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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 4822

Network Working Group                      R. Atkinson, Extreme Networks
INTERNET-DRAFT                                            M. Fanto, NIST
                                                         2 November 2005
                                                  Expires:    2 May 2006

                   RIPv2 Cryptographic Authentication

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.

  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

  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

Atkinson & Fanto                                                [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

  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:

  The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at:

  This memo is a contribution to the IETF and is intended for future
  standards-track publication to update RFC-2082 and RFC-2453.  This
  memo is not the product of any IETF working group.

  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.


     This note describes a revision to the RIPv2 Cryptographic
  Authentication mechanism originally specified in RFC-2082.  This
  document includes specific details of how HMAC SHA-1 is used with
  RIPv2 Cryptographic Authentication, whereas the original document
  only specified the use of Keyed-MD5.  Also, this document clarifies
  a potential issue with an active attack on this mechanism and adds
  significant text to the Security Considerations section.


  Growth in the Internet has made us aware of the need for improved
  authentication of routing information.  RIPv2 provides for
  unauthenticated service (as in classical RIP), or password
  authentication.  Both are vulnerable to passive attacks currently
  widespread in the Internet.  Well-understood security issues exist in
  routing protocols [Bell89].  Clear text passwords, originally
  specified for use with RIPv2, are widely understood to be vulnerable
  to easily deployed passive attacks [HA94].

  The original RIPv2 cryptographic authentication specification [AB97]
  used the Keyed-MD5 cryptographic mechanism.  While there are no openly
  published attacks on that mechanism, some reports [Dobb96a, Dobb96b]
  create concern about the ultimate strength of the MD5 cryptographic
  hash function.  Further, some end users, particularly several
  different governments, require the use of the SHA-1 hash function
  rather than any other such function for policy reasons.  Finally,
  the original specification uses a hashing construction widely believed
  to be weaker than the HMAC construction used with the algorithms added

Atkinson & Fanto                                                [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

  in this revision of the specification.

  Hence, this document replaces [AB97] and adds support for the
  HMAC-SHA1 cryptographic mechanism, while retaining the original
  Keyed-MD5 mechanism as a deployment option.  As the original RIPv2
  Cryptographic Authentication mechanism was algorithm-independent,
  backwards compatibility is retained.

  The authors do NOT believe that this specification is the final
  answer to RIPv2 authentication and encourage the reader to consult
  the SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS section of this document for more

  If RIPv2 authentication is disabled, then only simple
  misconfigurations are detected.  The original RIPv2 authentication
  mechanism relied upon reused cleartext passwords.  Use of cleartext
  password authentication can protect against accidential
  misconfigurations if that were the only concern, but is not helpful
  from a security perspective.  By simply capturing information on the
  wire - straightforward even in a remote environment - a hostile
  entity can read the cleartext RIPv2 password and use that knowledge
  to inject false information into the routing system via the RIPv2
  routing protocol.

  This mechanism is intended to reduce the risk of a successful passive
  attack upon RIPv2 deployments.  That is, deployment of this mechanism
  greatly reduces the vulnerability of the RIPv2-based routing system
  from a passive attack.  When cryptographic authentication is enabled,
  we transmit the output of a keyed cryptographic one-way function in
  the authentication field of the RIPv2 packet, instead of sending a
  cleartext reusable password in the RIPv2 packet.  The RIPv2
  Authentication Key is known only to the authorised parties of the
  RIPv2 session.  The RIPv2 Authentication Key is never sent over the
  network in the clear.

  In this way, protection is afforded against forgery or message
  modification.  While it is possible to replay a message until the
  sequence number changes, a sequence number can be used to reduce
  replay risks.  The mechanism does not provide confidentiality,
  since messages stay in the clear.  Since the objective of a
  routing protocol is to advertise the routing topology,
  confidentiality is not normally required for routing protocols.

  Other relevant rationales for the approach are that MD5 and SHA-1
  are both being used for other purposes and are therefore generally
  already present in IP routers, as is some form of password

Atkinson & Fanto                                                [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

1.1 Terminology

  In this document, the words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
  RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described
  in [BCP14] [RFC-2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant
  or conformant implementations.

2.  Implementation Approach

  Implementation requires use of a special packet format, special
  authentication procedures, and also management controls.  Implementers
  need to remember that the SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS section is an
  integral part of this specification and contains important parts of
  this specification.

