draft-josefsson-kerberos5-starttls-02.txt		draft-josefsson-kerberos5-starttls-03.txt
	Network Working Group S. Josefsson		Network Working Group S. Josefsson
	Internet-Draft SJD		Internet-Draft SJD
	Intended status: Standards Track October 21, 2006		Intended status: Standards Track December 3, 2007
	Expires: April 24, 2007		Expires: June 5, 2008
	Using Kerberos V5 over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol		Using Kerberos V5 over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol
	draft-josefsson-kerberos5-starttls-02		draft-josefsson-kerberos5-starttls-03
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any		By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
	applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware		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		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.		aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	skipping to change at page 1, line 34		skipping to change at page 1, line 34
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2007.		This Internet-Draft will expire on June 5, 2008.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).		Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document specify how the Kerberos V5 protocol can be transported		This document specify how the Kerberos V5 protocol can be transported
	over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol, to provide		over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol, to provide
	additional security features.		additional security features.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Kerberos V5 STARTTLS Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2. Kerberos V5 STARTTLS Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3. Channel Binding Pre-Authentication Data . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. STARTTLS aware KDC Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5. STARTTLS aware KDC Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
			Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13
	1. Introduction and Background		1. Introduction and Background
	This document describe how a Kerberos V5 [2] implementation may		This document describe how a Kerberos V5 [3] implementation may
	upgrade communication between clients and Key Distribution Centers		upgrade communication between clients and Key Distribution Centers
	(KDCs) to use the Transport Layer Security (TLS) [4] protocol.		(KDCs) to use the Transport Layer Security (TLS) [4] protocol.
	The TLS protocol offer integrity and privacy protected exchanges that		The TLS protocol offer integrity and privacy protected exchanges that
	can be authentication using X.509 certificates, OpenPGP keys [7], and		can be authentication using X.509 certificates, OpenPGP keys [8], and
	user name and passwords via SRP [6].		user name and passwords via SRP [7].
	There are several reasons to use Kerberos V5 over TLS.		There are several reasons to use Kerberos V5 over TLS.
	o Prevents downgrade attacks affecting, e.g., encryption types and		o Prevents downgrade attacks affecting, e.g., encryption types and
	pre-auth data negotiation. The encryption type field in KDC-REQ,		pre-auth data negotiation. The encryption type field in KDC-REQ,
	and the METHOD-DATA field with the requested pre-auth types from		and the METHOD-DATA field with the requested pre-auth types from
	the server in KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED errors in KDC-REP, are sent		the server in KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED errors in KDC-REP, are sent
	without integrity or privacy protection in Kerberos 5. This		without integrity or privacy protection in Kerberos 5. This
	allows an attacker to replace the encryption type with a		allows an attacker to replace the encryption type with a
	compromised encryption type, e.g., 56-bit DES, or request that		compromised encryption type, e.g., 56-bit DES, or request that
	skipping to change at page 5, line 8		skipping to change at page 5, line 8
	side effect that the KDC knows your encryption key (i.e., your		side effect that the KDC knows your encryption key (i.e., your
	password).		password).
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
	2. Kerberos V5 STARTTLS Extension		2. Kerberos V5 STARTTLS Extension
	The STARTTLS extension uses the Kerberos V5 TCP extension mechanism		The STARTTLS extension uses the Kerberos V5 TCP extension mechanism
	[3]. The extension uses bit #TBD in the extension bitmask.		[5]. The extension uses bit #TBD in the extension bitmask.
	The protocol is as follows. After the server has sent the 4-octet		The protocol is as follows. After the server has sent the 4-octet
	value 0x00000000 to indicate support of this extension, the stream		value 0x00000000 to indicate support of this extension, the stream
	will be controlled by the TLS protocol and its framing. The TLS		will be controlled by the TLS protocol and its framing. The TLS
	protocol is initiated by the client.		protocol is initiated by the client.
	Typically, the client initiate the TLS handshake protocol by sending		Typically, the client initiate the TLS handshake protocol by sending
	a client hello, and the server responds, and the handshake continues		a client hello, and the server responds, and the handshake continues
	until it either succeed or fails.		until it either succeed or fails.
	If for any reason the handshake fails, the STARTTLS protocol will		If for any reason the handshake fails, the STARTTLS protocol will
	also fail, and the TLS error is used as the error indication.		also fail, and the TLS error is used as the error indication.
	If the handshake succeeds, the Kerberos V5 authentication protocol is		If the handshake succeeds, the Kerberos V5 authentication protocol is
	performed within the protected TLS channel, like a normal TCP		performed within the protected TLS channel, like a normal TCP
	Kerberos V5 exchange. In particular, this means that every Kerberos		Kerberos V5 exchange. In particular, this means that every Kerberos
	V5 packet will be prefixed by a 4-octet length field, that indicate		V5 packet will be prefixed by a 4-octet length field, that indicate
	the length of the Kerberos V5 packet.		the length of the Kerberos V5 packet. However, to conform with this
			specification, any KDC-REQ (AS-REQ or TGS-REQ) message MUST contain
			the "pa-channel-binding" pre-authentication data.
	3. Examples		3. Channel Binding Pre-Authentication Data
			The pre-authentication structure is defined in RFC 4120 as:
			PA-DATA ::= SEQUENCE {
			-- NOTE: first tag is [1], not [0]
			padata-type [1] Int32,
			padata-value [2] OCTET STRING -- might be encoded AP-REQ
			}
			Here we define a new pre-authentication data, called "pa-channel-
			binding". It has a padata-type integer value of #TBD. The contents
			of the padata-value field is the channel binding data, as discussed
			in [6].
