[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5868

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                 S. Sakane
Intended Status: Informational                           Ken'ichi Kamada
Expires: July 9, 2010                                          S. Zrelli
                                                 Yokogawa Electric Corp.
                                                             M. Ishiyama
                                                           Toshiba Corp.
                                                         January 5, 2010


       Problem statement on the cross-realm operation of Kerberos
            draft-ietf-krb-wg-cross-problem-statement-06.txt




                          Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft expires in July 9, 2010.


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights



S.Sakane, et al.                                                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                                              January 2010


   and restrictions with respect to this document.


Abstract

   The Kerberos protocol is today one of the most widely deployed
   authentication protocols in the Internet. In order for a Kerberos
   deployment to operate in a scalable manner, different Kerberos realms
   must interoperate in such a way that cross-realm operations can be
   performed efficiently and securely.

   This document provides background information regarding large scale
   Kerberos deployments in the industrial sector, with the aim of
   identifying issues in the current Kerberos cross-realm authentication
   model as defined in RFC4120.

   As industrial automation is moving towards wider adoption of Internet
   standards, the Kerberos authentication protocol represents one of the
   best alternatives for ensuring the confidentiality and the integrity
   of communications in control networks while meeting performance and
   security requirements.

   However, the use of Kerberos cross-realm operations in large scale
   industrial systems may introduce issues that could cause performance
   and reliability problems. This document describes some examples of
   actual large scale industrial systems, and lists requirements and
   restriction regarding authentication operations in such environments.

   The current document also identifies a number of requirements derived
   from the industrial automation field. Although they are found in the
   field of industrial automation, these requirements are general enough
   and are applicable to the problem of Kerberos cross-realm operations.


Conventions used in this document

   The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terms and concepts
   described in the Kerberos Version 5 [RFC4120].













S.Sakane, et al.                                                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                                              January 2010


Table of Contents

    1. Introduction .................................................  4
    2. Kerberos System ..............................................  4
       2.1. Kerberos basic operation ................................  4
       2.2. Cross-realm operation ...................................  5
    3. Applying Cross-Realm Kerberos in Complex Environments ........  6
    4. Requirements .................................................  7
    5. Issues .......................................................  9
       5.1. Unreliability of authentication chain ...................  9
       5.2. Possibility of MITM in the indirect trust model .........  9
       5.3. Scalability of the direct trust model ................... 10
       5.4. Exposure to DoS Attacks ................................. 10
       5.5. Client's performance .................................... 10
       5.6. Kerberos Pre-authentication problem in roaming scenarios  11
    6. Implementation considerations ................................ 11
    7. IANA Considerations .......................................... 12
    8. Security Considerations ...................................... 12
    9. Acknowledgements ............................................. 12
   10. References ................................................... 12
       10.1. Normative References ................................... 12
       10.2. Informative References ................................. 12
   Authors' Addresses ............................................... 13




























S.Sakane, et al.                                                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                                              January 2010


1.  Introduction

   Kerberos Version 5 is a widely deployed mechanism that enables a
   server to authenticate a client before granting it access to a
   certain service.  Each client belongs to a managed domain called
   realm.  Kerberos supports authentication when a client and a server
   belong to different realms.  This is called cross-realm
   authentication.

   There exist several ways for using Kerberos in large scale
   distributed systems.  Such infrastructures are typically split into
   several managed domains for geographical reasons, and to implement
   different management policies.  In order to ensure smooth network
   operations in such systems, a common authentication mechanism for the
   different managed domains is required.  When using the Kerberos
   cross-realm operation in large scale distributed systems some issues
   arise.

   This document briefly describes the Kerberos Version 5 system and its
   cross-realm operation mode.  Then it describes two case-study systems
   that Kerberos could be applied to, and describes seven requirements
   in those systems in terms both of management and operations that
   outline various constraints which Kerberos operations might be
   subjected to.  Finally, it lists six issues related to Kerberos
   cross-realm operations when applied to those systems.

   Note that this document might not describe all issues related to
   Kerberos cross-realm operations.  New issues might be found in the
   future.  It also does not propose any solution to solve the issues.
   Furthermore, publication of this document does not mean that each of
   the issues have to be solved by the IETF members.  Detailed analysis
   of the issues, problem definitions and exploration of possible
   solutions may be carried out as separate work items.

   This document is assumed that the readers are familiar with the terms
   and concepts described in the Kerberos Version 5 [RFC4120].