2.1.  RIPv2 PDU Format

  The basic RIPv2 message format provides for an 8 byte header with an
  array of 20 byte records as its data content.  When RIPv2
  Cryptographic Authentication is enabled, the same header and content
  are used as with the original RIPv2 specification, but the 16 byte
  "Authentication" field is reused to describe a "Cryptographic
  Authentication" trailer.  This trailer contains five fields as

            The "Authentication Type" is Cryptographic Hash Function,
      which is indicated by the value 3.

           An unsigned 16 bit offset from the RIPv2 header to the output
      of the cryptographic hash function in use (if no other trailer
      fields are ever defined, this value equals the RIPv2 Data Length).

           An unsigned 8-bit field that contains the Key Identifier or
      Key-ID.  This identifies the RIPv2 Security Association in use for
      this packet.  The RIPv2 Security association, which is defined in
      Section 2.2 below, includes the Authentication Key that was used
      to create the Authentication Data for this RIPv2 message and other
      parameters.  In implementations supporting more than one
      authentication algorithm, the RIPv2 Security Association also
      includes information about which authentication algorithm in use
      for this message.  A key is always associated with an interface,

Atkinson & Fanto                                                [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

      rather than with a router.

           An unsigned 8-bit field that contains the length in octets
      (bytes) of the trailing Authentication Data field.  The presence
      of this field helps provide cryptographic algorithm independence.

           This field contains the cryptographic Authentication Data
      used to validate this packet.  The length of this field is stored
      in the AUTHENTICATION DATA LENGTH field above.

           An unsigned 32 bit sequence number.  The sequence number MUST
      be non-decreasing for all messages sent with a given Key ID value.

  The authentication trailer consists of the Authentication Data, which
  is the output of the keyed cryptographic hash function.  See later
  subsections of this section for details on computing this field.

2.2 RIPv2 Security Association

  Understanding the RIPv2 Security Association concept is central to
  understanding this specification.  A RIPv2 Security Association
  contains the set of shared authentication configuration parameters
  needed by the legitimate sender or any legitimate receiver.

  An implementation MUST be able to support at least 2 concurrent RIPv2
  Security Associations on each RIP interface.  This is a functional
  requirement for supporting key rollover.  Support for key rollover is

  The RIPv2 Security Association, defined below, is selected by the
  sender based on the outgoing router interface. Each RIPv2 Security
  Association has a lifetime and other configuration parameters
  associated with it.  In normal operation, a RIPv2 Security Association
  is never used outside its lifetime.  Certain abnormal cases are
  discussed later in this document.

  The minimum data items in a RIPv2 Security Association are as follows:

         The unsigned 8-bit KEY-ID value is used to identify the RIPv2
      Security Association in use for this packet.  The receiver uses
      the combination of the interface the packet was receive upon and
      this value to uniquely identify the appropriate Security

Atkinson & Fanto                                                [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

      Association.  The sender selects which RIPv2 Security Association
      to use based on the outbound interface for this RIPv2 packet and
      then places the correct KEY-ID value into that packet.

           This specifies the cryptographic algorithm and algorithm
      mode used with the RIPv2 Security Association.  This information
      doesn't need to be sent in each packet, so it is never sent in
      clear-text over the wire.  Because this information is not sent
      on the wire, the implementer chooses an implementation-specific
      representation for this information.  At present, the following
      values are possible:
           KEYED-MD5, HMAC-SHA-1, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384,
           and HMAC-SHA-512.

           This is the value of the cryptographic authentication key
      used with the associated Authentication Algorithm.  It MUST NOT
      ever be sent over the network in clear-text via any protocol.
      The length of this key will depend on the Authentication Algorithm
      in use. Operators should take care to select unpredictable and
      strong keys, avoiding any keys known to be weak for the algorithm
      in use. [ECS94] contains helpful information both on key
      generation techniques and on cryptographic randomness.

         This is an unsigned 32-bit number.  For a given KEY-ID value,
      this number MUST NOT decrease.  In normal operation, the operator
      should rekey the RIPv2 session prior to reaching the maximum
      value.  The initial value used in the sequence number is

           This is a local representation of the day and time that
      this Security Association first becomes valid.

