprising the structure specified in section 2. UDP packets employing the DNSCrypt protocol have the capability to be split into distinct IP packets sharing the same source port. Upon receiving a query, the resolver may choose to either disregard it or send back a response encrypted using DNSCrypt. The client MUST authenticate and, if authentication succeeds, decrypt the response with the help of the resolver's public key, the shared secret, and the obtained nonce. In case the response fails verification, it MUST be disregarded by the client. If the response has the TC flag set, the client MUST: 1. send the query again using TCP [RFC7766] 2. set the new minimum query length as: ::= min( + 64, ) Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 10] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 denotes the minimum permitted length for a client query, including padding. That value MUST be capped so that the full length of a DNSCrypt packet doesn't exceed the maximum size required by the transport layer. The client MAY decrease , but the length MUST remain a multiple of 64 bytes. 5.4.3. Padding For Client Queries Over TCP Queries MUST undergo padding using the ISO/IEC 7816-4 format before being encrypted. The padding starts with a byte valued 0x80 followed by a variable number of NUL bytes. The length of is selected randomly, ranging from 1 to 256 bytes, including the initial byte valued at 0x80. The total length of MUST be a multiple of 64 bytes. For example, an originally unpadded 56-bytes DNS query can be padded as: <56-bytes-query> 0x80 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 or <56-bytes-query> 0x80 (0x00 * 71) or <56-bytes-query> 0x80 (0x00 * 135) or <56-bytes-query> 0x80 (0x00 * 199) 5.4.4. Client Queries Over TCP The sole differences between encrypted client queries transmitted via TCP and those sent using UDP lie in the padding length calculation and the inclusion of a length prefix, represented as two big-endian bytes. In contrast, cleartext DNS query payloads do not necessitate a length prefix, regardless of whether they are transmitted via TCP. Unlike UDP queries, a query sent over TCP can be shorter than the response. Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 11] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 After having received a response from the resolver, the client and the resolver MUST close the TCP connection to ensure security and comply with this revision of the protocol, which prohibits multiple transactions over the same TCP connection. 5.5. Certificates The following diagram shows the structure of a DNSCrypt certificate: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cert Magic | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ES Version | Protocol Minor Version | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Signature + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Resolver Public Key + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Client Magic | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Serial | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TS Start | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TS End | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Extensions + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ To initiate a DNSCrypt session, a client transmits an ordinary unencrypted TXT DNS query to the resolver's IP address and DNSCrypt port. The attempt is first made using UDP; if unsuccessful due to failure, timeout, or truncation, the client then proceeds with TCP. Resolvers are not required to serve certificates both on UDP and TCP. The name in the question () MUST follow this scheme: . dnscrypt-cert . Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 12] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 A major protocol version has only one certificate format. A DNSCrypt client implementing the second version of the protocol MUST send a query with the TXT type and a name of the form: 2.dnscrypt-cert.example.com The zone MUST be a valid DNS name, but MAY not be registered in the DNS hierarchy. A single provider name can be shared by multiple resolvers operated by the same entity, and a resolver can respond to multiple provider names, especially to support multiple protocol versions simultaneously. In order to use a DNSCrypt-enabled resolver, a client must know the following information: * The resolver IP address and port * The provider name * The provider public key The provider public key is a long-term key whose sole purpose is to verify the certificates. It is never used to encrypt or verify DNS queries. A single provider public key can be employed to sign multiple certificates. For example, an organization operating multiple resolvers can use a unique provider name and provider public key across all resolvers, and just provide a list of IP addresses and ports. Each resolver MAY have its unique set of certificates that can be signed with the same key. It is RECOMMENDED that certificates are signed using specialized hardware rather than directly on the resolvers themselves. Once signed, resolvers SHOULD make these certificates available to clients. Signing certificates on dedicated hardware helps ensure security and integrity, as it isolates the process from potential vulnerabilities present in the resolver's system. A successful response to a certificate request contains one or more TXT records, each record containing a certificate encoded as follows: * : Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 13] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 * : 0x44 0x4e 0x53 0x43 * : the cryptographic construction to use with this certificate. For Box-XChaChaPoly, MUST be 0x00 0x02. * : 0x00 0x00 * : a 64-byte signature of ( ) using the