			4. Examples
	A complete packet flow for a successful AS-REQ/REP exchange protected		A complete packet flow for a successful AS-REQ/REP exchange protected
	by this mechanism will be as follows. The "STARTTLS-bit" is a		by this mechanism will be as follows. The "STARTTLS-bit" is a
	4-octet value with only the bit allocated for this extension set.		4-octet value with only the bit allocated for this extension set.
	Client Server		Client Server
	[ Kerberos V5 TCP extension mechanism negotiation starts ]		[ Kerberos V5 TCP extension mechanism negotiation starts ]
	[0x70000000 & STARTTLS-bit] -------->		[0x70000000 & STARTTLS-bit] -------->
	skipping to change at page 7, line 5		skipping to change at page 8, line 5
	4 octet length field		4 octet length field
	Kerberos V5 AS-REQ -------->		Kerberos V5 AS-REQ -------->
	4 octet length field		4 octet length field
	Kerberos V5 AS-REP		Kerberos V5 AS-REP
	<--------		<--------
	* Indicates optional or situation-dependent messages that are not		* Indicates optional or situation-dependent messages that are not
	always sent.		always sent.
	4. STARTTLS aware KDC Discovery		5. STARTTLS aware KDC Discovery
	Section 7.2.3 of Kerberos V5 [2] describe how Domain Name System		Section 7.2.3 of Kerberos V5 [3] describe how Domain Name System
	(DNS) SRV records [5] can be used to find the address of an KDC.		(DNS) SRV records [2] can be used to find the address of an KDC.
	Using the terminology of Section 7.2.3 of RFC 4120, we define a new		Using the terminology of Section 7.2.3 of RFC 4120, we define a new
	Proto of "tls" to indicate that the particular KDC is intended to		Proto of "tls" to indicate that the particular KDC is intended to
	support this STARTTLS extension. The Service, Realm, TTL, Class,		support this STARTTLS extension. The Service, Realm, TTL, Class,
	SRV, Priority, Weight, Port and Target have the same meaning as in		SRV, Priority, Weight, Port and Target have the same meaning as in
	RFC 4120.		RFC 4120.
	For example:		For example:
	_kerberos._tls.EXAMPLE.COM. IN SRV 0 0 88 kdc1.example.com.		_kerberos._tls.EXAMPLE.COM. IN SRV 0 0 88 kdc1.example.com.
	_kerberos._tls.EXAMPLE.COM. IN SRV 1 0 88 kdc2.example.com.		_kerberos._tls.EXAMPLE.COM. IN SRV 1 0 88 kdc2.example.com.
	5. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	The IANA is requested to allocate a bit in the "Kerberos TCP		The IANA is requested to allocate a bit in the "Kerberos TCP
	Extensions" registry for the extension described in this document, as		Extensions" registry for the extension described in this document, as
	per [3].		per [5].
	6. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	The security considerations in Kerberos V5, TLS, and the extension		The security considerations in Kerberos V5, TLS, and the extension
	mechanism framework are inherited.		mechanism framework are inherited.
	To protect against the inherent downgrade attack in the extension		To protect against the inherent downgrade attack in the extension
	framework, it is suggested that implementations offer a policy to		framework, it is suggested that implementations offer a policy to
	require that this extension is successfully negotiated. For		require that this extension is successfully negotiated. For
	interoperability with implementations that do not support this		interoperability with implementations that do not support this
	extension, it is suggested that the policy is disabled by default.		extension, it is suggested that the policy is disabled by default.
	7. References		8. References
	7.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement		[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
	Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[2] Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The Kerberos		[2] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
	Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120, July 2005.		specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
			February 2000.
	[3] Josefsson, S., "Extended Kerberos Version 5 Key Distribution		[3] Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The Kerberos
	Center (KDC) Exchanges Over TCP",		Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120, July 2005.
	draft-ietf-krb-wg-tcp-expansion-01 (work in progress),
	September 2006.
	[4] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS)		[4] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
	Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.		Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.
	[5] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for		[5] Josefsson, S., "Extended Kerberos Version 5 Key Distribution
	specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,		Center (KDC) Exchanges over TCP", RFC 5021, August 2007.
	February 2000.
	7.2. Informative References		[6] Williams, N., "On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure
			Channels", RFC 5056, November 2007.
	[6] Taylor, D., "Using SRP for TLS Authentication",		8.2. Informative References
	draft-ietf-tls-srp-12 (work in progress), June 2006.
	[7] Mavroyanopoulos, N., "Using OpenPGP keys for TLS		[7] Taylor, D., Wu, T., Mavrogiannopoulos, N., and T. Perrin, "Using
	authentication", draft-ietf-tls-openpgp-keys-10 (work in		the Secure Remote Password (SRP) Protocol for TLS
	progress), June 2006.		Authentication", RFC 5054, November 2007.
			[8] Mavrogiannopoulos, N., "Using OpenPGP Keys for Transport Layer
			Security (TLS) Authentication", RFC 5081, November 2007.
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Simon Josefsson		Simon Josefsson
	SJD		SJD
	Email: simon@josefsson.org		Email: simon@josefsson.org
	Full Copyright Statement		Full Copyright Statement
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).		Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
	This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions		This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
	contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors		contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
	retain all their rights.		retain all their rights.
	This document and the information contained herein are provided on an		This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
	"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS		"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
	OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET		OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
	ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,		THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
	INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE		OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
	INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED		THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
	WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.		WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
	Intellectual Property		Intellectual Property
	The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any		The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
	Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to		Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
	pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in		pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
	this document or the extent to which any license under such rights		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		might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
	made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information		made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
End of changes. 25 change blocks.
	48 lines changed or deleted		67 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.29, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/