           This is a local representation of the day and time that
      this Security Association becomes invalid (i.e. when it expires).
      It is permitted, but not recommended, for an operator to configure
      this to be "never expire".  The "never expire" value is not
      recommended operational practice because it reduces security
      as compared with periodic rekeying.

2.3 Basic Authentication Processing

  When the authentication type is "Cryptographic Hash Function", message

Atkinson & Fanto                                                [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

  processing is changed in message creation and reception as compared
  with the original RIPv2 specification in [Mal94].

  This section describes the message processing generically.  Additional
  algorithm-dependent processing that is required is described in
  separate, subsequent sections of this document.  As of this writing,
  there are 2 kinds of algorithm-dependent processing.  One covers the
  "Keyed-MD5" algorithm.  The other covers the "HMAC-SHA1" family of

2.3.1.  Message Generation

  The RIPv2 Packet is created as usual, with these exceptions:

      (1) The UDP checksum SHOULD be calculated, but MAY be set
          to zero because any of the cryptographic authentication
          mechanisms in this specification will provider stronger
          integrity protection than the standard UDP checksum.

      (2) The authentication type field indicates Cryptographic
          Authentication (3).

      (3) The authentication "password" field is reused to store a
          packet offset to the Authentication Data, a Key Identifier,
          the Authentication Data Length, and a non-decreasing
          sequence number.

  See also Section 2.2 above on RIPv2 Security Association for
  other important background information.

  When creating the RIPv2 Packet, the follow process is followed:

      (1)  The packet length field of the RIPv2 header indicates the
           size of the main body of the RIPv2 packet.

      (2)  An appropriate RIPv2 Security Association is selected for
           use with this packet.  The Authentication Data Offset,
           Key Identifier, and Authentication Data size fields are
           filled in appropriately.

      (3)  Algorithm-dependent processing occurs now, either for the
           "Keyed-MD5" algorithm or for the "HMAC-SHA1" algorithm family.
           See the respective sub-sections (below) for details of this
           algorithm-dependent processing.

      (4)  The resulting Authentication Data value is written into the
           Authentication Data field. The trailing pad (if any) is not

Atkinson & Fanto                                                [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

           actually transmitted, as it is entirely predictable from the
           message length and Authentication Algorithm in use.

2.3.2.  Message Reception

  When the message is received, the process is reversed:

  (1)  The received Authentication Data is set aside and stored
       for later use,

  (2)  The appropriate RIPv2 Security Association is determined
       from the value of the Key Identifier field and the interface
       the packet was received on.

  (3)  Algorithm-dependent processing is performed, using the
       algorithm specified by the appropriate RIPv2 Security
       Association for this packet.  This results in calculation
       of the Authentication Data based on the information in the
       received RIPv2 packet and information from the appropriate
       RIPv2 Security Association for that packet.

  (4) The calculated Authentication Data result is compared with
      the received Authentication Data.

  (5) If the calculated authentication data result does not match the
      received Authentication Data field, then:
      (a) the message MUST be discarded without being processed,
      (b) a security event SHOULD be logged by the RIPv2 subsystem
      of the receiving system.  That security event SHOULD indicate
      at least the day/time that the bad packet was received, the
      Source IP Address of the received RIPv2 packet, the Key-ID
      field value, the interface the bad packet arrived upon, and
      the fact that RIPv2 Authentication failed upon receipt of the

  (6) If the neighbor has been heard from recently enough to have viable
      routes in the local routing table, and the received sequence number
      is less than the last sequence number received, then the message
      MUST be discarded unprocessed.  If the received sequence number
      is less than the last sequence number received, that fact SHOULD
      be logged as a security event.  This logged security event SHOULD
      indicate at least the day/time that the bad packet was received,
      the Source IP Address of the received RIPv2 packet, the Key-ID
      field value, and the fact that an out of order RIPv2 Sequence
      Number was received.

Atkinson & Fanto                                                [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

      When connectivity to the neighbor has been lost, the receiver
      SHOULD be ready to accept either:
           - a message with a sequence number of zero.
           - a message with a higher sequence number than
             the last received sequence number.

