summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-zhu-ws-kerb-03.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-zhu-ws-kerb-03.txt')
-rw-r--r--third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-zhu-ws-kerb-03.txt616
1 files changed, 616 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-zhu-ws-kerb-03.txt b/third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-zhu-ws-kerb-03.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..7b091af416d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-zhu-ws-kerb-03.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,616 @@
+
+
+NETWORK WORKING GROUP L. Zhu
+Internet-Draft Microsoft Corporation
+Updates: 4120 (if approved) J. Altman
+Intended status: Standards Track Secure Endpoints
+Expires: January 10, 2008 July 9, 2007
+
+
+ Initial and Pass Through Authentication Using Kerberos V5 and the GSS-
+ API (IAKERB)
+ draft-zhu-ws-kerb-03
+
+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.
+
+ 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 January 10, 2008.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
+
+Abstract
+
+ This document defines extensions to the Kerberos protocol and the
+ GSS-API Kerberos mechanism that enable a GSS-API Kerberos client to
+ exchange messages with the KDC using the GSS-API acceptor as the
+ proxy, by encapsulating the Kerberos messages inside GSS-API tokens.
+ With these extensions a client can obtain Kerberos tickets for
+ services where the KDC is not accessible to the client, but is
+
+
+
+Zhu & Altman Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 1]
+
+Internet-Draft IAKERB July 2007
+
+
+ accessible to the application server.
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 3. GSS-API Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 4. Addresses in Tickets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+ 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+ 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 8.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+ Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+ Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu & Altman Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 2]
+
+Internet-Draft IAKERB July 2007
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ When authenticating using Kerberos V5, clients obtain tickets from a
+ KDC and present them to services. This model of operation cannot
+ work if the client does not have access to the KDC. For example, in
+ remote access scenarios, the client must initially authenticate to an
+ access point in order to gain full access to the network. Here the
+ client may be unable to directly contact the KDC either because it
+ does not have an IP address, or the access point packet filter does
+ not allow the client to send packets to the Internet before it
+ authenticates to the access point.
+
+ Recent advancements in extending Kerberos permit Kerberos
+ authentication to complete with the assistance of a proxy. The
+ Kerberos [RFC4120] pre-authentication framework [KRB-PAFW] prevents
+ the exposure of weak client keys over the open network. The Kerberos
+ support of anonymity [KRB-ANON] provides for privacy and further
+ complicates traffic analysis. The kdc-referrals option defined in
+ [KRB-PAFW] may reduce the number of messages exchanged while
+ obtaining a ticket to exactly two even in cross-realm
+ authentications.
+
+ Building upon these Kerberos extensions, this document extends
+ [RFC4120] and [RFC4121] such that the client can communicate with the
+ KDC using a Generic Security Service Application Program Interface
+ (GSS-API) [RFC2743] acceptor as the proxy. The GSS-API acceptor
+ relays the KDC request and reply messages between the client and the
+ KDC. The GSS-API acceptor, when relaying the Kerberos messages, is
+ called an IAKERB proxy. Consequently, IAKERB as defined in this
+ document requires the use of GSS-API.
+
+
+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. GSS-API Encapsulation
+
+ The mechanism Objection Identifier (OID) for GSS-API IAKERB, in
+ accordance with the mechanism proposed by [RFC4178] for negotiating
+ protocol variations, is id-kerberos-iakerb:
+
+ id-kerberos-iakerb ::=
+ { iso(1) org(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) kerberosV5(2)
+ iakerb(5) }
+
+
+
+Zhu & Altman Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 3]
+
+Internet-Draft IAKERB July 2007
+
+
+ The initial context establishment token of IAKERB MUST have the
+ generic token framing described in section 3.1 of [RFC2743] with the
+ mechanism OID being id-kerberos-iakerb, and any subsequent IAKERB
+ context establishment token MUST NOT have this token framing.
