TLS Working Group S. Santesson (Microsoft) INTERNET-DRAFT A. Medvinsky (Microsoft) Intended Category: Standards track J. Ball (Microsoft) Expires July 2006 January 2006 TLS User Mapping Extension Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, except to publish it as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than English. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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 a "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Abstract This document specifies a TLS extension that enables clients to send generic user mapping data in a new handshake message. In particular one such mapping is defined, the UpnDomainHint, which may be used by a server to locate a user in a directory database. Santesson, et. all [Page 1] INTERNET DRAFT TLS User Mapping extension January 2006 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................ 2 2 User mapping extension ...................................... 3 3 User mapping handshake protocol ............................. 3 4 Message flow ................................................ 6 5 Security Considerations ..................................... 7 6 References .................................................. 8 Appendix A. IPR Disclosure ..................................... 9 Authors' Addresses ............................................. 9 Disclaimer ..................................................... 10 Copyright Statement ............................................ 10 1. Introduction This specification documents a TLS extension and a handshake message, which has been defined and implemented by Microsoft to accommodate mapping of users to their user accounts when using TLS client authentication as the authentication method. The UPN (User Principal Name) is a name form defined by Microsoft which specifies a user's entry in a directory in the form of userName@domainName. Traditionally Microsoft has relied on such UPN names to be present in the client certificate when logging on to a domain account. This has several drawbacks however since it prevents the use of certificates with an absent UPN and also requires re-issuance of certificates or issuance of multiple certificates to reflect account changes or creation of new accounts. The extension defined in this document provide a significant improvement to this situation since it allows a single certificate to be mapped to one or more accounts of the user and does not require the certificate to contain a UPN. The new extension (user_mapping) is sent in the Client Hello message. Per convention defined in RFC3546 [N3], the server places the same extension (user_mapping) in the Server Hello message, to inform the client that the server understands this extension. If the server does not understand the extension, it will respond with a Server Hello omitting this extension and the client will proceed as normal, ignoring the extension. If the new extension is understood, the client will inject a new handshake message prior to the Client's Certificate message. The server will then parse this message, extracting the client's domain, and store it in the context for use when mapping the certificate to Santesson, et. all [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT TLS User Mapping extension January 2006 the user's directory account. The reason the mapping data itself is not placed in the extension portion of the ClientHello is to prevent broadcasting this information to servers that don't understand the extension. Additionally, if new mapping information were to be considered confidential, the addition of a new handshake message allows the data to be encrypted using the servers public key. No other modifications to the protocol are required. The messages are detailed in the following sections. 1.1 Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [STDWORDS]. 2 User mapping extension A new extension type (user_mapping(n)) is added to the Extension used in both the Client Hello and Server Hello messages. The extension type is specified as follows and has no data associated with it. enum { user_mapping(n), (65535) } ExtensionType; 3 User mapping handshake protocol A new HandshakeType (user_mapping_data) is defined to accommodate communication of generic user mapping data. The information in this handshake message carries an unauthenticated hint, inserted by the client side. Upon receipt and successful completion of the TLS handshake, the server MAY use this hint to locate the user's account from which user information and credentials MAY be retrieved to support authentication based on the client certificate. enum { user_mapping_data(n),(255) } HandshakeType; Santesson, et. all [Page 3] INTERNET DRAFT TLS User Mapping extension January 2006 The user_mapping_data(n) enumeration results in a new Handshake Message UserMappingDataList with the following structure: enum { upn_domain_hint(0), (255) } UserMappingType; struct { opaque user_principal_name<0..2^16-1>; opaque domain_name<0..2^16-1>; } UpnDomainHint; struct { UserMappingType user_mapping_version