  (7) Acceptable messages are now truncated to the RIPv2 message itself,
      minus the authentication trailer, and are processed normally
      (i.e. in accordance with the RIPv2 base specification in RFC-2453

       A router that has forgotten its current sequence number but
  remembers its Security Association MUST send its first packet with a
  sequence number of zero.  This leaves a small opening for a replay
  attack.  To reduce the risk of such attacks by precluding the situation
  where a router has forgotten its current sequence number, implementers
  SHOULD provide non-volatile storage for all components of a RIPv2
  Security Association.  See also the SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS section
  of this document.

2.4 Keyed-MD5 Algorithm-dependent Processing

       This section describes the algorithm-dependent processing
  steps applicable when the "Keyed-MD5" authentication algorithm is
  in use.  The RIPv2 Authentication Key is always 16 octets when
  "Keyed-MD5" is in use.

      (1) The RIPv2 Authentication Key is appended to the RIPv2 packet
          in memory.
      (2) The Trailing Pad for MD5 and message length fields are added
          in memory.  The diagram below shows how these additions appear
          when appended in memory:

    |                       Authentication Key                      |
    /                        (16 octets long)                       /
    |                                                               |
    |         zero or more pad bytes (as defined by RFC-1321)       |
    |                     64 bit message length MSW                 |
    |                     64 bit message length LSW                 |

Atkinson & Fanto                                                [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

      (3) The Authentication Data is then calculated according to the
          MD5 algorithm defined by RFC-1321 [Rivest92].

2.5  HMAC-SHA1 Algorithm-dependent Processing

       This section describes the processing steps for HMAC
  Authentication.  While HMAC was originally documented in [KMC97],
  for this specification the terminology used in [FIPS-198] is used.
  While the current specification only provides full details for HMAC
  Authentication using the NIST SHA-1 algorithm (and its direct
  derivatives), this same basic process could be used with other
  cryptographic hash functions in future.  Because the RIPv2 packet
  is only hashed once, the overhead of the double hashing in this
  process is negligible.

       The US NIST Secure Hash Standard (SHA-1), defined by
  [FIPS-180-2], includes specifications for SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384,
  and SHA-512.  This specification defines processing for each of these.

       The output of the cryptographic computations (e.g. HMAC-SHA1)
  is NOT truncated for RIPv2 Cryptographic Authentication.

       The Authentication Data length is equal to the Message Digest
  Size for the hash algorithm in use.

       Any key value known to be weak with SHA-1 MUST NOT be used with
  this specification.  US NIST is the authoritative source for public
  information on weak keys for SHA-1.

       In the algorithm description below, the following nomenclature,
  which is consistent with [FIPS-198] is used:
          H   is the specific hashing algorithm,
                 for example SHA-1 or SHA-256.
          Ko  is the cryptographic key used with the hash algorithm.
          B   is the block-size of H, measured in bytes not bits.
                  Note that B is the internal block size,
                  not the hash size.
                  For SHA-1   and SHA-256:  B == 64.
                  For SHA-384 and SHA-512:  B == 128
          L    is the length of the hash, measured in bytes,
                  not bits.  For example, with SHA-1, L == 20.
          XOR  is the exclusive-or operation.
          Opad is the hexadecimal value 0x5c repeated B times.
          Ipad is the hexadecimal value 0x36 repeated B times.
          Apad is the hexadecimal value 0x878FE1F3 repeated (L/4) times.

Atkinson & Fanto                                               [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

        In this application, Ko is always L bytes long.

         If the Authentication Key is L bytes long, then Ko is set equal
      to the Authentication Key.  If the Authentication Key is more
      than L bytes long, then Ko is set to H(Authentication Key).  If
      the Authentication Key is less than L bytes long, then Ko is set
      to the Authentication Key with zeros appended to the end of the
      Authentication Key such that Ko is L bytes long.

        First, the RIPv2 packet's Authentication Data field is filled
      with the value Apad.

        Then, a first hash, also known as the inner hash, is computed
      as follows:
           First-Hash = H(Ko XOR Ipad, (RIPv2 Packet))

         Then a second hash, also known as the outer hash, is computed
      as follows:
           Second-Hash = H(Ko XOR Opad, First-Hash)

  (4) RESULT
         The result Second-Hash becomes the Authentication Data that is
      sent in the Authentication Data field of the RIPv2 packet.   The
      length of the Authentication Data field is always identical to
      the message digest size of the hash function H that is being used.
         This also implies that use of hash functions with larger output
      sizes will also increase the size of the packet as transmitted on
      the wire.

