summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-05.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-05.txt')
-rw-r--r--third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-05.txt399
1 files changed, 399 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-05.txt b/third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-05.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..e777e327291
--- /dev/null
+++ b/third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-05.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,399 @@
+
+
+
+NETWORK WORKING GROUP L. Zhu
+Internet-Draft K. Jaganathan
+Expires: November 21, 2005 Microsoft Corporation
+ N. Williams
+ Sun Microsystems
+ May 20, 2005
+
+
+ OCSP Support for PKINIT
+ draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-05
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
+ of Section 3 of RFC 3667.
+
+ 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.
+
+ 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 as "work in progress."
+
+ The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
+
+ The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
+ http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
+
+ This Internet-Draft will expire on November 21, 2005.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
+
+Abstract
+
+ This document defines a mechanism to enable in-band transmission of
+ Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) responses in the Kerberos
+ network authentication protocol. These responses are used to verify
+ the validity of the certificates used in PKINIT - the Kerberos
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires November 21, 2005 [Page 1]
+
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT May 2005
+
+
+ Version 5 extension that provides for the use of public key
+ cryptography.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 3. Message Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 7
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires November 21, 2005 [Page 2]
+
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT May 2005
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC2560] enables
+ applications to obtain timely information regarding the revocation
+ status of a certificate. Because OCSP responses are well-bounded and
+ small in size, constrained clients may wish to use OCSP to check the
+ validity of the certificates for Kerberos Key Distribution Center
+ (KDC) in order to avoid transmission of large Certificate Revocation
+ Lists (CRLs) and therefore save bandwidth on constrained networks
+ [OCSP-PROFILE].
+
+ This document defines a pre-authentication type [CLARIFICATIONS],
+ where the client and the KDC MAY piggyback OCSP responses for
+ certificates used in authentication exchanges, as defined in
+ [PKINIT].
+
+ By using this OPTIONAL extension, PKINIT clients and the KDC can
+ maximize the reuse of cached OCSP responses.
+
+2. Conventions Used in This Document
+
+ 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 [RFC2119].
+
+3. Message Definition
+
+ A pre-authentication type identifier is defined for this mechanism:
+
+ PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE 18
+
+ The corresponding padata-value field [CLARIFICATIONS] contains the
+ DER [X60] encoding of the following ASN.1 type:
+
+ PKOcspData ::= SEQUENCE OF OcspResponse
+ -- If more than one OcspResponse is
+ -- included, the first OcspResponse
+ -- MUST contain the OCSP response
+ -- for the signer's certificate.
+
+ OcspResponse ::= OCTET STRING
+ -- Contains a complete OCSP response,
+ -- as defined in [RFC2560].
+
+ The client MAY send OCSP responses for certificates used in PA-PK-AS-
+ REQ [PKINIT] via a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE.
+
+ The KDC that receives a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE then SHOULD send a PA-PK-
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires November 21, 2005 [Page 3]
+
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT May 2005
+
+
+ OCSP-RESPONSE containing OCSP responses for certificates used in the
+ KDC's PA-PK-AS-REP. The client can request a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE by
+ using a PKOcspData containing an empty sequence.
+
+ The KDC MAY send a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE when it does not receive a PA-
+ PK-OCSP-RESPONSE from the client.
+
+ The PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE sent by the KDC contains OCSP responses for
+ certificates used in PA-PK-AS-REP [PKINIT].
+
+ Note the lack of integrity protection for the empty or missing OCSP
+ response; lack of an expected OCSP response from the KDC for the
+ KDC's certificates SHOULD be treated as an error by the client,
+ unless it is configured otherwise.
+
+ When using OCSP, the response is signed by the OCSP server, which is
+ trusted by the receiver. Depending on local policy, further
+ verification of the validity of the OCSP servers may be needed
+
+ The client and the KDC SHOULD ignore invalid OCSP responses received
+ via this mechanism, and they MAY implement CRL processing logic as a
+ fall-back position, if the OCSP responses received via this mechanism
+ alone are not sufficient for the verification of certificate
+ validity. The client and/or the KDC MAY ignore a valid OCSP response
+ and perform their own revocation status verification independently.
+
+4. Security Considerations
+
+ The pre-authentication data in this document do not actually
+ authenticate any principals, but is designed to be used in
+ conjunction with PKINIT.
+
+ There is no binding between PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE pre-authentication
+ data and PKINIT pre-authentication data other than a given OCSP
+ response corresponding to a certificate used in a PKINIT pre-
+ authentication data element. Attacks involving removal or
+ replacement of PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE pre-authentication data elements
+ are, at worst, downgrade attacks, where a PKINIT client or KDC would
+ proceed without use of CRLs or OCSP for certificate validation, or
+ denial of service attacks, where a PKINIT client or KDC that cannot
+ validate the other's certificate without an accompanying OCSP
+ response might reject the AS exchange or where they might have to
+ download very large CRLs in order to continue. Kerberos V does not
+ protect against denial-of-service attacks, therefore the denial-of-
+ service aspect of these attacks are acceptable.
+
+ If a PKINIT client or KDC cannot validate certificates without the
+ aid of a valid PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE then it SHOULD fail the AS
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires November 21, 2005 [Page 4]
+
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT May 2005
+
+
+ exchange, possibly according to local configuration.
+
+5. IANA Considerations
+
+ No IANA actions are required for this document.
+
+6. Acknowledgements
+
+ This document was based on conversations among the authors, Jeffrey
+ Altman, Sam Hartman, Martin Rex and other members of the Kerberos
+ working group.
+
+7. References
+
+7.1 Normative References
+
+ [CLARIFICATIONS]
+ RFC-Editor: To be replaced by RFC number for draft-ietf-
+ krb-wg-kerberos-clarifications. Work in Progress.
+
+ [PKINIT] RFC-Editor: To be replaced by RFC number for draft-ietf-
+ cat-kerberos-pk-init. Work in Progress.
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC2560] Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S. and C.
+ Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online
+ Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, June 1999.
+
+ [X690] ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic Encoding
+ Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and
+ Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER), ITU-T Recommendation
+ X.690 (1997) | ISO/IEC International Standard 8825-1:1998.
+
+7.2 Informative References
+
+ [OCSP-PROFILE]
+ RFC-Editor: To be replaced by RFC number for draft-deacon-
+ lightweight-ocsp-profile. Work in Progress.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires November 21, 2005 [Page 5]
+
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT May 2005
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+ Larry Zhu
+ Microsoft Corporation
+ One Microsoft Way
+ Redmond, WA 98052
+ US
+
+ Email: lzhu@microsoft.com
+
+
+ Karthik Jaganathan
+ Microsoft Corporation
+ One Microsoft Way
+ Redmond, WA 98052
+ US
+
+ Email: karthikj@microsoft.com
+
+
+ Nicolas Williams
+ Sun Microsystems
+ 5300 Riata Trace Ct
+ Austin, TX 78727
+ US
+
+ Email: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires November 21, 2005 [Page 6]
+
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT May 2005
+
+
+Intellectual Property Statement
+
+ The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+ Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+ pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+ this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+ might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+ made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
+ on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+ found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+ Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+ assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+ attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+ such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+ specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+ The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+ copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+ rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+ this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
+ ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+
+
+Disclaimer of Validity
+
+ 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 (2005). 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.
+
+
+Acknowledgment
+
+ Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+ Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires November 21, 2005 [Page 7]
+
+
View Lorry Controller Status