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

Versions: (draft-nelson-radext-crypto-agility-requirements) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 6421

Network Working Group                                          D. Nelson
Internet-Draft                                     Elbrys Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                             March 3, 2011
Expires: September 3, 2011


  Crypto-Agility Requirements for Remote Dial-In User Service (RADIUS)
          draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02.txt

Abstract

   This memo describes the requirements for a crypto-agility solution
   for Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS).

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/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 September 3, 2011.

Requirements Language

   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].








Nelson                  Expires September 3, 2011               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     RADIUS Crypto-Agility Requirements         March 2011


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.1.  General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.2.  The Charge  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  A Working Definition of Crypto-Agility  . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  The Current State of RADIUS Encryption  . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  The Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     4.1.  Overall Solution Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     4.2.  Security Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     4.3.  Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     4.4.  Interoperability and Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     4.5.  Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     4.6.  Applicability of Automated Key Management Requirements  . . 6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
















Nelson                  Expires September 3, 2011               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     RADIUS Crypto-Agility Requirements         March 2011


1.  Introduction

1.1.  General

   This memo describes the requirements for a crypto-agility solution
   for Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS).  This memo,
   when approved, reflects the consensus of the RADIUS Extensions
   Working Group of the IETF (RADEXT) as to the features, properties and
   limitations of the crypto-agility work item for RADIUS.  It also
   defines the term "crypto-agility" as used in this context, and
   provides the motivations for undertaking and completing this work.

   The requirements defined in this memo have previously been expressed
   in e-mail messages posted to the RADEXT WG mailing list, which may be
   found in the archives of that list.  The purpose of framing the
   requirements in this memo is to formalize and memorialize them for
   future reference, and to bring them explicitly to the attention of
   the IESG and the IETF Community, as we proceed with this work.

1.2.  The Charge

   At the IETF-66 meeting, the RADEXT WG was asked by members of the
   Security Area Directorate to undertake the action item to prepare a
   formal description of a crypto-agility work item, and corresponding
   milestones in the RADEXT Charter.  After consultation with one of the
   Security Area Directors, Russ Housley, text was initially proposed on
   the RADEXT WG mailing list on October 26, 2006.  That text reads as
   follows:

   The RADEXT WG will review the security requirements for crypto-
   agility in IETF protocols, and identify the deficiencies of the
   existing RADIUS protocol specifications against these requirements.
   Specific attention will be paid to RFC 4962.

   The RADEXT WG will propose one or more Internet Drafts to remediate
   any identified deficiencies in the crypto-agility properties of the
   RADIUS protocol.  The known deficiencies include the issue of
   negotiation of substitute algorithms for the message digest
   functions, the key-wrap functions, and the password-hiding function.
   Additionally, at least one mandatory to implement algorithm will be
   defined in each of these areas, as required.


2.  A Working Definition of Crypto-Agility

   A generalized definition of crypto-agility was offered up at the
   RADEXT WG session during IETF-68.  Crypto-Agility is the ability for
   a protocol to adapt to evolving cryptography and security



Nelson                  Expires September 3, 2011               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     RADIUS Crypto-Agility Requirements         March 2011


   requirements.  This may include the provision of a modular mechanism
   to allow cryptographic algorithms to be updated without substantial
   disruption to fielded implementations.  It may provide for the
   dynamic negotiation and installation of cryptographic algorithms
   within protocol implementations (think of Dynamic-Link Libraries
   (DLL)).

   In the specific context of the RADIUS protocol and RADIUS
   implementations, crypto-agility may be better defined as the ability
   of RADIUS implementations to negotiate cryptographic algorithms for
   use in RADIUS exchanges, including the cryptographic algorithms used
   to protect RADIUS packets and to hide RADIUS Attributes.  This
   capability covers all RADIUS message types: Access-Request/Response,
   Accounting-Request/Response, and CoA/Disconnect-Request/Response.


3.  The Current State of RADIUS Encryption

   RADIUS packets, as defined in RFC 2865, are protected by an MD5-baed
   message integrity check (MIC), within the Authenticator field of
   RADIUS packets other than Access-Request.  The Message-Authenticator
   Attribute utilizes HMAC-MD5 to authenticate and integrity protect
   RADIUS packets.  Various RADIUS attributes support hidden values,
   including: User-Password, Tunnel-Password, and various Vendor-
   Specific Attributes.  Generally speaking, the hiding mechanism uses a
   stream cipher based on a key stream from an MD5 digest.

   Recent work on MD5 collisions does not immediately compromise any of
   these methods, absent knowledge of the RADIUS shared secret.
   However, the progress toward compromise of MD5's basic cryptographic
   assumptions has resulted in the deprecation of MD5 usage in a variety
   of applications.


4.  The Requirements

4.1.  Overall Solution Approach

   RADIUS crypto-agility solutions are not restricted to utilizing
   technology described in existing RFCs.  Since RADIUS over IPsec is
   already described in RFC 3162 and RFC 3579, this technique is already
   available to those who wish to use it.  Therefore, it is expected
   that proposals will utilize other techniques.