3.  Management Procedures

  Key management is an important component of this mechanism and
  proper implementation is central to providing the intended level
  of risk reduction.

3.2.  Key Management Requirements

  It is strongly desirable that a hypothetical security breach in
  one Internet protocol not automatically compromise other Internet
  protocols.  The Authentication Key of this specification SHOULD NOT
  be configured or stored using protocols (e.g. RADIUS) or cryptographic
  algorithms that have known flaws.

Atkinson & Fanto                                               [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

  Implementations MUST support the storage of more than one key at the
  same time, although it is recognized that only one key will normally
  be active on an interface.  Implementations MUST associate a specific
  Security Association lifetime (i.e., date/time first valid and
  date/time no longer valid) and a key identifier with each key.
  Implementations also MUST support manual key distribution.  An
  example of manual key distribution is having the privileged user
  typing in the key, key lifetime, and key identifier on the router
  console.  An operator MAY configure the Security Association lifetime
  to infinite, which means that the session is never rekeyed.  However,
  instead it is strongly recommended that operators rekey regularly,
  using a moderately short Security Association lifetime (e.g. 24 hours).

  This specification requires support for at least two authentication
  algorithms, so the implementation MUST require that the authentication
  algorithm be specified for each key when the other key information
  is entered.  Manual deletion of active Security Associations MUST
  be supported.

  It is likely that the IETF will define a standard key management
  protocol for use with routing protocols.  It is strongly desirable to
  use an IETF standards-track key management protocol to distribute
  RIPv2 Authentication Keys among communicating RIPv2 implementations.
  Such a protocol would provide scalability and significantly reduce the
  human administrative burden.  The Key-ID field can be used as a hook
  between RIPv2 and such a future protocol.

  Key management protocols have a long history of subtle flaws that are
  often discovered long after the protocol was first described in
  public.  To avoid having to change all RIPv2 implementations should
  such a flaw be discovered, integrated key management protocol
  techniques were deliberately omitted from this specification.

3.3.  Key Management Procedures

  As with all security methods using keys, it is necessary to change
  the RIPv2 Authentication Key on a regular basis.  To maintain
  routing stability during such changes, implementations MUST be able
  to store and use more than one RIPv2 Authentication Key on a
  given interface at the same time.

  Each key will have its own Key Identifier (KEY-ID), which is stored
  locally.  The combination of the Key Identifier and the interface
  associated with the message uniquely identifies the Authentication
  Algorithm and RIPv2 Authentication Key in use.

  As noted above in Section 2.3.1, the party creating the RIPv2 message

Atkinson & Fanto                                               [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

  will select a valid RIPv2 Security Association from the set of valid
  RIPv2 Security Associations for that interface.  The receiver MUST use
  the Key Identifier and receiving interface to determine which RIPv2
  Security Association to use for authentication of the received
  message.  More than one RIPv2 Security Association MAY be associated
  with an interface at the same time.  The receiver MUST NOT simply try
  all RIPv2 Security Associations (i.e. keys) that might be configured
  for RIPv2 on the receiving interface, as that creates an easily
  exploited denial-of-service attack on the RIP subsystem of the
  receiver.  (At least one widely used implementation of the previous
  version of this specification violates these requirements as of the
  publication date of this document and has consequent security

  Hence it is possible to have fairly smooth RIPv2 Security Association
  (i.e. key) rollovers, without losing legitimate RIPv2 messages due to
  an invalid shared key and without requiring people to change all the
  keys at once.  To ensure a smooth rollover, each communicating RIPv2
  system must be updated with the new RIPv2 Security Association
  (including the new key) several minutes before the current RIPv2
  Security Association will expire and several minutes before the new
  RIPv2 Security Association lifetime begins.  Also, the new RIPv2
  Security Association should have a lifetime that starts several
  minutes before the old RIPv2 Security Association expires.  This gives
  time for each system to learn of the new security association before
  that security association will be used.  It also ensures that the new
  security association will begin use and the current security
  association will go out of use before the current security
  association's lifetime expires.  For the duration of the overlap in
  security association lifetimes, a system may receive messages
  corresponding to either security association and successfully
  authenticate the message. The Key-ID in the received message is used
  to select the appropriate security association (i.e. key) to be used
  for authentication.

