[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Internet Engineering Task Force                              B. Campbell
Internet-Draft                                             Ping Identity
Intended status: Standards Track                        January 11, 2017
Expires: July 15, 2017


        HTTPS Token Binding and TLS Terminating Reverse Proxies
                   draft-campbell-tokbind-tls-term-00

Abstract

   This document defines an HTTP header field that enables a TLS
   terminating reverse proxy to convey the information a backend server
   needs in order for it to process and validate a Token Binding Message
   sent by the client.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 15, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.




Campbell                  Expires July 15, 2017                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Token Binding and TLS Termination       January 2017


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Notation and Conventions . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  The Token-Binding-Context HTTP Header Field . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Appendix B.  Open Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Appendix C.  Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   Token Binding over HTTP [I-D.ietf-tokbind-https] provides a mechanism
   that enables HTTP servers to cryptographically bind cookies and other
   security tokens to TLS [RFC5246] connections.  When Token Binding is
   negotiated in the TLS handshake [I-D.ietf-tokbind-negotiation] the
   client sends an encoded Token Binding Message
   [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol] as a header in each HTTP request, which
   proves possession of one or more private keys held by the client.
   The public portion of the keys are represented in the Token Binding
   IDs of the Token Binding Message and for each one there is a
   signature over some data, which includes the exported keying material
   [RFC5705] of the TLS connection.  An HTTP server issuing cookies or
   other security tokens can associate them with the Token Binding ID,
   which ensures those tokens cannot be used successfully over a
   different TLS connection or by a different client than the one to
   which they were issued.

   A fairly common deployment architecture for HTTPS applications is to
   have the backend HTTP application servers sit behind a reverse proxy
   that terminates TLS.  The proxy is accessible to the internet and
   dispatches client requests to the appropriate backend server within a
   private network.  The backend servers are not directly accessible
   outside the private network and are only reachable through the
   reverse proxy.  The details of such deployments are typically opaque
   to clients who make requests to the proxy server and see responses as
   though they originated from the proxy server itself.  TLS connections
   for HTTPS are established between each client and the reverse proxy
   server.

   Token Binding facilitates a binding of security tokens to a key held
   by the client by way of the TLS connection between that client and
   the sever.  In a TLS terminating reverse proxy deployment, however,
   the TLS connection is between the client and the proxy while the
   backend server is likely the system that will issue security tokens.



Campbell                  Expires July 15, 2017                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Token Binding and TLS Termination       January 2017


   Additional steps are therefore needed to enable the use of Token
   Binding in such deployment architectures.  In the absence of a
   standardized approach, different implementations will will address it
   differently, which will make interoperability between implementation
   difficult or impossible without complex configurations or custom
   integrations.

   This document standardizes an HTTP header field named "Token-Binding-
   Context" that a TLS terminating reverse proxy adds to requests that
   it sends to the backend servers.  The value of the header contains
   the information from its connection with the client that is necessary
   for the backend server to process and validate the Token Binding
   Message also in the request.  The usage of the header, both the
   reverse proxy adding it and the application server using it rather
   than information from its inbound connection, are to be configuration
   options of the respective systems as they will not always be
   applicable.

1.1.  Requirements Notation and Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
   2119 [RFC2119].

2.  The Token-Binding-Context HTTP Header Field

   When configured to do so, a reverse proxy that terminates TLS and
   negotiates Token Binding over HTTP [I-D.ietf-tokbind-https] with a
   client adds a "Token-Binding-Context" HTTP header field to the
   request that is dispatched to a backend server.

   The "Token-Binding-Context" is a single HTTP header field-value as
   defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC7230], which MUST NOT have a list of
   values or occur multiple times in a request.  The "Token-Binding-
   Context" header is only for use in HTTP requests and MUST NOT to be
   used in HTTP responses.  The header field value is defined in ABNF
   [RFC5234] syntax as:

       Token-Binding-Context = EncodedTBContextMessage
       EncodedTBContextMessage = 47*( DIGIT / ALPHA /  "-" / "_" )

       DIGIT = <Defined in Section B.1 of [RFC5234]>
       ALPHA = <Defined in Section B.1 of [RFC5234]>

   The header field name is "Token-Binding-Context" and its value is a
   base64url encoding of a Token Binding Context Message using the URL-
   and filename-safe character set described in Section 5 of [RFC4648],



Campbell                  Expires July 15, 2017                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Token Binding and TLS Termination       January 2017


   with all trailing pad characters '=' omitted and without the
   inclusion of any line breaks, whitespace, or other additional
   characters.

   The Token Binding Context Message is a byte sequence that contains
   the concatenation of the negotiated Token Binding Protocol Version
   and Key Parameters as well as the exported keying material (EKM) from
   the TLS connection between the client and reverse proxy.  The first
   two bytes are the ProtocolVersion, as defined in Section 2 of
   [I-D.ietf-tokbind-negotiation], that the reverse proxy negotiated
   with the client.  The third byte is the negotiated
   TokenBindingKeyParameters (also defined in Section 2 of
   [I-D.ietf-tokbind-negotiation]).  The remaining 32 or more bytes are
   the EKM from the TLS connection between the client and the reverse
   proxy, as defined in Section 3.3 of [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol].