Ed25519 algorithm and the provider secret key. Ed25519 MUST be used in this version of the protocol. * : the resolver short-term public key, which is 32 bytes when using X25519. * : The first 8 bytes of a client query that was built using the information from this certificate. It MAY be a truncated public key. Two valid certificates cannot share the same . MUST NOT start with 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 (seven all-zero bytes) in order to avoid confusion with the QUIC protocol [RFC9000]. * : a 4-byte serial number in big-endian format. If more than one certificate is valid, the client MUST prefer the certificate with a higher serial number. * : the date the certificate is valid from, as a big- endian 4-byte unsigned Unix timestamp. * : the date the certificate is valid until (inclusive), as a big-endian 4-byte unsigned Unix timestamp. * : empty in the current protocol version, but may contain additional data in future revisions, including minor versions. The computation and verification of the signature MUST include the extensions. An implementation not supporting these extensions MUST ignore them. Certificates made of this information, without extensions, are 116 bytes long. With the addition of , , and , the record is 124 bytes long. After receiving a set of certificates, the client checks their validity based on the current date, filters out the ones designed for encryption systems that are not supported by the client, and chooses the certificate with the higher serial number. Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 14] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 DNSCrypt queries sent by the client MUST use the header of the chosen certificate, as well as the specified encryption system and public key. The client MUST check for new certificates every hour and switch to a new certificate if: * The current certificate is not present or not valid anymore, or * A certificate with a higher serial number than the current one is available. 6. Implementation Status _Note: This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC._ Multiple implementations of the protocol described in this document have been developed and verified for interoperability. A comprehensive list of known implementations can be found at https://dnscrypt.info/implementations. 7. Security Considerations This section discusses security considerations for the DNSCrypt protocol. 7.1. Protocol Security The DNSCrypt protocol provides several security benefits: 1. *Confidentiality*: DNS queries and responses are encrypted using XChaCha20-Poly1305 [RFC8439], preventing eavesdropping of DNS traffic. For example, a query for "example.com" would be encrypted and appear as random data to an observer. 2. *Integrity*: Message authentication using Poly1305 [RFC8439] ensures that responses cannot be tampered with in transit. Any modification to the encrypted response would be detected and rejected by the client. 3. *Authentication*: The use of X25519 [RFC7748] for key exchange and Ed25519 for certificate signatures provides strong authentication of resolvers. Clients can verify they are communicating with the intended resolver and not an impostor. Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 15] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 4. *Forward Secrecy*: Short-term key pairs are used for each session, providing forward secrecy. Even if a long-term key is compromised, past communications remain secure. 7.2. Implementation Security Implementations should consider the following security aspects: 1. *Key Management*: * Resolvers MUST rotate their short-term key pairs at least every 24 hours * Previous secret keys MUST be securely erased after rotation * Provider secret keys used for certificate signing SHOULD be stored in hardware security modules (HSMs) * Example: A resolver might generate new key pairs daily at midnight UTC 2. *Nonce Management*: * Nonces MUST NOT be reused for a given shared secret * Clients SHOULD include timestamps in their nonces to prevent replay attacks * Resolvers SHOULD verify that nonces are within a reasonable time window (e.g., ±5 minutes) * Example: A nonce might be constructed as: timestamp || random_bytes 3. *Padding*: * Implementations MUST use the specified padding scheme to prevent traffic analysis * The minimum query length SHOULD be adjusted based on network conditions * Example: A 50-byte query might be padded to 256 bytes to prevent size-based fingerprinting 4. *Certificate Validation*: Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 16] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 * Clients MUST verify certificate signatures using the provider's public key * Certificates MUST be checked for validity periods * Clients MUST prefer certificates with higher serial numbers * Example: A client might cache valid certificates and check for updates hourly 7.3. Attack Mitigation DNSCrypt provides protection against several types of attacks: 1. *DNS Spoofing*: The use of authenticated encryption prevents spoofed responses. An attacker cannot forge responses without the server's secret key. 2. *Amplification Attacks*: The padding requirements and minimum query length help prevent amplification attacks [RFC5358]. For example, a 256-byte minimum query size limits the amplification factor. 3. *Fragmentation Attacks*: The protocol handles fragmentation in a way that prevents certain types of attacks. Large responses are properly fragmented and reassembled. 4. *Replay Attacks*: The use of nonces and timestamps helps prevent replay attacks. A replayed query would be detected due to nonce reuse. 7.4. Privacy Considerations While DNSCrypt encrypts DNS traffic, there are some privacy considerations: 1. *Resolver Knowledge*: Resolvers can still see the client's IP address unless Anonymized DNSCrypt is used. This can reveal the client's location and network. 