4.  Conformance Requirements

  For this specification, the term "conformance" has identical meaning
  to the phrase "full compliance".

  The Keyed MD5 authentication algorithm and the HMAC-SHA1 algorithm
  MUST be implemented by all conforming implementations. In addition,
  the HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384, and HMAC-SHA-512 algorithms SHOULD be
  implemented.  MD5 is defined in [Rivest92].  SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384,
  and SHA-512 have been defined by the (US) National Institute of
  Standards & Technology (NIST) in [FIPS-180-2].

Atkinson & Fanto                                               [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

  A conforming implementation MAY also support additional authentication
  algorithms, provided those additional algorithms are publicly and
  openly specified.

  Manual key distribution as described above MUST be supported by all
  conforming implementations. All implementations MUST support the
  smooth key rollover described under "Key Management Procedures".  This
  also means that implementations MUST support at least 2 concurrent
  RIPv2 Security Associations.

  The user documentation provided with the implementation MUST contain
  clear instructions on how to configure the implementation such that
  smooth key rollover occurs successfully.

  Implementations SHOULD support a standard key management protocol
  for secure distribution of RIPv2 Authentication Keys once such a
  key management protocol is standardized by the IETF.

  The Security Considerations section of this document is an integral
  part of the specification, not just a discussion of the protocol.

5.  Security Considerations

  This entire memo describes and specifies an authentication mechanism
  for the RIPv2 routing protocol that is believed to be secure against
  passive attacks.  Passive attacks are clearly widespread in the
  Internet at present.[HA94] Protection against active attacks is
  incomplete in this current specification.  The main issue relative to
  active attacks lies in the need to support the case where another
  router has recently rebooted and lacks the non-volatile storage needed
  to remember the current RIPv2 sequence number across that reboot.

5.1 Known Pathological Cases

  Two known pathological cases exist which MUST be handled by
  implementations.  Both of these are failures of the network manager.
  Each of these should be exceedingly rare in normal operation.

    (1) During key rollover, devices might exist which have not yet been
    successfully configured with the new key. Therefore, routers SHOULD
    implement an algorithm that detects the set of RIPv2 Security
    Associations being used by its neighbors, and transmits its messages
    using both the new and old RIPv2 Security Associations (i.e. keys)
    until all of the neighbors are using the new security association or
    the lifetime of the old security association expires.  Under normal

Atkinson & Fanto                                               [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

    circumstances, this elevated transmission rate will exist for a
    single RIP update interval.

    (2) In the event that the last RIPv2 Security Association of an
    interface expires, it is unacceptable to revert to an
    unauthenticated condition, and not advisable to disrupt routing.
    Therefore, the router MUST send a "last RIPv2 Security Association
    expiration" notification to the network manager (e.g. via SYSLOG,
    SNMP, and/or other means) and SHOULD treat that last Security
    Association as having an infinite lifetime until the lifetime
    is extended, the Security Association is deleted by network
    management, or a new security association is configured.

In some circumstances, the practice described in (2) can leave an
opening to an active attack on the RIPv2 routing subsystem.
Therefore, any actual occurance of a RIPv2 Security Association
expiration MUST cause a security event to be logged by the
implementation.  This log item MUST include at least note that the
RIPv2 Authentication Key expired, the RIP routing protocol instance(s)
affected, the routing interfaces affected, the Key-ID that is
affected, and the current date/time.  Operators are encouraged to
check such logs as an operational security practice to help detect
active attacks on the RIPv2 routing subsystem.  Further,
implementations SHOULD provide a configuration knob ("fail secure") to
let a network operator prefer to have the RIPv2 routing fail when the
last key expires, rather than continue using RIPv2 in an insecure

5.2 Security Considerations for Network Management

       Also, the use of SNMP, even SNMPv3 with cryptographic
  authentication and cryptographic confidentiality enabled,
  to read or write RIPv2 Security Associations, or any component
  of the security association (for example the cryptographic key),
  is NOT RECOMMENDED.  This practice would create a potential for a
  cascading vulnerability, whereby a compromise in the SNMP security
  implementation would necessarily lead to a compromise not only
  of the local routing table (which could be accessed via SNMP)
  but also of all other routers that receive RIPv2 packets
  (directly or indirectly) from the compromised router.  Similarly,
  the use of other protocols (e.g. RADIUS, Diameter) to configure
  the security association is also NOT RECOMMENDED.  Instead, a key
  management protocol approved by the IETF should always be used
  for automated configuration of RIPv2 Security Associations.
  Recent IRTF and IETF work into multicast key manaagement appears
  promising in this regard.