2.  Kerberos System


2.1.  Kerberos basic operation

   Kerberos [RFC4120] is a widely deployed authentication system.  The
   authentication process in Kerberos involves principals and a Key
   Distribution Center (KDC).  The principals can be users or services.
   Each KDC maintains a database of principals and shares a secret key
   with each registered principal.



S.Sakane, et al.                                                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                                              January 2010


   The authentication process allows a user to acquire the needed
   credentials from the KDC.  These credentials allow services to
   authenticate the users before granting them access to the resources.
   An important part of the credentials are called Tickets.  There are
   two kinds of tickets: Ticket Granting Ticket (TGT) and Service
   Ticket.  The TGT is obtained periodically from the KDC and has a
   limited lifetime after which it expires and the user must renew it.
   The TGT is used to obtain the other kind of tickets; Service Tickets.
   The user obtains a TGT from the Authentication Service (AS), a
   logical component of the KDC.  The process of obtaining a TGT is
   referred to as 'AS exchange'.  When a request for a TGT is issued by
   the user, the AS responds by sending a reply packet containing the
   credentials which consists of the TGT along with a random key called
   'TGS Session Key'.  The TGT contains a set of information encrypted
   using a secret key associated with a special service referred to as
   TGS (Ticket Granting Service).  The TGS session key is encrypted
   using the user's key so that the user can obtain the TGS session key
   only if she knows the secret key she shares with the KDC.  The TGT
   then is used to obtain a Service Tickets from the Ticket Granting
   Service (TGS)- the second component of the KDC.  The process of
   obtaining service tickets is referred to as 'TGS exchange'.  The
   request for a service ticket consists of a packet containing a TGT
   and an 'Authenticator'.  The Authenticator is encrypted using the TGS
   session key and contains the identity of the user as well as time
   stamps (for protection against replay attacks).  After decrypting the
   TGT received from the user, the TGS extracts the TGS session key.
   Using that session key, it decrypts the Authenticator and
   authenticates the user.  Then, the TGS issues the credentials
   requested by the user.  These credentials consist of a service ticket
   and a session key that will be used to authenticate the user to the
   desired application service.


2.2.  Cross-realm operation

   The Kerberos protocol provides cross-realm authentication
   capabilities.  This allows users to obtain service tickets to access
   services in foreign realms.  In order to access such services, the
   users first contact their home KDC asking for a TGT that will be used
   with the TGS of the foreign realm.  If there is a direct trust
   relationship between the home realm and the foreign realm
   (practically materialized in shared inter-realm keys), the home KDC
   delivers the requested TGT.

   However, if the home realm does not share inter-realm keys with the
   foreign realm, we are in a so-called indirect trust model situation.
   In this situation, the home KDC will provide a TGT that can be used
   with an intermediary foreign realm that is likely to be sharing



S.Sakane, et al.                                                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                                              January 2010


   inter-realm keys with the target realm.  The client can use this
   'intermediary TGT' to communicate with the intermediary KDC which
   will iterate the actions taken by the home KDC; If the intermediary
   KDC does not share inter-realm keys with the target foreign realm it
   will point the user to another intermediary KDC (just as in the first
   exchange between the user and its home KDC).  However, in the other
   case (when it shares inter-realm keys with the target realm), the
   intermediary KDC will issue a TGT that can be used with the KDC of
   the target realm.  After obtaining a TGT for the desired foreign
   realm, the client uses it to obtain service tickets from the TGS of
   the foreign realm.  Finally, the user accesses the service using the
   service ticket.

   When the realms belong to the same institution, a chain of trust can
   be automatically determined by the client or the KDC by following the
   DNS domain hierarchy and assuming that a parent domain shares keys
   with all its child sub-domains.  However, since this assumption is
   not always true, in many situations, the trust path might have to be
   specified manually.  Since the Kerberos cross-realm operations with
   indirect inter-realm trust model rely on intermediary realms, the
   success of the cross-realm operation completely depends on the realms
   that are part of the authentication path.


3.  Applying Cross-Realm Kerberos in Complex Environments

   In order to help understanding requirements and restrictions for
   cross-realm authentication operations, this section describes the
   scale and operations of two actual systems that could be supported by
   cross-realm Kerberos.  The two systems would be most naturally be
   implemented using different trust models, which will imply different
   requirements for cross-realm Kerberos.

   Hereafter, we will consider an actual petrochemical company
   [SHELLCHEM], and overview two examples among its plants.
   Petrochemical companies produce bulk petrochemicals and deliver them
   to large industrial customers.  The company in consideration
   possesses 43 plants all over the world managed by operation sites in
   35 countries.  This section shows two examples of these plants.

