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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 6012

Network Working Group                                         J. Salowey
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                                T. Petch
Expires: September 25, 2010                     Engineering Networks Ltd
                                                             R. Gerhards
                                                            Adiscon GmbH
                                                                 H. Feng
                                             Huaweisymantec Technologies
                                                          March 24, 2010


 Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog
                     draft-ietf-syslog-dtls-04.txt

Abstract

   This document describes the transport of syslog messages over DTLS
   (Datagram Transport Level Security).  It provides a secure transport
   for syslog messages in cases where a connection-less transport is
   desired.

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 25, 2010.

Copyright Notice

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



Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


   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 BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.






























Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

   3.  Security Requirements for Syslog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

   4.  Using DTLS to Secure Syslog  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   5.  Protocol Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.1.  Transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.2.  Port Assignment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.3.  Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       5.3.1.  Certificate-Based Authentication . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.4.  Sending data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       5.4.1.  Message Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.5.  Closure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   6.  Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

   7.  Security Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

   8.  IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.1.  DTLS Renegotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
















Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


1.  Introduction

   The syslog protocol [RFC5424] is designed to run over different
   transports for different environments.  This document defines the
   transport of syslog messages over the datagram transport layer
   security protocol (DTLS) [RFC4347].

   The datagram transport layer security protocol (DTLS) [RFC4347] is
   designed to meet the requirements of applications that need secure
   datagram transport.  DTLS has been mapped onto different transports,
   including UDP [RFC0768] and DCCP [RFC4340].  This memo defines both
   options, namely syslog over DTLS over UDP and syslog over DTLS over
   DCCP.






































Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


2.  Terminology

   The following definitions from [RFC5424] are used in this document:

   o  An "originator" generates syslog content to be carried in a
      message.

   o  A "collector" gathers syslog content for further analysis.

   o  A "relay" forwards messages, accepting messages from originators
      or other relays, and sending them to collectors or other relays.

   o  A "transport sender" passes syslog messages to a specific
      transport protocol.

   o  A "transport receiver" takes syslog messages from a specific
      transport protocol.

   This document adds the following definitions:

   o  A "DTLS client" is an application that can initiate a DTLS Client
      Hello to a server.

   o  A "DTLS server" is an application that can receive a DTLS Client
      Hello from a client and reply with a Server Hello.

   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].






















Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


3.  Security Requirements for Syslog

   The security requirements for the transport of syslog messages are
   discussed in Section 2 of [RFC5425].  These also apply to this
   specification.

   The following secondary threat is also considered in this document:

   o  Denial of service is discussed in [RFC5424], which states that an
      attacker may send more messages to a transport receiver than the
      transport receiver could handle.  When using a secure transport
      protocol handshake, an attacker may use a spoofed IP source to
      engage the server in a cryptographic handshake to deliberately
      consume the server's resources.





































Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


4.  Using DTLS to Secure Syslog

   DTLS can be used as a secure transport to counter all the primary
   threats to syslog described in [RFC5425]:

   o  Confidentiality to counter disclosure of the message contents.

   o  Integrity checking to counter modifications to a message on a hop-
      by-hop basis.

   o  Server or mutual authentication to counter masquerade.

   In addition DTLS also provides:

   o  A cookie exchange mechanism during handshake to counter Denial of
      Service attacks.

   o  A sequence number in the header to counter replay attacks.

   Note: This secure transport (i.e., DTLS) only secures syslog
   transport in a hop-by-hop manner, and is not concerned with the
   contents of syslog messages.  In particular, the authenticated
   identity of the transport sender (e.g., subject name in the
   certificate) is not necessarily related to the HOSTNAME field of the
   syslog message.  When authentication of syslog message origin is
   required, [I-D.ietf-syslog-sign] can be used.

























Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


5.  Protocol Elements

5.1.  Transport

   DTLS can run over multiple transports.  Implementations of this
   specification MUST support DTLS over UDP and SHOULD support DTLS over
   DCCP [RFC5238].  Transports, such as UDP or DCCP do not provide
   session multiplexing and session-demultiplexing.  In such cases, the
   application implementer provides this functionality by mapping a
   unique combination of the remote address, remote port number, local
   address and local port number to a session.

   Each syslog message is delivered by the DTLS record protocol, which
   assigns a sequence number to each DTLS record.  Although the DTLS
   implementer may adopt a queue mechanism to resolve reordering, it may
   not assure that all the messages are delivered in order when mapping
   on the UDP transport.