Atkinson & Fanto                                               [Page 15]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

       Also, the use of SNMP to configure which form of RIPv2
  authentication is in use is also NOT RECOMMENDED because of a
  similar cascading failure issue.  Any future revision of the
  RIPv2 Management Information Base (MIB) should deprecate or omit
  any MIB objects that would permit modification of the RIPv2
  Authentication mode (e.g. none, cleartext password,
  RIPv2 Cryptographic Authentication) in use.

       Further, for similar reasons, any future revisions to the
  RIPv2 Management Information Base (MIB) SHOULD deprecate or omit any
  MIB objects that would permit reading or writing any RIPv2 Security
  Association, or any RIPv2 Security Association component (for example
  the cryptographic key).

       Also, it is RECOMMENDED that any future revisions to the RIPv2
  Management Information Base (MIB) consider adding MIB objects to hold
  information about any RIPv2 security events that might have occurred
  and MIB objects that could be used to read the set of security events
  that have been logged by the RIPv2 subsystem.  Each security event
  mentioned in this document is also RECOMMENDED for inclusion in future
  versions of RIPv2 SNMP MIB as an INFORM object.

5.3 Assurance Considerations

       Users need to understand that the quality of the security
  provided by this mechanism depends completely on the strength of the
  implemented authentication algorithms, the strength of the key being
  used, and the correct implementation of the security mechanism in all
  communicating RIPv2 implementations. This mechanism also depends on
  the RIPv2 Authentication Key being kept confidential by all parties.
  If any of these incorrect or insufficiently secure, then no real
  security will be provided to the users of this mechanism.

       Use of high assurance development methods is RECOMMENDED for
  implementations of this specification, in order to reduce the risk of
  subtle implementation flaws that might adversely impact the
  operational risk reduction that this specification seeks to provide.

5.4 Confidentiality & Traffic Analysis Considerations

       Confidentiality is not provided by this mechanism.
  It is generally considered that an IP routing protocol does not
  require confidentiality as its purpose is to disseminate information
  about the topology of the network.

       Protection against traffic analysis is also not provided.

Atkinson & Fanto                                               [Page 16]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

  Mechanisms such as bulk link encryption SHOULD be used when protection
  against traffic analysis is required. [CKHD89]

5.5 Other Security Considerations

       Separately, the receipt of a RIPv2 packet using cryptographic
  authentication but containing an invalid or unknown Key-ID value might
  indicate an active attack on the RIP routing subsystem and is a
  significant security event.  Therefore, any actual receipt of a RIPv2
  packet using cryptographic authentication and containing an unknown,
  expired, or otherwise invalid KEY-ID value SHOULD cause a security
  event to be logged by the implementation.  This log item SHOULD
  include at least the fact that the invalid KEY-ID was received, the
  source IP address of the packet containing the invalid KEY-ID, the
  interface(s) the packet was received on, the KEY-ID received, and the
  current date/time.

       A subtle user-interface consideration also should be noted.
  If a user-interface only permits the entry of human-readable text
  (e.g. a password in US-ASCII format) for use as a cryptographic key,
  significant numbers of bits of the cryptographic key in use become
  predictable, thereby reducing the strength of the key in this context.
  For this reason, implementations of this specification SHOULD support
  the entry of RIPv2 cryptographic authentication keys in hexadecimal

5.6 Future Security Directions

       Specification and deployment of a standards-track key
  management protocol that supporting this RIPv2 cryptographic
  authentication mechanism would be a significant next step in
  operational risk reduction and might actually increase the ease of
  deployment and operation of this mechanism.  Such specification is
  beyond the scope of this document.