+
+ The client starts by constructing the ticket request, and if the
+ ticket request is being made to the KDC, the client, instead of
+ contacting the KDC directly, encapsulates the request message into
+ the output token of the GSS_Init_security_context() call and returns
+ GSS_S_CONTINUE_NEEDED [RFC2743] indicating that at least one more
+ token is required in order to establish the context. The output
+ token is then passed for use as the input token to the
+ GSS_Accept_sec_context() call in accordance with GSS-API. The GSS-
+ API acceptor extracts the Kerberos request in the input token,
+ locates the target KDC, and sends the request on behalf of the
+ client. After receiving the KDC reply, the GSS-API acceptor then
+ encapsulates the reply message into the output token of
+ GSS_Accept_sec_context(). The GSS-API acceptor returns
+ GSS_S_CONTINUE_NEEDED [RFC2743] indicating that at least one more
+ token is required in order to establish the context. The output
+ token is passed to the initiator in accordance with GSS-API.
+
+ Client <---------> IAKERB proxy <---------> KDC
+
+ The innerToken described in section 3.1 of [RFC2743] and subsequent
+ GSS-API mechanism tokens have the following formats: it starts with a
+ two-octet token-identifier (TOK_ID), followed by an IAKERB message or
+ a Kerberos message.
+
+ Only one IAKERB specific message, namely the IAKERB_PROXY message, is
+ defined in this document. The TOK_ID values for Kerberos messages
+ are the same as defined in [RFC4121].
+
+ Token TOK_ID Value in Hex
+ --------------------------------------
+ IAKERB_PROXY 05 01
+
+ The content of the IAKERB_PROXY message is defined as an IAKERB-
+ HEADER structure immediately followed by a Kerberos message. The
+ Kerberos message can be an AS-REQ, an AS-REP, a TGS-REQ, a TGS-REP,
+ or a KRB-ERROR as defined in [RFC4120].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu & Altman Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 4]
+
+Internet-Draft IAKERB July 2007
+
+
+ IAKERB-HEADER ::= SEQUENCE {
+ target-realm [1] UTF8String,
+ -- The name of the target realm.
+ cookie [2] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
+ -- Opaque data, if sent by the server,
+ -- MUST be copied by the client verbatim into
+ -- the next IAKRB_PROXY message.
+ ...
+ }
+
+ The IAKERB-HEADER structure and all the Kerberos messages MUST be
+ encoded using Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) Distinguished
+ Encoding Rules (DER) [X680] [X690].
+
+ The IAKERB client fills out the IAKERB-HEADER structure as follows:
+ the target-realm contains the realm name the ticket request is
+ addressed to. In the initial message from the client, the cookie
+ field is absent. The client MUST specify a target-realm. If the
+ client does not know the realm of the client's true principal name
+ [REFERALS], it MUST specify a realm it knows. This can be the realm
+ of the client's host.
+
+ Upon receipt of the IAKERB_PROXY message, the GSS-API acceptor
+ inspects the target-realm field in the IAKERB_HEADER, and locates a
+ KDC of that realm, and sends the ticket request to that KDC.
+
+ When the GSS-API acceptor is unable to obtain an IP address for a KDC
+ in the client's realm, it sends a KRB_ERROR message with the code
+ KRB_AP_ERR_IAKERB_KDC_NOT_FOUND to the client and the context fails
+ to establish. There is no accompanying error data defined in this
+ document for this error code.
+
+ KRB_AP_ERR_IAKERB_KDC_NOT_FOUND 85
+ -- The IAKERB proxy could not find a KDC.
+
+ When the GSS-API acceptor has an IP address for a KDC in the client
+ realm, but does not receive a response from any KDC in the realm
+ (including in response to retries), it sends a KRB_ERROR message with
+ the code KRB_AP_ERR_IAKERB_KDC_NO_RESPONSE to the client and the
+ context fails to establish. There is no accompanying error data
+ defined in this document for this error code.
+
+ KRB_AP_ERR_IAKERB_KDC_NO_RESPONSE 86
+ -- The KDC did not respond to the IAKERB proxy.
+
+ The IAKERB proxy can send opaque data in the cookie field of the
+ IAKERB-HEADER structure in the server reply to the client, in order
+ to, for example, minimize the amount of state information kept by the
+
+
+
+Zhu & Altman Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 5]
+
+Internet-Draft IAKERB July 2007
+
+
+ GSS-API acceptor. The content and the encoding of the cookie field
+ is a local matter of the IAKERB proxy. The client MUST copy the
+ cookie verbatim from the previous server response whenever the cookie
+ is present into the subsequent tokens that contains an IAKERB_PROXY
+ message.