   When DTLS runs over an unreliable transport, such as UDP, reliability
   is not provided.  With DTLS, an originator or relay may not realize
   that a collector has gone down or lost its DTLS connection state so
   messages may be lost.

   Syslog over DTLS over TCP MUST NOT be used.  If a secure transport is
   required with TCP then the appropriate security mechanism is syslog
   over TLS as described in [RFC5425].

5.2.  Port Assignment

   A syslog transport sender is always a DTLS client and a transport
   receiver is always a DTLS server.

   The UDP and DCCP port [TBD] has been allocated as the default port
   for syslog over DTLS as defined in this document.

5.3.  Initiation

   The transport sender initiates a DTLS connection by sending a DTLS
   Client Hello to the transport receiver.  Implementations MUST support
   the denial of service countermeasures defined by DTLS.  When these
   countermeasures are enabled, the transport receiver responds with a
   DTLS Hello Verify Request containing a cookie.  The transport sender
   responds with a DTLS Client Hello containing the received cookie
   which initiates the DTLS handshake.  When the DTLS handshake has
   finished, the transport sender MAY then send the first syslog
   message.

   Implementations MUST support DTLS 1.1 [RFC4347] and MUST support the



Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


   mandatory to implement cipher suite, which is
   TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA.

5.3.1.  Certificate-Based Authentication

   The mandatory to implement ciphersuites for DTLS use certificates
   [RFC5280] to authenticate peers.  Both syslog transport sender (DTLS
   client) and syslog transport receiver (DTLS server) MUST implement
   certificate-based authentication.  This consists of validating the
   certificate and verifying that the peer has the corresponding private
   key.  The latter part is performed by DTLS.  To ensure
   interoperability between clients and servers, the methods for
   certificate validation defined in sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of
   [RFC5425] SHALL be implemented.

   Both transport receiver and transport sender implementations MUST
   provide means to generate a key pair and self-signed certificate in
   case a key pair and certificate are not available through another
   mechanism.

   The transport receiver and transport sender SHOULD provide mechanisms
   to record the certificate or certificate fingerprint used by the
   remote endpoint for the purpose of correlating an identity with the
   sent or received data.

5.4.  Sending data

   All syslog messages MUST be sent as DTLS "application data".  It is
   possible that multiple syslog messages be contained in one DTLS
   record, or that a syslog message be transferred in multiple DTLS
   records.  The application data is defined with the following ABNF
   [RFC5234] expression:

   APPLICATION-DATA = 1*SYSLOG-FRAME

   SYSLOG-FRAME = MSG-LEN SP SYSLOG-MSG

   MSG-LEN = NONZERO-DIGIT *DIGIT

   SP = %d32

   NONZERO-DIGIT = %d49-57

   DIGIT = %d48 / NONZERO-DIGIT

   SYSLOG-MSG is defined in syslog [RFC5424] protocol.





Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


5.4.1.  Message Size

   The message length is the octet count of the SYSLOG-MSG in the
   SYSLOG-FRAME.  A transport receiver MUST use the message length to
   delimit a syslog message.  There is no upper limit for a message
   length per se.  As stated in [RFC4347], each DTLS record MUST fit
   within a single DTLS datagram.  When mapping onto different
   transports, DTLS has different record size limitations.  The
   application implementer SHOULD determine the maximum record size
   allowed by DTLS protocol running over the transport in use.  The
   message size SHOULD NOT exceed the DTLS maximum record size
   limitation of 2^14 bytes.  To be consistent with RFC 5425, in
   establishing a baseline for interoperability, this specification
   requires that a transport receiver MUST be able to process messages
   with a length up to and including 2048 octets.  Transport receivers
   SHOULD be able to process messages with lengths up to and including
   8192 octets.

5.5.  Closure

   A transport sender MUST close the associated DTLS connection if the
   connection is not expected to deliver any syslog messages later.  It
   MUST send a DTLS close_notify alert before closing the connection.  A
   transport sender (DTLS client) MAY choose to not wait for the
   transport receiver's close_notify alert and simply close the DTLS
   connection.  Once the transport receiver gets a close_notify from the
   transport sender, it MUST reply with a close_notify.

