<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://docs.inboxsys.com/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=DNS-based_Authentication_of_Named_Entities_%28DANE%29</id>
	<title>DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://docs.inboxsys.com/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=DNS-based_Authentication_of_Named_Entities_%28DANE%29"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://docs.inboxsys.com/index.php?title=DNS-based_Authentication_of_Named_Entities_(DANE)&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-05-01T19:36:12Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.45.3</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://docs.inboxsys.com/index.php?title=DNS-based_Authentication_of_Named_Entities_(DANE)&amp;diff=373&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>Sebastian: Created page with &quot;Category:Deliverability Category:Authentication  In modern E-Mail communication, Opportunistic TLS is common. This means that TLS encryption for the transition of E-Mail is negotiated by MTAs on both ends. If two MTAs can agree on a TLS encryption method and cypher, transit proceeds TLS encrypted. If, however, no agreement can be reached, mail is transferred unencrypted.   &#039;&#039;&#039;DANE (DNS-bas...&quot;</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://docs.inboxsys.com/index.php?title=DNS-based_Authentication_of_Named_Entities_(DANE)&amp;diff=373&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2025-08-15T13:46:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Created page with &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;/index.php/Category:Deliverability&quot; title=&quot;Category:Deliverability&quot;&gt;Category:Deliverability&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/index.php/Category:Authentication&quot; title=&quot;Category:Authentication&quot;&gt;Category:Authentication&lt;/a&gt;  In modern E-Mail communication, &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunistic_TLS&quot; class=&quot;extiw&quot; title=&quot;wikipedia:Opportunistic TLS&quot;&gt;Opportunistic TLS&lt;/a&gt; is common. This means that &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security&quot; class=&quot;extiw&quot; title=&quot;wikipedia:Transport Layer Security&quot;&gt;TLS&lt;/a&gt; encryption for the transition of E-Mail is negotiated by &lt;a href=&quot;/index.php?title=MTA&amp;amp;action=edit&amp;amp;redlink=1&quot; class=&quot;new&quot; title=&quot;MTA (page does not exist)&quot;&gt;MTAs&lt;/a&gt; on both ends. If two MTAs can agree on a TLS encryption method and cypher, transit proceeds TLS encrypted. If, however, no agreement can be reached, mail is transferred unencrypted.   &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;DANE (DNS-bas...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;[[Category:Deliverability]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Authentication]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In modern E-Mail communication, [[wikipedia:Opportunistic_TLS|Opportunistic TLS]] is common. This means that [[wikipedia:Transport_Layer_Security|TLS]] encryption for the transition of E-Mail is negotiated by [[MTA]]s on both ends. If two MTAs can agree on a TLS encryption method and cypher, transit proceeds TLS encrypted. If, however, no agreement can be reached, mail is transferred unencrypted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;DANE (DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, together with the TLSA protocol, was introduced in [https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6698 RFC 6698]. It&amp;#039;s main purpose is to secure TLS connections against [[wikipedia:Man-in-the-middle_attack|MitM (Man in the Middle) attacks]]. Dane requires [[wikipedia:DNSSEC|DNSSEC]]. DANE compliant Mail is returned to the sender if the TLS negotiation fails.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Configuration and setup=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DANE is set up on the recipient&amp;#039;s mail host in multiple layers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==DNSSEC==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first connection attempt requires DNSSEC for all DNS queries:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Querying MX records from the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;recipient domain&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
# Querying &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MX domains / MTA hostnames&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; for TLSA records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==TLSA DNS record==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TLSA records are set on MTA hostnames on a sudomain that consists of: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Port&lt;br /&gt;
* Protocol (UDP, TCP or SCTP)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, if the MTA has &amp;#039;&amp;#039;mta.example.com&amp;#039;&amp;#039; as hostname, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;TCP&amp;#039;&amp;#039; as protocol and we&amp;#039;re using port &amp;#039;&amp;#039;25&amp;#039;&amp;#039; for SMTP connections, this is what a lookup of the TLSA record would look like: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
$ host -t tlsa _25._tcp.mta.example.com&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inside the record, we find the following components:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Certificate Usage Field (CUF)===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CUF specifies how the recipient server&amp;#039;s certificate is to be verified.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+ Certificate Usage Field&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Value!!Type!!Description&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0||PKIX-TA||Allows the certificate of the trust anchor to be utilised along with Certificate Authority certificates&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1||PKIX-EE||PKIX verification, including various checks&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2||DANE-TA2||Validate the domain TLS certificates using the server private key from the X.509 (PKI) tree&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3||DANE-EE||The CUF must only match against the certificate&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Selector Field (SF)===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SF specifies which part of the recipient server&amp;#039;s TLS certificate will be matched against the Certificate Association Data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+ Selector Field&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Value!!Type!!Description&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0||SubjectPublicKeyInfo (SPKI)||Parts of the certificate, such as public key, pk algorithm, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1||Full certificate||Full certificate&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Matching Type Field (MTF)===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTF specifies how the CAD is presented for use with the Selector Field.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+ Matching Type Field&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Value!!Type!!Description&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1||SHA-256||SHA-256 hash of CAD based on the SF value&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2||SHA-512||SHA-512 hash of CAD based on the SF value&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0||Full||Exact match against CAD based on the SF value&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Certificate Association Data (CAD)===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the TLSA record, we find a long string named &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Certificate Association Data&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (CAD). This field contains the hashed certificate date that matches the CUF.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, the result of our above lookup could be something like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
_25._tcp.mta.example.com has TLSA record 3 1 1 0AD1234567890ABCD1234567890ABCD1234567890ABCD1234567890ABCD12390&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==STARTTLS==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
STARTTLS is required on the recipients server for DANE to work. If no STARTTLS is offered, a so-called &amp;quot;downgrade attack&amp;quot; is suspected and the connection is dropped immediately. If STARTLS is offered, the checksum of the TLS certificate is compared to the information found in the TLSA DNS record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=TLS reporting=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Main article: [[TLSRPT]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8460 RFC 8460] states that &amp;lt;q&amp;gt;Recipient domains may also use the mechanisms defined by [[MTA-STS]] [RFC8461] or DANE [RFC6698] to publish additional encryption and authentication requirements; this document defines a mechanism for sending domains that are compatible with MTA-STS or DANE to share success and failure statistics with recipient domains.&amp;lt;/q&amp;gt; Even though this is not explicitly mentioned in RFC 6698, DANE compliant MTAs should be able to receive and process TLSRPT reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Useful links=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8460 RFC 8460]: TLSRPT RFC&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6698 RFC 6698]: DANE RFC&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://inboxsys.com/dmarc-monitor/ InboxSys DMARC Monitor]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[wikipedia:DNSSEC]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[wikipedia:Opportunistic_TLS]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sebastian</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>