+
+ When the client obtained a service ticket, the client sends a
+ KRB_AP_REQ message to the server, and performs the client-server
+ application exchange as defined in [RFC4120] and [RFC4121].
+
+ For implementations comforming to this specification, the
+ authenticator subkey in the AP-REQ MUST alway be present, and the
+ Exts field in the GSS-API authenticator [GSS-EXTS] MUST contain an
+ extension of the type GSS_EXTS_IAKERB_FINISHED and the extension data
+ contains the ASN.1 DER encoding of the structure IAKERB-FINISHED.
+
+ GSS_EXTS_IAKERB_FINISHED TBD
+ --- Data type for the IAKERB checksum.
+
+ IAKERB-FINISHED ::= {
+ iakerb-messages [1] Checksum,
+ -- Contains the checksum of the GSS-API tokens
+ -- exchanged between the initiator and the acceptor,
+ -- and prior to the containing AP_REQ GSS-API token.
+ -- The checksum is performed over the GSS-API tokens
+ -- in the order that the tokens were sent.
+ ...
+ }
+
+ The iakerb-messages field in the IAKERB-FINISHED structure contains a
+ checksum of all the GSS-API tokens exchanged between the initiator
+ and the acceptor, and prior to the GSS-API token containing the
+ AP_REQ. This checksum is performed over these GSS-API tokens in the
+ order that the tokens were sent. In the parlance of [RFC3961], the
+ checksum type is the required checksum type for the enctype of the
+ subkey in the authenticator, the protocol key for the checksum
+ operation is the authenticator subkey, and the key usage number is
+ KEY_USAGE_IAKERB_FINISHED.
+
+ KEY_USAGE_IAKERB_FINISHED 42
+
+ The GSS-API acceptor MUST then verify the checksum contained in the
+ GSS_EXTS_IAKERB_FINISHED extension. This checksum provides integrity
+ protection for the messages exchanged including the unauthenticated
+ clear texts in the IAKERB-HEADER structure.
+
+ If the pre-authentication data is encrypted in the long-term
+ password-based key of the principal, the risk of security exposures
+
+
+
+Zhu & Altman Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 6]
+
+Internet-Draft IAKERB July 2007
+
+
+ is significant. Implementations SHOULD provide the AS_REQ armoring
+ as defined in [KRB-PAFW] unless an alternative protection is
+ deployed. In addition, the anonymous Kerberos FAST option is
+ RECOMMENDED for the client to complicate traffic analysis.
+
+
+4. Addresses in Tickets
+
+ In IAKERB, the machine sending requests to the KDC is the GSS-API
+ acceptor and not the client. As a result, the client should not
+ include its addresses in any KDC requests for two reasons. First,
+ the KDC may reject the forwarded request as being from the wrong
+ client. Second, in the case of initial authentication for a dial-up
+ client, the client machine may not yet possess a network address.
+ Hence, as allowed by [RFC4120], the addresses field of the AS-REQ and
+ TGS-REQ requests SHOULD be blank and the caddr field of the ticket
+ SHOULD similarly be left blank.
+
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+ A typical IAKERB client sends the AS_REQ with pre-authentication data
+ encrypted in the long-term keys of the user before the server is
+ authenticated. This enables offline attacks by un-trusted servers.
+ To mitigate this threat, the client SHOULD use Kerberos
+ FAST[KRB-PAFW] and require KDC authentication to protect the user's
+ credentials.
+
+ The client name is in clear text in the authentication exchange
+ messages and ticket granting service exchanges according to [RFC4120]
+ whereas the client name is encrypted in client- server application
+ exchange messages. By using the IAKERB proxy to relay the ticket
+ requests and responses, the client's identity could be revealed in
+ the client-server traffic where the same identity could have been
+ concealed if IAKERB were not used. Hence, to complicate traffic
+ analysis and provide privacy for the IAKERB client, the IAKERB client
+ SHOULD request the anonymous Kerberos FAST option [KRB-PAFW].