   The first example is a plant deploying a centralized system [CSPC].
   CSPC is operated by a joint enterprise of two companies.  This system
   is one of the largest systems of this company in the world.  It is
   located in an area of 3.4 square kilometers in the north coast of
   Daya Bay, Guangdong, in southeast China.  3,000 network segments are
   deployed in the system and 16,000 control devices are connected to
   local area networks.  These devices belong to 9 different subsystems.
   A control device can have many control and monitoring points.  In the



S.Sakane, et al.                                                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                                              January 2010


   plant considered in this example, there are 200,000 control points in
   all.  They are controlled by 3 different control centers.

   Another example is a distributed system [NAM].  The NAM (Nederlandse
   Aardolie Maatschappij) is operated by a partnership company of two
   enterprises that represent the oil company.  This system is composed
   of some plants that are geographically distributed within the range
   of 863 square kilometers in the northern part of Netherlands.  26
   plants, each one called "cluster", are scattered in the area.  They
   are connected to each other by a private ATM WAN.  Each cluster has
   approximately 500-1,000 control devices.  These devices are managed
   by local control center in each cluster.  In the entire system of the
   NAM, there are one million control points.

   In the both examples, the end devices are basically connected to a
   local network by a twisted pair cable, with a low band-width of 32
   kbps.  End devices use a low clock CPU, for example the H8 [RNSS-H8]
   and M16C [RNSS-M16C].  Furthermore, to reduce power consumption, the
   clock on the CPU may be lowered.  This adjustment restricts the
   amount of total energy in the device, thereby reducing the risk of
   explosions.

   A device on the network collects data from other devices monitoring
   the condition of the system.  This date is then used to make
   decisions on how to control other devices with instructions
   transmitted over the network.  If it takes time for data to travel
   through the network, normal operations can not be ensured.  The
   travel time of data from a device to another device in the both
   examples must be within 1 second at most.  Other control system
   applications may have shorter or longer timescales.

   Some parts of the operations such as control, maintenance, and
   environmental monitoring can be consigned to an external
   organization.  Also, agents may be consigned to walk around the plant
   and collect information about the plant operations, or watch the
   plant from a remote site.


4.  Requirements

   This section provides a list of requirements derived from the
   industrial automation use-case.  The requirements are written in a
   generic fashion, and are addressed towards frameworks and
   architectures that underlie Kerberos cross-realm operations.  The aim
   of these requirements is to provide some foundational guidelines to
   the future developments of cross-realm framework or architecture for
   Kerberos.




S.Sakane, et al.                                                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                                              January 2010


   R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 are related to the management of the divided
   system.  R-5, R-6 and R-7 are related to the restriction to such
   large scale industrial network.

   R-1  For organizational reasons and scalability needs, a management
        domain typically must be partitioned into two or more sub-
        domains of management.  Therefore, any architecture and
        implementation solution to the Kerberos cross-realm problem must
        (i) support the case of cross-realm operations across multiple
        management domains and (ii) support delegation of management
        authority from one domain to another management domain.  This
        must be performed without any decrease in the security level or
        quality of those cross-realm operations and must not expose
        Kerberos entities to new types of attacks.

   R-2  Any architecture and implementation solution to the Kerberos
        cross-realm problem must support the co-existence of multiple
        independent management domains on the same network.
        Furthermore, it must allow organizations (corresponding to
        different management domains) to delegate the management of a
        part of or the totality of their system at any one time.

   R-3  Any architecture and implementation solution to the Kerberos
        cross-realm problem must allow the use-case in which one device
        operationally controls another device, but each belongs to
        different management domains respectively.

   R-4  Any architecture and implementation solution to the Kerberos
        cross-realm problem must address the fundamental deployment use-
        case in which the management domain traverses geographic
        boundaries and network topological boundaries.  In particular,
        it must address the case where devices are geographically (or
        topologically) remote, even though they belong to the same
        management domain.

   R-5  Any architecture and implementation solution to the Kerberos
        cross-realm problem must be aimed at reducing operational and
        management costs as much as possible.

   R-6  Any architecture and implementation solution to the Kerberos
        cross-realm problem must address the (limited) processing
        capabilities of devices, and implementations of solutions must
        be considered to aim at limiting or suppressing power
        consumption of such devices.

   R-7  Any architecture and implementation solution to the Kerberos
        cross-realm problem must address the possibility of limited
        availability of communications bandwidth between devices within



S.Sakane, et al.                                                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                                              January 2010


        one domain, and also across domains.