   When no data is received from a DTLS connection for a long time
   (where the application decides what "long" means), a transport
   receiver MAY close the connection.  The transport receiver (DTLS
   server) MUST attempt to initiate an exchange of close_notify alerts
   with the transport sender before closing the connection.  Transport
   receivers that are unprepared to receive any more data MAY close the
   connection after sending the close_notify alert.

   Although closure alerts form part of DTLS, they, like all alerts, are
   not retransmitted by DTLS and so may be lost over an unreliable
   network.












Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


6.  Congestion Control

   Because syslog can generate unlimited amounts of data, transferring
   this data over UDP is generally problematic, because UDP lacks
   congestion control mechanisms.  Congestion control mechanisms that
   respond to congestion by reducing traffic rates and establish a
   degree of fairness between flows that share the same path are vital
   to the stable operation of the Internet (see [RFC2914] and
   [RFC5405]).

   DCCP has congestion control.  For this reason the syslog over DTLS
   over DCCP option is recommended in preference to the syslog over the
   DTLS over UDP option.

   The congestion control considerations from section 4.3 of [RFC5426]
   also apply to syslog over DTLS over udp.



































Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


7.  Security Policies

   Syslog transport over DTLS has been designed to minimize the security
   and operational differences for environments where both [RFC5425] and
   syslog over DTLS are supported.  The security policies for syslog
   over DTLS are the same as those described in [RFC5425].













































Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


8.  IANA Consideration

   IANA is requested to assign a registered UDP and DCCP port number for
   syslog over DTLS.  The same value as for syslog over TLS (6514) is
   requested.














































Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


9.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations in [RFC5425], [RFC5246] and [RFC4347]
   apply to this document.

9.1.  DTLS Renegotiation

   TLS and DTLS renegotiation may be vulnerable to attacks described in
   [RFC5746].  Although RFC 5746 provides a fix for some of the issues,
   renegotiation can still cause problems for applications since
   connection security parameters can change without the application
   knowing it.  Therefore it is RECOMMENDED that renegotiation be
   disabled for syslog over DTLS.  If renegotiation is allowed then the
   specification in RFC 5746 MUST be followed and the implementation
   MUST make sure that the connection still has adequate security and
   that any identities extracted from client and server certificates do
   not change during renegotiation.


































Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Wes Hardaker for his review on this
   proposal and contributing his valuable suggestions on the use of
   DTLS.  Thanks also to Pasi Eronen, David Harrington, Chris Lonvick,
   Eliot Lear, Anton Okmyanskiy, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Richard Graveman
   and members of the syslog working group for their comments,
   suggestions and review.











































Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              August 1980.

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

   [RFC4340]  Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
              Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.

   [RFC4347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [RFC5238]  Phelan, T., "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) over
              the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)",
              RFC 5238, May 2008.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.

   [RFC5424]  Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, March 2009.

   [RFC5425]  Miao, F., Ma, Y., and J. Salowey, "Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog", RFC 5425,
              March 2009.

   [RFC5426]  Okmianski, A., "Transmission of Syslog Messages over UDP",
              RFC 5426, March 2009.

   [RFC5746]  Rescorla, E., Ray, M., Dispensa, S., and N. Oskov,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication
              Extension", RFC 5746, February 2010.

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-syslog-sign]
              Kelsey, J., Callas, J., and A. Clemm, "Signed syslog



Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


              Messages", draft-ietf-syslog-sign-29 (work in progress),
              December 2009.

   [RFC2914]  Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
              RFC 2914, September 2000.

   [RFC5405]  Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines
              for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405,
              November 2008.










































Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      DTLS Transport Mapping for Syslog         March 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Joseph Salowey
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   2901 3rd. Ave
   Seattle, WA  98121
   USA

   Email: jsalowey@cisco.com


   Tom Petch
   Engineering Networks Ltd
   18 Parkwood Close
   Lymm, Cheshire  WA13 0NQ
   UK

   Email: tomSecurity@network-engineer.co.uk


   Rainer Gerhards
   Adiscon GmbH
   Mozartstrasse 21
   Grossrinderfeld, BW  97950
   Germany

   Email: rgerhards@adiscon.com


   Hongyan. Feng
   Huaweisymantec Technologies
   20245 Steven Creek Blvd
   Cupertino, CA  95014

   Email: fhyfeng@gmail.com
















Salowey, et al.        Expires September 25, 2010              [Page 18]


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