       Several large RIPv2 deployments happen to also have deployed
  the Kerberos authentication system.  One might consider enhancing
  Kerberos to support RIPv2 key management functions for use in such

       Finally, we observe that this mechanism is not the final word
  on RIPv2 authentication.  Rather, it is believed that this particular
  mechanism represents a significant risk reduction over previous
  methods (e.g. plain-text passwords), while remaining straight-forward
  to implement correctly and also straight-forward to deploy.  User
  communities that believe this mechanism is not adequate to their needs

Atkinson & Fanto                                               [Page 17]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

  are encouraged to consider using digital signatures with RIPv2.
  [MBW97] specifies the use of OSPF with Digital Signatures; that
  document might be a starting point for creating such a specification
  for the RIPv2 protocol.  Digital signatures are significantly more
  expensive computationally and are also significantly more difficult to
  deploy operationally, as compared with the mechanism specified here.
  It appears likely that the much of the mechanism in this document
  could be reused with digital signatures.

6. IANA Considerations

  No IANA protocol parameter registries are created or modified
  by this specification.


  Fred Baker was co-author of the earlier RIPv2 MD5 Authentication
  document.  [AB97] This document is a direct derivative of that earlier
  document, though it has been significantly reworked.  Any errors are
  the responsibility of the current authors.  The current authors would
  like to thank Bill Burr, Tim Polk, John Kelsey, and Morris Dworkin of
  NIST for review of drafts of this document.

Informative References

  [AB97]      Atkinson, R. & F. Baker, "RIPv2 MD5 Authentication",
              RFC-2082, January 1997.

  [Bell89]    S. Bellovin, "Security Problems in the TCP/IP Protocol
              Suite", ACM Computer Communications Review, Volume 19,
              Number 2, pp. 32-48, April 1989.

  [CKHD89]    Cole Jr, Raymond, Donald Kallgren, Richard Hale, &
              John R. Davis, "Multilevel Secure Mixed-Media
              Communication Networks", Proceedings of the IEEE Military
              Communications Conference (MILCOM '89), IEEE, 1989.

  [Dobb96a]   Dobbertin, H., "Cryptanalysis of MD5 Compress", Technical
              Report, 2 May 1996.  (Presented at Rump Session of
              EuroCrypt 1996.)

  [Dobb96b]   Dobbertin, H., "The Status of MD5 After a Recent Attack",
              CryptoBytes, Vol. 2, No. 2, Summer 1996.

  [ECS94]     Eastlake 3rd, D, S. Crocker, & J. Schiller, "Randomness
              Recommendations for Security", RFC-1750, December 1994.

Atkinson & Fanto                                               [Page 18]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

  [HA94]      N. Haller & R. Atkinson, "On Internet Authentication",
              RFC-1704, October 1994.

  [KMC97]     H. Krawczyk, M. Bellare, & R. Canetti, "Keyed-Hashing for
              Message Authentication", RFC-2104, February 1997.

  [Mal94]     Malkin, G, "RIP version 2 - Carrying Additional
              Information", RFC-1723, November 1994.

  [MB94]      Malkin, G., and F. Baker, "RIP Version 2 MIB Extension",
              RFC-1724, November 1994.

  [MBW97]     Murphy, S., M. Badger, and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
              Digital Signatures", RFC-2154, June 1997.

  [Rivest92]  Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm",
              RFC-1321, April 1992.

Normative References

[Mal98]  Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", RFC-2453, November 1998.

[FIPS-180-2] US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST),
        "Secure Hash Specification", US Federal Information Processing
        Standard 180-2, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD,   USA, 1 August 2002.

[FIPS-198] US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST),
        "The Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC)",
        US Federal Information Processing Standard 198, NIST,
        Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 6 March 2002.


  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  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

Atkinson & Fanto                                               [Page 19]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                2 Nov 2005

Authors' Addresses

   R. Atkinson
   Extreme Networks
   3585 Monroe Street
   Santa Clara, CA
   USA 95051

   Phone: +1 (408) 579-2800
   EMail: rja@extremenetworks.com

   M. Fanto
   (US) National Institute of Standards and Technology
   Gaithersburg, MD
   USA 20878

   Phone: +1 (301) 975-2000
   Email: matthew.fanto@nist.gov
   Web:   http://csrc.nist.gov

Filename:  draft-rja-ripv2-auth-03.txt
Expires:   2 May 2006

Atkinson & Fanto                                               [Page 20]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/