5.  Issues

   This section lists issues in Kerberos cross-realm operations when
   used in large scale systems such as the ones described in section 3,
   and taking in consideration the requirements described in section 4.


5.1.  Unreliability of authentication chain

   When the trust relationship between realms follows chain or
   hierarchical model, the cross-realm authentication operations are no
   dependable since they strongly depend on intermediary realms that
   might not be under the same authority.  If any of the realms in the
   authentication path is not available, then the principals of the end
   realms can not perform cross-realm operations.

   The end-point realms do not have full control and responsibility of
   the success of the cross-realm operations even if their own
   respective KDCs are fully functional.  Dependability of a system
   decreases if the system relies on uncontrolled components.  End-point
   realms have no way of knowing the authentication result occurring
   within intermediary realms.

   Satisfying requirements R-1 and R-2 will eliminate (or considerably
   diminish) this issue of the unreliability of the authentication
   chain.


5.2.  Possibility of MITM in the indirect trust model

   Every KDC in the authentication path knows the shared secret between
   the client and the remaining KDCs in the authentication path.  This
   allows a malicious KDC to perform MITM attacks on communications
   between the client and any KDC in the remaining authentication chain.
   A malicious KDC also may learn the service session key that is used
   to protect the communication between the client and the actual
   application service.  It can then use this key to perform a MITM
   attack.

   In [SPECCROSS], the authors have analyzed the cross-realm operations
   in Kerberos and provided formal proof of the issue discussed in this
   section.

   Satisfying requirements R-1 and R-2 will eliminate (or considerably
   diminish) this issue of MITM attacks by intermediate KDCs in the



S.Sakane, et al.                                                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                                              January 2010


   indirect trust model.


5.3.  Scalability of the direct trust model

   In the direct trust relationship model, the realms involved in the
   cross-realm operations share keys and their respective TGS principals
   are registered in each other's KDC.  Each realm must maintain keys
   with all foreign realms that it interacts with.  This can become a
   cumbersome task and may increase maintenance costs when the number of
   realms increases.

   Satisfying requirements R-1, R-2 and R-5 will eliminate (or
   considerably diminish) this issue of scalability of the indirect
   trust model.


5.4.  Exposure to DoS Attacks

   One of the assumptions made when allowing the cross-realm operation
   in Kerberos is that users can communicate with KDCs located in remote
   realms.  This practice introduces security threats because KDCs are
   open to the public network.  Administrators may think of restricting
   the access to the KDC to the trusted realms only.  However, this
   approach is not scalable and does not really protect the KDC.
   Indeed, when the remote realms have several IP prefixes (e.g. control
   centers or outsourcing companies, located world wide), then the
   administrator of the local KDC must collect the list of prefixes that
   belong to these organization.  The filtering rules must then
   explicitly allow the incoming traffic from any host that belongs to
   one of these prefixes.  This makes the administrator's tasks more
   complicated and prone to human errors.  And also, the maintenance
   cost increases.  On the other hand, when a range of external IP
   addresses are allowed to communicate with the KDC then the risk of
   becoming target to attacks from remote malicious users increases.

   Satisfying requirements R-1, R-3, R-4 and R-5 will eliminate (or
   considerably diminish) this issue of exposure to DoS attacks.


5.5.  Client's performance

   In Kerberos cross-realm operations, clients have to perform TGS
   exchanges with all the KDCs in the trust path, including the home KDC
   and the target KDC.  A TGS exchange requires cryptographic operations
   and may consume a large amount of processing time especially when the
   client has limited computational capabilities.  As a result, the
   overhead of Kerberos cross-realm exchanges may grows into



S.Sakane, et al.                                               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                                              January 2010


   unacceptable delays.

   We ported the MIT Kerberos library (version 1.2.4), implemented a
   Kerberos client on our original board with H8 (16-bit, 20MHz), and
   measured the process time of each Kerberos message [KRBIMPL].  It
   takes 195 milliseconds to perform a TGS exchange with the on-board
   H/W crypto engine.  Indeed, this result seems reasonable to the
   requirement of the response time for the control network.  However,
   we did not modify the clock speed of the H8 during our measurement.
   The processing time must be slower in a actual environment because H8
   is used with lowered clock speed in such system.  With such devices,
   the delays can grow to unacceptable delays when the number of
   intermediary realms increases.

   Satisfying requirements R-1, R-2, R-6 and R-7 will eliminate (or
   considerably diminish) this issue relating to the client's
   performance.