   For example, below is an encoded Token Binding Context Message
   indicating version 1.0 of the protocol, ecdsap256(2) key parameters,
   and a 32 byte EKM:

       AQACltcPRPoACC9N9lW5ESCvw4e6_6oISR38bwc2ddz7fFs4i

   A backend server that receives a request from a trusted reverse proxy
   containing the "Token-Binding-Context" and "Sec-Token-Binding"
   headers decodes the Token Binding Context Message and uses its
   content to validate the encoded Token Binding Message as described in
   Section 2 of Token Binding over HTTP [I-D.ietf-tokbind-https] in
   place of information that otherwise would have come from the TLS
   connection.

   Reverse proxies MUST only add the "Token-Binding-Context" header when
   explicitly configured to do so and MUST only dispatch requests
   containing it to trusted backend servers.  Any occurrence of the
   "Token-Binding-Context" header in the request from the client MUST be
   removed or overwritten before forwarding the request.  Backend
   servers MUST only accept the "Token-Binding-Context" header when
   explicitly configured to do so and only from trusted reverse proxies.

   Forward proxies and other intermediaries MUST NOT add the "Token-
   Binding-Context" header to requests.

3.  Security Considerations

   The "Token-Binding-Context" header enables a reverse proxy and
   backend server to function together as though they are single logical
   deployment of HTTPS Token Binding.  Use of the header outside that
   intended use case, however, may undermine the protections afforded by




Campbell                  Expires July 15, 2017                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Token Binding and TLS Termination       January 2017


   Token Binding.  Therefore steps must be taken to prevent unintended
   use, both in sending the header and in relying on its value.

   Producing and consuming the "Token-Binding-Context" header should be
   a configurable option, respectively, in a reverse proxy and backend
   server (or individual application in that server).  The default
   configuration for both should be to not use the "Token-Binding-
   Context" header thus requiring an "opt-in" to its usage.

   Reverse proxies should only add the header to requests that are
   forwarded to trusted backend servers.  Otherwise a legitimate EKM
   value might be disclosed to an unintended party.

   Backend servers should only accept the header from trusted reverse
   proxies.  And reverse proxies need to sanitize the incoming request
   before forwarding it on by removing or overwriting any existing
   instances of the "Token-Binding-Context" header.  Otherwise arbitrary
   clients can control the EKM value as seen and used by the backend
   server.

   The communication between a reverse proxy and backend server needs to
   be secured against eavesdropping and modification by unintended
   parties.

   The configuration options and request sanitization are necessarily
   functionally of the respective servers.  The other requirements can
   be met in a number of ways, which will vary based on specific
   deployments.  The communication between a reverse proxy and backend
   server, for example, might be over a mutually authenticated TLS with
   the insertion and consumption of the "Token-Binding-Context" header
   occurring only on for that connection.  Alternatively the network
   topology might dictate a private network such that the backend
   application is only able to accept requests from the reverse proxy
   and the proxy can only make requests to that server.  Other
   deployments that meet the requirements set forth herein are also
   possible.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document specifies the "Token-Binding-Context" HTTP header
   field, registration of which is requested in the "Permanent Message
   Header Field Names" registry defined in [RFC3864].

   o  Header Field Name: "Token-Binding-Context"
   o  Applicable protocol: http
   o  Status: standard
   o  Author/change Controller: IETF
   o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [[ this specification ]]



Campbell                  Expires July 15, 2017                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Token Binding and TLS Termination       January 2017


5.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-tokbind-https]
              Popov, A., Nystrom, M., Balfanz, D., Langley, A., and J.
              Hodges, "Token Binding over HTTP", draft-ietf-tokbind-
              https-07 (work in progress), November 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-tokbind-negotiation]
              Popov, A., Nystrom, M., Balfanz, D., and A. Langley,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extension for Token
              Binding Protocol Negotiation", draft-ietf-tokbind-
              negotiation-06 (work in progress), November 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol]
              Popov, A., Nystrom, M., Balfanz, D., Langley, A., and J.
              Hodges, "The Token Binding Protocol Version 1.0", draft-
              ietf-tokbind-protocol-11 (work in progress), November
              2016.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3864]  Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
              Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3864, September 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3864>.

   [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [RFC5705]  Rescorla, E., "Keying Material Exporters for Transport
              Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 5705, DOI 10.17487/RFC5705,
              March 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5705>.





Campbell                  Expires July 15, 2017                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Token Binding and TLS Termination       January 2017


   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank the following people for their
   contributions to the specification: Dirk Balfanz, John Bradley,
   Subodh Iyengar, Andrei Popov, Martin Thomson and others (please let
   me know, if you've contributed and I've forgotten you).

Appendix B.  Open Issues

   o  might need this...

Appendix C.  Document History

   [[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]

   draft-campbell-tokbind-tls-term-00

   o  Initial draft based on 'consensus to work on the problem' at the
      Seoul meeting.  Slides and minutes from the meeting, respectively:
      https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-tokbind-
      reverse-proxies-00.pdf
      https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/minutes/minutes-97-tokbind-
      01.txt

Author's Address

   Brian Campbell
   Ping Identity

   Email: brian.d.campbell@gmail.com
















Campbell                  Expires July 15, 2017                 [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/