2. *Query Patterns*: Even with encryption, the size and timing of queries may reveal information. Padding helps mitigate this but doesn't eliminate it completely. 3. *Certificate Requests*: Initial certificate requests are unencrypted and may reveal client capabilities. This is a one- time exposure per session. Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 17] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 7.5. Operational Security Operators should consider: 1. *Key Distribution*: Provider public keys should be distributed securely to clients. This might involve: * Publishing keys on secure websites * Using DNSSEC-signed records * Including keys in software distributions 2. *Certificate Management*: Certificates should be signed on dedicated hardware, not on resolvers. This provides: * Better key protection * Centralized certificate management * Reduced attack surface 3. *Access Control*: Resolvers may implement access control based on client public keys. This can: * Prevent abuse * Enable service differentiation * Support business models 4. *Monitoring*: Operators should monitor for unusual patterns that may indicate attacks: * High query rates from single clients * Unusual query patterns * Certificate request anomalies 8. Operational Considerations Special attention should be paid to the uniqueness of the generated secret keys. Client public keys can be used by resolvers to authenticate clients, link queries to customer accounts, and unlock business-specific features such as redirecting specific domain names to a sinkhole. Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 18] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 Resolvers accessible from any client IP address can also opt for only responding to a set of whitelisted public keys. Resolvers accepting queries from any client MUST accept any client public key. In particular, an anonymous client can generate a new key pair for every session, or even for every query. This mitigates the ability for a resolver to group queries by client public keys and discover the set of IP addresses a user might have been operating. Resolvers MUST rotate the short-term key pair every 24 hours at most, and MUST throw away the previous secret key. After a key rotation, a resolver MUST still accept all the previous keys that haven't expired. Provider public keys MAY be published as DNSSEC-signed TXT records [RFC1035], in the same zone as the provider name. For example, a query for the TXT type on the name "2.pubkey.example.com" may return a signed record containing a hexadecimal-encoded provider public key for the provider name "2.dnscrypt-cert.example.com". As a client is likely to reuse the same key pair many times, servers are encouraged to cache shared keys instead of performing the X25519 operation for each query. This makes the computational overhead of DNSCrypt negligible compared to plain DNS. 9. Anonymized DNSCrypt While DNSCrypt encrypts DNS traffic, DNS server operators can still observe client IP addresses. Anonymized DNSCrypt is an extension to the DNSCrypt protocol that allows queries and responses to be relayed by an intermediate server, hiding the client's IP address from the resolver. 9.1. Protocol Overview Anonymized DNSCrypt works by having the client send encrypted queries to a relay server, which then forwards them to the actual DNSCrypt resolver. The relay server cannot decrypt the queries or responses, and the resolver only sees the relay's IP address. [Client]----(encrypted query)--->[Relay]----(encrypted query)--->[Server] [Client]<--(encrypted response)--[Relay]<--(encrypted response)--[Server] Key properties of Anonymized DNSCrypt: * The relay cannot decrypt or modify queries and responses * The resolver only sees the relay's IP address, not the client's Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 19] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 * A DNSCrypt server can simultaneously act as a relay * The protocol works over both UDP and TCP 9.2. Client Queries The following diagram shows the structure of an Anonymized DNSCrypt query packet: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Anon Magic | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Server IP (IPv6) + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Server Port | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + DNSCrypt Query + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ An Anonymized DNSCrypt query is a standard DNSCrypt query prefixed with information about the target server: ::= Where: * : 0xff 0xff 0xff 0xff 0xff 0xff 0xff 0xff 0x00 0x00 * : 16 bytes encoded IPv6 address (IPv4 addresses are mapped to IPv6 using ::ffff: [RFC4291]) * : 2 bytes in big-endian format * : standard DNSCrypt query For example, a query for a server at 192.0.2.1:443 would be prefixed with: 0xff 0xff 0xff 0xff 0xff 0xff 0xff 0xff 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0xff 0xff 0xc0 0x00 0x02 0x01 0x01 0xbb Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 20] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 9.3. Relay Behavior Relays MUST: 1. Accept queries over both TCP and UDP 2. Communicate with upstream servers over UDP, even if client queries were sent over TCP 3. Validate incoming packets: * Check that the target IP is not in a private range [RFC1918] * Verify the port number is in an allowed range * Ensure the DNSCrypt query doesn't start with * Verify the query doesn't start with 7 zero bytes (to avoid confusion with QUIC [RFC9000]) 4. Forward valid queries unmodified to the server 5. Verify server responses: * Check that the response is smaller than the