select(UserMappingType) { case upn_domain_hint: UpnDomainHint; } } UserMappingData; struct{ UserMappingData user_mapping_data_list<1..2^16-1>; }UserMappingDataList; The user_principal_name parameter, when specified, SHALL be specified in the form: user@domain For example the UPN 'foo@example.com' represents user 'foo' at domain 'example.com'. The domain_name parameter, when specified, SHALL contain a domain name in the "preferred name syntax," as specified by RFC 1034 [N4] The UpnDomainHint MUST at least contain a non empty user_principal_name or a non empty domain_name. The UpnDomainHint MAY contain both user_principal_name and domain_name. The UserMappingData structure contains a single mapping of type UserMappingType. This structure can be leveraged to define new types of user mapping hints in the future. The UserMappingDataList MAY carry multiple hints; it is defined as a vector of UserMappingData structures. Santesson, et. all [Page 4] INTERNET DRAFT TLS User Mapping extension January 2006 No preference is given to the order in which hints are specified in this vector. If the client sends more then one hint then the Server SHOULD use the applicable mapping supported by the server. Santesson, et. all [Page 5] INTERNET DRAFT TLS User Mapping extension January 2006 4 Message flow In order to negotiate to send user mapping data to a server in accordance with this specification, clients MUST include an extension of type "user_mapping" in the (extended) client hello. The "extension_data" field of this extension SHALL be empty. Servers that receive an extended client hello containing a "user_mapping" extension, MAY indicate that they are willing to accept user mapping data by including an extension of type "user_mapping" in the (extended) server hello. The "extension_data" field of this extension SHALL be empty. After negotiation of the use of user mapping has been successfully completed (by exchanging hellos including "user_mapping" extensions), clients MAY send a "UserMappingDataList" message before the "Certificate" message. The message flow is illustrated in Fig. 1 below. Client Server ClientHello /* with user_mapping ext */ --------> ServerHello /* with user-mapping ext */ Certificate* ServerKeyExchange* CertificateRequest* <-------- ServerHelloDone UserMappingDataList Certificate* ClientKeyExchange CertificateVerify* [ChangeCipherSpec] Finished --------> [ChangeCipherSpec] <-------- Finished Application Data <-------> Application Data Fig. 1 - Message flow with user mapping data * Indicates optional or situation-dependent messages that are not always sent according to RFC 2246 [N2]. Santesson, et. all [Page 6] INTERNET DRAFT TLS User Mapping extension January 2006 5 Security Considerations The UPN sent in the UserMappingDataList is unauthenticated data that MUST NOT be treated as a trusted identifier. Authentication of the user represented by that UPN MUST rely solely on validation of the client certificate. One way to do this safely is to use the UPN to locate and extract a certificate of the claimed user from a directory and subsequently match this certificate against the validated client certificate from the TLS handshake. As the client is the initiator of this TLS extension, it needs to determine when it is appropriate to send the User Mapping Information. It may not be prudent to broadcast this information to just any server at any time, as it can reveal network infrastructure the client and server are using. To avoid superfluously sending this information, two techniques SHOULD be used to control its dissemination. - The client SHOULD only send the UserMappingDataList handshake message if it is agreed upon in the Hello exchange, preventing the information from being sent to a server that doesn't understand the User Mapping Extension. - The client SHOULD further only send this information if the server belongs to a domain to which the client intends to authenticate using the UPN as identifier. Santesson, et. all [Page 7] INTERNET DRAFT TLS User Mapping extension January 2006 6 References Normative references: [N1] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [N2] T. Dierks, C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January 1999. [N3] S. Blake-Wilson, M. Nystrom, D. Hopwood, J. Mikkelsen, T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions", RFC 3546, June 2003. [N4] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. Santesson, et. all [Page 8] INTERNET DRAFT TLS User Mapping extension January 2006 Appendix A. IPR Disclosure TBD Authors' Addresses Stefan Santesson Microsoft Tuborg Boulevard 12 2900 Hellerup Denmark EMail: stefans(at)microsoft.com Ari Medvinsky Microsoft One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052-6399 Email: arimed(at)microsoft.com Joshua Ball Microsoft One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052-6399 Email: joshball(at)microsoft.com Santesson, et. all [Page 9] INTERNET DRAFT TLS User Mapping extension January 2006 Disclaimer This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Expires July 2006 Santesson, et. all [Page 10]