4.2.  Security Services

   Proposals MUST support the negotiation of cryptographic algorithms
   for per-packet integrity/authentication protection.  Support for



Nelson                  Expires September 3, 2011               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     RADIUS Crypto-Agility Requirements         March 2011


   confidentiality of entire RADIUS packets is OPTIONAL.  However,
   proposals MUST support the negotiation of algorithms for encryption
   (sometimes referred to as "hiding") of RADIUS attributes.  If
   possible, it is desirable for proposals to provide for the encryption
   of existing attributes.  This includes existing "hidden" attributes
   as well as attributes (such as location attributes) that require
   confidentiality.

   Proposals MUST support replay protection.  The existing mechanisms
   for replay protection are considered adequate and should be
   maintained.

   Crypto-agility solutions MUST avoid security compromise, even in
   situations where the existing cryptographic algorithms utilized by
   RADIUS implementations are shown to be weak enough to provide little
   or no security (e.g. in event of compromise of the legacy RADIUS
   shared secret).  Included in this would be protection against bidding
   down attacks.

   Crypto-agility solutions MUST specify mandatory-to-implement
   algorithms for each defined mechanism.

4.3.  Backwards Compatibility

   Solutions to the problem MUST demonstrate backward compatibility with
   existing RADIUS implementations.  That is, a crypto-agility solution
   needs to be able to send packets that a legacy RADIUS client or
   server will receive and process successfully.  Similarly, a crypto-
   agility solution needs to be capable of receiving and processing
   packets from a legacy RADIUS client or server.

   Proposals MUST NOT introduce new capabilities negotation features
   into the RADIUS protocol, but rather MUST use the existing
   mechanisms.  Included in such negotiation techniques are "hint and
   accept" and "hint and reject" mechanisms, where the NAS (RADIUS
   client) provides a list of supported algorithms and the RADIUS server
   selects one.

   Crypto-agility solutions SHOULD NOT require changes to the RADIUS
   operational model, such as the introduction of new commands or
   maintenance of [additional] state on the RADIUS server.  Similarly, a
   proposal SHOULD focus on the crypto-agility problem and nothing else.
   For example, proposals SHOULD NOT require new attribute formats or
   include definition of new RADIUS services.







Nelson                  Expires September 3, 2011               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     RADIUS Crypto-Agility Requirements         March 2011


4.4.  Interoperability and Change Control

   Proposals MUST indicate a willingness to cede change control to the
   IETF.

   Crypto-agility solutions MUST be interoperable between independent
   implementations based purely on the information provided in the
   specification.

4.5.  Scope of Work

   Crypto-agility solutions MUST apply to all RADIUS packet types,
   including Access-Request, Access-Challenge, Access-Reject, Access-
   Accept, Accounting-Request, Accounting-Response, and CoA/Disconnect
   messages.

   Proposals MUST include a Diameter compatibility section, although it
   is expected that the work will occur purely within RADIUS or in the
   transport, and therefore does not affect message data that is
   exchanged with Diameter.

   Proposals MUST discuss any inherent assumptions about, or limitations
   on, client/server operations or deployment and SHOULD provide
   recommendations for transition of deployments from legacy RADIUS to
   crypto-agile RADIUS.  Issues regarding ciper-suite negotiation,
   legacy interoperability and the potential for biding down attacks,
   SHOULD be among these discussions.

4.6.  Applicability of Automated Key Management Requirements

   [RFC4107]  provides guidelines for when automated key management is
   necessary.  At the IETF-70 meeting, and leading up to that meeting,
   the RADEXT WG debated whether or not RFC 4107 would require a RADIUS
   Crypto-Agility solution to feature Automated Key Management (AKM).
   The working group determined that AKM was not inherently required for
   RADIUS based on the following points:

   o  RFC 4107 requires AKM for protocols that involve O(n^2) keys.
      This does not apply to RADIUS deployments, which require O(n) keys

   o  RADIUS does not require the encryption of large amounts of data in
      a short time

   o  Organizations already have operational practices to manage
      existing RADIUS shared secrets to address key changes required
      through personnel changes





Nelson                  Expires September 3, 2011               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     RADIUS Crypto-Agility Requirements         March 2011


   o  The crypto-agility solution can avoid use cryptographic modes of
      operation such as a counter mode cipher that require frequent key
      changes

   Automated key management is required for RADIUS crypto agility
   solutions that use cryptographic modes of operation that require
   frequent key changes.


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.


6.  Security Considerations

   This specification describes the requirements for new cryptographic
   protection mechanisms, including the modular selection of algorithms
   and modes.  Therefore, the subject matter of this memo is all about
   security.


7.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to all the reviewers and contributors, inclding Bernard Aboba,
   Joe Salowey and Glen Zorn.


8.  Informative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2865]  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
              "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
              RFC 2865, June 2000.

   [RFC3162]  Aboba, B., Zorn, G., and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6",
              RFC 3162, August 2001.

   [RFC3579]  Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication
              Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible
              Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003.

   [RFC4107]  Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for Cryptographic
              Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, June 2005.

   [RFC4962]  Housley, R. and B. Aboba, "Guidance for Authentication,



Nelson                  Expires September 3, 2011               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     RADIUS Crypto-Agility Requirements         March 2011


              Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Key Management",
              BCP 132, RFC 4962, July 2007.


Author's Address

   David B. Nelson
   Elbrys Networks, Inc.
   75 Rochester Avenue, Unit 3
   Portsmouth, NH  03801
   USA

   Email: d.b.nelson@comcast.net







































Nelson                  Expires September 3, 2011               [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/