5.6.  Kerberos Pre-authentication problem in roaming scenarios

   In roaming scenarios, the client needs to contact her home KDC to
   obtain a cross-realm TGT for the local (or visited) realm.  However,
   the policy of the network access providers or the gateway in the
   local network usually does not allow clients to communicate with
   hosts in the Internet unless they provide valid authentication
   credentials.  In this manner, the client encounters a chicken-and-egg
   problem where two resources are interdependent; the Internet
   connection is needed to contact the home KDC and for obtaining
   credentials, and on the other hand, the Internet connection is only
   granted for clients who have valid credentials.  As a result, the
   Kerberos protocol can not be used as it is for authenticating roaming
   clients requesting network access.  Typically, a VPN approach is
   applied to solve this problem.  However, we can not always establish
   VPNs between different sites.

   Satisfying requirements R-3, R-4 and R-5 will eliminate (or
   considerably diminish) this roaming-related issue pertaining to
   Kerberos pre-authentication.


6.  Implementation considerations

   This document describes issues of the cross-realm operation.  There
   are important matters to be considered, when designing and
   implementing solutions for these issues.  Solution must not introduce
   new problems.  Any solution should use existing components or
   protocols as much as possible, and it should avoid introducing



S.Sakane, et al.                                               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                                              January 2010


   definitions of new components.  It should not require new changes to
   existing deployed clients, and it should not influence the client
   code-base as much as possible.  Because a KDC is a significant server
   in an information system based on Kerberos.  New burden on the KDC
   should be minimal.  Solutions must take these tradeoffs and the
   requirements into consideration.  On the other hand, solutions are
   not required to solve all the issues listed in this document at once.


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.


8.  Security Considerations

   This document clarifies the issues of the cross-realm operation of
   the Kerberos V system, which include security issues to be
   considered.  See Section 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 for further details.


9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors are grateful to Nobuo Okabe, Kazunori Miyazawa, and
   Atsushi Inoue.  They gave us lots of comments and suggestions to this
   document from the early stage.  Nicolas Williams, Chaskiel Grundman
   and Love Hornquist Astrand gave valuable suggestions and corrections.
   Thomas Hardjono devoted much work and helped to improve this
   document.  Finally, the authors thank to Jeffrey Hutzelman.  He gave
   us a lot of suggestions for completion of this document.


10.  References


10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4120]     Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The
                 Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC
                 4120, July 2005.


10.2.  Informative References

   [CSPC]        http://www.shellchemicals.com/news/1,1098,72-news_id=
                 531,00.html





S.Sakane, et al.                                               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                                              January 2010


   [KRBIMPL]     "A Prototype of a Secure Autonomous Bootstrap Mechanism
                 for Control Networks", Nobuo Okabe, Shoichi Sakane,
                 Masahiro Ishiyama, Atsushi Inoue and Hiroshi Esaki,
                 SAINT, pp. 56-62, IEEE Computer Society, 2006.

   [NAM]         http://www.nam.nl/

   [RNSS-H8]     http://www.renesas.com/fmwk.jsp?cnt=h8_family_landing.
                 jsp&fp=/products/mpumcu/h8_family/

   [RNSS-M16C]   http://www.renesas.com/fmwk.jsp?cnt=m16c_family_landi
                 ng.jsp&fp=/products/mpumcu/m16c_family/

   [SHELLCHEM]   http://www.shellchemicals.com/home/1,1098,-1,00.html

   [SPECCROSS]   I. Cervesato and A. Jaggard and A. Scedrov and C.
                 Walstad, "Specifying Kerberos 5 Cross-Realm
                 Authentication", Fifth Workshop on Issues in the Theory
                 of Security, Jan 2005.

Authors' Addresses

   Shoichi Sakane
   Yokogawa Electric Corporation
   2-9-32 Nakacho, Musashino-shi,
   Tokyo  180-8750 Japan
   E-mail: Shouichi.Sakane@jp.yokogawa.com


   Ken'ichi Kamada
   Yokogawa Electric Corporation
   2-9-32 Nakacho, Musashino-shi,
   Tokyo  180-8750 Japan
   E-mail: Ken-ichi.Kamada@jp.yokogawa.com


   Saber Zrelli
   Yokogawa Electric Corporation
   2-9-32 Nakacho, Musashino-shi,
   Tokyo  180-8750 Japan
   E-mail: Saber.Zrelli@jp.yokogawa.com










S.Sakane, et al.                                               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                                              January 2010


   Masahiro Ishiyama
   Toshiba Corporation
   1, komukai-toshiba-cho, Saiwai-ku,
   Kawasaki  212-8582 Japan
   E-mail: masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp














































S.Sakane, et al.                                               [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/