query * Validate the response format (either starts with resolver magic or is a certificate response) * Forward valid responses unmodified to the client 9.4. Operational Considerations When using Anonymized DNSCrypt: 1. Clients should choose relays and servers operated by different entities 2. Having relays and servers on different networks is recommended 3. Relay operators should: * Refuse forwarding to reserved IP ranges [RFC1918] * Restrict allowed server ports (typically only allowing port 443) * Monitor for abuse Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 21] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 10. IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions. 11. Appendix 1: The Box-XChaChaPoly Algorithm The Box-XChaChaPoly algorithm combines the X25519 [RFC7748] key exchange mechanism with a variant of the ChaCha20-Poly1305 construction specified in [RFC8439]. 11.1. Conventions and Definitions * x[a..]: the subarray of x starting at index a, and extending to the last index of x * x[a..b]: the subarray of x starting at index a and ending at index b. * LOAD32_LE(p): returns a 32-bit unsigned integer from the 4-byte array p * STORE32_LE(p, x): stores the 32-bit unsigned integer x into the 4-byte array p 11.2. HChaCha20 HChaCha20 is based on the construction and security proof used to create XSalsa20, an extended-nonce variant of Salsa20. The HChaCha20 function takes the following input paramters: * : secret key * : a 128-bit input and returns a 256-bit keyed hash. The function can be implemented using an existing IETF-compliant ChaCha20 implementation as follows: Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 22] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 block_bytes = ChaCha20(msg={0}**64, nonce=in[4..16], counter=LOAD32_LE(in[0..4]), key=k) block_out[0] = LOAD32_LE(block_bytes[ 0..][0..4]) - 0x61707865 block_out[1] = LOAD32_LE(block_bytes[ 4..][0..4]) - 0x3320646e block_out[2] = LOAD32_LE(block_bytes[ 8..][0..4]) - 0x79622d32 block_out[3] = LOAD32_LE(block_bytes[12..][0..4]) - 0x6b206574 block_out[4] = LOAD32_LE(block_bytes[48..][0..4]) - LOAD32_LE(in[ 0..][0..4]) block_out[5] = LOAD32_LE(block_bytes[52..][0..4]) - LOAD32_LE(in[ 4..][0..4]) block_out[6] = LOAD32_LE(block_bytes[56..][0..4]) - LOAD32_LE(in[ 8..][0..4]) block_out[7] = LOAD32_LE(block_bytes[60..][0..4]) - LOAD32_LE(in[12..][0..4]) for i in 0..8: STORE32_LE(out[i * 4..][0..4], blocks_out[i]) return out 11.3. Test Vector For The HChaCha20 Block Function k: 000102030405060708090a0b0c0d0e0f101112131415161718191a1b1c1d1e1f in: 000102030405060708090a0b0c0d0e0f out: 51e3ff45a895675c4b33b46c64f4a9ace110d34df6a2ceab486372bacbd3eff6 11.4. ChaCha20_DJB As opposed to the version standardized for IETF protocols, ChaCha20 was originally designed to have a 8 byte nonce. For the needs of TLS, [RFC8439] changed this by setting N_MIN and N_MAX to 12, at the expense of a smaller internal counter. DNSCrypt uses ChaCha20 as originally specified, with N_MIN = N_MAX = 8. We refer to this variant as ChaCha20_DJB. The internal counter in ChaCha20_DJB is 4 bytes larger than ChaCha20. There are no other differences between ChaCha20_DJB and ChaCha20. 11.5. XChaCha20_DJB XChaCha20_DJB can be constructed from an existing ChaCha20 implementation and the HChaCha20 function. Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 23] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 All that needs to be done is: 1. Pass the key and the first 16 bytes of the 24-byte nonce to HChaCha20 to obtain the subkey. 2. Use the subkey and remaining 8 byte nonce with ChaCha20_DJB. 11.6. XChaCha20_DJB-Poly1305 XChaCha20 is a stream cipher and offers no integrity guarantees without being combined with a MAC algorithm (e.g. Poly1305). XChaCha20_DJB-Poly1305 adds an authentication tag to the ciphertext encrypted with XChaCha20_DJB. The Poly1305 key is computed as in [RFC8439], by encrypting an empty block. Finally, the output of the Poly1305 function is prepended to the ciphertext: * : encryption key * : message to encrypt * : XChaCha20_DJB(, ) * XChaCha20_DJB-Poly1305(, ): Poly1305() || 11.7. The Box-XChaChaPoly Algorithm The Box-XChaChaPoly algorithm combines the key exchange mechanism X25519 defined [RFC7748] with the XChaCha20_DJB-Poly1305 authenticated encryption algorithm. * : encryption key * : message to encrypt * : recipent's public key * : sender's secret key * : HChaCha20(X25519(, )) * Box-XChaChaPoly(pk, sk, m): XChaCha20_DJB-Poly1305(, ) 12. Normative References Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 24] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, November 1987, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC7766] Dickinson, J., Dickinson, S., Bellis, R., Mankin, A., and D. Wessels, "DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements", RFC 7766, DOI 10.17487/RFC7766, March 2016, . [RFC5358] Damas, J. and F. Neves, "Preventing Use of Recursive Nameservers in Reflector Attacks", BCP 140, RFC 5358, DOI 10.17487/RFC5358, October 2008, . [RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021, . [RFC8439] Nir, Y. and A. Langley, "ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF Protocols", RFC 8439, DOI 10.17487/RFC8439, June 2018, . [RFC7748] Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves for Security", RFC 7748, DOI 10.17487/RFC7748, January 2016, . [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February 2006, . [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G. J., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, . Author's Address Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 25] Internet-Draft DNSCrypt April 2025 Frank Denis Individual Contributor Email: fde@00f.net Denis Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 26]