+
+ Similar to other network access protocols, IAKERB allows an
+ unauthenticated client (possibly outside the security perimeter of an
+ organization) to send messages that are proxied to interior servers.
+
+ In a scenario where DNS SRV RR's are being used to locate the KDC,
+ IAKERB is being used, and an external attacker can modify DNS
+ responses to the IAKERB proxy, there are several countermeasures to
+ prevent arbitrary messages from being sent to internal servers:
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu & Altman Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 7]
+
+Internet-Draft IAKERB July 2007
+
+
+ 1. KDC port numbers can be statically configured on the IAKERB
+ proxy. In this case, the messages will always be sent to KDC's.
+ For an organization that runs KDC's on a static port (usually
+ port 88) and does not run any other servers on the same port,
+ this countermeasure would be easy to administer and should be
+ effective.
+
+ 2. The proxy can do application level sanity checking and filtering.
+ This countermeasure should eliminate many of the above attacks.
+
+ 3. DNS security can be deployed. This countermeasure is probably
+ overkill for this particular problem, but if an organization has
+ already deployed DNS security for other reasons, then it might
+ make sense to leverage it here. Note that Kerberos could be used
+ to protect the DNS exchanges. The initial DNS SRV KDC lookup by
+ the proxy will be unprotected, but an attack here is at most a
+ denial of service (the initial lookup will be for the proxy's KDC
+ to facilitate Kerberos protection of subsequent DNS exchanges
+ between itself and the DNS server).
+
+
+6. Acknowledgements
+
+ Jonathan Trostle, Michael Swift, Bernard Aboba and Glen Zorn wrote
+ earlier revision of this document.
+
+ The hallway conversations between Larry Zhu and Nicolas Williams
+ formed the basis of this document.
+
+
+7. IANA Considerations
+
+ There is no IANA action required for this document.
+
+
+8. References
+
+8.1. Normative References
+
+ [GSS-EXTS]
+ Emery, S., "Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Channel Binding
+ Hash Agility",
+ draft-ietf-krb-wg-gss-cb-hash-agility-03.txt (work in
+ progress), 2007.
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+
+
+
+Zhu & Altman Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 8]
+
+Internet-Draft IAKERB July 2007
+
+
+ [RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
+ Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000.
+
+ [RFC3961] Raeburn, K., "Encryption and Checksum Specifications for
+ Kerberos 5", RFC 3961, February 2005.
+
+ [RFC4120] Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The
+ Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120,
+ July 2005.
+
+ [RFC4121] Zhu, L., Jaganathan, K., and S. Hartman, "The Kerberos
+ Version 5 Generic Security Service Application Program
+ Interface (GSS-API) Mechanism: Version 2", RFC 4121,
+ July 2005.
+
+ [RFC4178] Zhu, L., Leach, P., Jaganathan, K., and W. Ingersoll, "The
+ Simple and Protected Generic Security Service Application
+ Program Interface (GSS-API) Negotiation Mechanism",
+ RFC 4178, October 2005.
+
+8.2. Informative references
+
+ [KRB-ANON]
+ Zhu, L. and P. Leach, "Kerberos Anonymity Support",
+ draft-ietf-krb-wg-anon-04.txt (work in progress), 2007.
+
+ [KRB-PAFW]
+ Zhu, L. and S. Hartman, "A Generalized Framework for
+ Kerberos Pre-Authentication",
+ draft-ietf-krb-wg-preauth-framework-06.txt (work in
+ progress), 2007.
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+ Larry Zhu
+ Microsoft Corporation
+ One Microsoft Way
+ Redmond, WA 98052
+ US
+
+ Email: lzhu@microsoft.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu & Altman Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 9]
+
+Internet-Draft IAKERB July 2007
+
+
+ Jeffery Altman
+ Secure Endpoints
+ 255 W 94th St
+ New York, NY 10025
+ US
+
+ Email: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu & Altman Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 10]
+
+Internet-Draft IAKERB July 2007
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
+
+ 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.
+
+ 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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
+
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+ 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.
+
+
+Acknowledgment
+
+ Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
+ Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu & Altman Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 11]
+
+
View Lorry Controller Status