Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Topics Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Register
  • Sign in
  • Knot DNS Knot DNS
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributor statistics
    • Graph
    • Compare revisions
  • Issues 19
    • Issues 19
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 2
    • Merge requests 2
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Packages and registries
    • Packages and registries
    • Container Registry
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • Knot projects
  • Knot DNSKnot DNS
  • Issues
  • #827
Closed
Open
Issue created Dec 27, 2022 by Jeremy Saklad@Saklad5

Implement RFC 9103 Strict/Mutual TLS

Knot implements RFC 9250's DNS-over-QUIC protocol in most respects, but this doesn't extend to implementing RFC 9103 as it suggests.

RFC 9103 defines a system for using TLS certificates to authenticate both server and client, which is a far more secure and manageable option for zone transfers than the TSIG authentication that Knot already offers.

This should be quite easy to implement: it is already possible to specify what TLS certificate is presented for DoQ connections. What remains to be done is requiring a specific certificate with a remote, and offering a client certificate when doing so.

It would probably be logical to reuse certificates for both client and server authentication in most cases, though this shouldn't be the only option.


While not explicitly mentioned in RFC 9103, it may also be worth considering the use of DANE for certificate validation. This poses a potential chicken-or-egg problem within a zone, of course, but it'd be extremely helpful between zones. Be advised, however, that the use of TLSA with QUIC is currently a draft standard.

Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking