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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 draft-ietf-ipsecme-eap-mutual

IPSEC                                                          P. Eronen
Internet-Draft                                                     Nokia
Expires: April 18, 2005                                    H. Tschofenig
                                                                 Siemens
                                                        October 18, 2004



               Extension for EAP Authentication in IKEv2
                draft-eronen-ipsec-ikev2-eap-auth-02.txt


Status of this Memo


   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of section 3 of RFC 3667.  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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.


   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 April 18, 2005.


Copyright Notice


   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).


Abstract


   IKEv2 specifies that EAP authentication must be used together with
   public key signature based responder authentication.  This is
   necessary with old EAP methods that provide only unilateral
   authentication using, e.g., one-time passwords or token cards.


   This document specifies how EAP methods that provide mutual




Eronen & Tschofenig      Expires April 18, 2005                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         Extension for EAP in IKEv2           October 2004



   authentication and key agreement can be used to provide extensible
   responder authentication for IKEv2 based on other methods than public
   key signatures.


1.  Introduction


   The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in [7], is an
   authentication framework which supports multiple authentication
   mechanisms.  Today, EAP has been implemented at end hosts and routers
   that connect via switched circuits or dial-up lines using PPP [16],
   IEEE 802 wired switches [10], and IEEE 802.11 wireless access points
   [12].


   One of the advantages of the EAP architecture is its flexibility.
   EAP is used to select a specific authentication mechanism, typically
   after the authenticator requests more information in order to
   determine the specific authentication method to be used.  Rather than
   requiring the authenticator (e.g., wireless LAN access point) to be
   updated to support each new authentication method, EAP permits the
   use of a backend authentication server which may implement some or
   all authentication methods.


   IKEv2 [3] is a component of IPsec used for performing mutual
   authentication and establishing and maintaining security associations
   for IPsec ESP and AH.  In addition to supporting authentication using
   public key signatures and shared secrets, IKEv2 also supports EAP
   authentication.


   IKEv2 provides EAP authentication since it was recognized that public
   key signatures and shared secrets are not flexible enough to meet the
   requirements of many deployment scenarios.  By using EAP, IKEv2 can
   leverage existing authentication infrastructure and credential
   databases, since EAP allows users to choose a method suitable for
   existing credentials, and also makes separation of the IKEv2
   responder (VPN gateway) from the EAP authentication endpoint (backend
   AAA server) easier.


   Some older EAP methods are designed for unilateral authentication
   only (that is, EAP peer to EAP server).  These methods are used in
   conjunction with IKEv2 public key based authentication of the
   responder to the initiator.  It is expected that this approach is
   especially useful for "road warrior" VPN gateways that use, for
   instance, one-time passwords or token cards to authenticate the
   clients.


   However, most newer EAP methods, such as those typically used with
   IEEE 802.11i wireless LANs, provide mutual authentication and key
   agreement.  Currently, IKEv2 specifies that also these EAP methods




Eronen & Tschofenig      Expires April 18, 2005                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         Extension for EAP in IKEv2           October 2004



   must be used together with public key signature based responder
   authentication.


   In some environments, requiring the deployment of PKI for just this
   purpose can be counterproductive.  Deploying new infrastructure can
   be expensive, and it may weaken security by creating new
   vulnerabilities.  Mutually authenticating EAP methods alone can
   provide a sufficient level of security in many circumstances, and
   indeed, IEEE 802.11i uses EAP without any PKI for authenticating the
   WLAN access points.


   This document specifies how EAP methods that offer mutual
   authentication and key agreement can be used to provide responder
   authentication in IKEv2 completely based on EAP.


1.1  Terminology


   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 [2].


2.  Scenarios


   In this section we describe two scenarios for extensible
   authentication within IKEv2.  These scenarios are intended to be
   illustrative examples rather than specifying how things should be
   done.


   Figure 1 shows a configuration where the EAP and the IKEv2 endpoints
   are co-located.  Authenticating the IKEv2 responder using both EAP
   and public key signatures is redundant.  Offering EAP based
   authentication has the advantage that multiple different
   authentication and key exchange protocols are available with EAP with
   different security properties (such as strong password based
   protocols, protocols offering user identity confidentiality and many
   more).  As an example it is possible to use GSS-API support within
   EAP [5] to support Kerberos based authentication which effectively
   replaces the need for KINK [17].














Eronen & Tschofenig      Expires April 18, 2005                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         Extension for EAP in IKEv2           October 2004



          +------+-----+                            +------------+
     O    |   IKEv2    |                            |   IKEv2    |
    /|\   | Initiator  |<---////////////////////--->| Responder  |
    / \   +------------+          IKEv2             +------------+
    User  |  EAP Peer  |          Exchange          | EAP Server |
          +------------+                            +------------+


            Figure 1: EAP and IKEv2 endpoints are co-located


   Figure 2 shows a typical corporate network access scenario.  The
   initiator (client) interacts with the responder (VPN gateway) in the
   corporate network.  The EAP exchange within IKE runs between the
   client and the home AAA server.  As a result of a successful EAP
   authentication protocol run, session keys are established and sent
   from the AAA server to the VPN gateway, and then used to authenticate
   the IKEv2 SA with AUTH payloads.


   The protocol used between the VPN gateway and AAA server could be,
   for instance, Diameter [7] or RADIUS [4].  See Section 5 for related
   security considerations.


                                +-------------------------------+
                                |       Corporate network       |
                                |                               |
                           +-----------+            +--------+  |
                           |   IKEv2   |     AAA    |  Home  |  |
     IKEv2      +////----->+ Responder +<---------->+  AAA   |  |
     Exchange   /          | (VPN GW)  |  (RADIUS/  | Server |  |
                /          +-----------+  Diameter) +--------+  |
                /               |        carrying EAP           |
                |               |                               |
                |               +-------------------------------+
                v
         +------+-----+
     o   |   IKEv2    |
    /|\  | Initiator  |
    / \  | VPN client |
   User  +------------+


                   Figure 2: Corporate Network Access



3.  Solution


   IKEv2 specifies that when the EAP method establishes a shared secret
   key, that key is used by both the initiator and responder to generate
   an AUTH payload (thus authenticating the IKEv2 SA set up by messages
   1 and 2).




Eronen & Tschofenig      Expires April 18, 2005                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         Extension for EAP in IKEv2           October 2004



   When used together with public key responder authentication, the
   responder is in effect authenticated using two different methods: the
   public key signature AUTH payload in message 4, and the EAP-based
   AUTH payload later.


   If the initiator does not wish to use public key based responder
   authentication, it includes an EAP_ONLY_AUTHENTICATION notification
   payload (type TBD-BY-IANA) in message 3.  The SPI size field is set
   to zero, and there is no additional data associated with this
   notification.


   If the responder supports this notification, it omits the public key
   based AUTH payload and CERT payloads from message 4.


   If the responder does not support the EAP_ONLY_AUTHENTICATION
   notification, it ignores the notification payload, and includes the
   AUTH payload in message 4.  In this case the initiator can, based on
   its local policy, choose to either ignore the AUTH payload, or verify
   it and any associated certificates as usual.


   Both the initiator and responder MUST verify that the EAP method
   actually used provided mutual authentication and established a shared
   secret key.  The AUTH payloads sent after EAP Success MUST use the
   EAP-generated key, and MUST NOT use SK_pi or SK_pr.


   An IKEv2 message exchange with this modification is shown below:


























Eronen & Tschofenig      Expires April 18, 2005                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         Extension for EAP in IKEv2           October 2004



      Initiator                   Responder
     -----------                 -----------
      HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni,
           [N(NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP),
            N(NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP)]  -->


                            <--   HDR, SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ],
                                       [N(NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP),
                                        N(NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP)]


      HDR, SK { IDi, [IDr], SAi2, TSi, TSr,
                N(EAP_ONLY_AUTHENTICATION),
                [CP(CFG_REQUEST)] }  -->


                            <--   HDR, SK { IDr, EAP(Request) }


      HDR, SK { EAP(Response) }  -->


                            <--   HDR, SK { EAP(Request) }


      HDR, SK { EAP(Response) }  -->


                            <--   HDR, SK { EAP(Success) }


      HDR, SK { AUTH }  -->


                            <--   HDR, SK { AUTH, SAr2, TSi, TSr,
                                            [CP(CFG_REPLY] }



   The NAT detection and Configuration payloads are shown for
   informative purposes only; they do not change how EAP authentication
   works.


4.  IANA considerations


   This document defines a new IKEv2 Notification Payload type,
   EAP_ONLY_AUTHENTICATION, described in Section 3.  This payload must
   be assigned a new type number from the "status types" range.


   This document does not define any new namespaces to be managed by
   IANA.


5.  Security Considerations


   Security considerations applicable to all EAP methods are discussed
   in [1].  The EAP Key Management Framework [6] deals with issues that
   arise when EAP is used as a part of a larger system.




Eronen & Tschofenig      Expires April 18, 2005                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         Extension for EAP in IKEv2           October 2004



5.1  Authentication of IKEv2 SA


   It is important to note that the IKEv2 SA is not authenticated by
   just running an EAP conversation: the crucial step is the AUTH
   payload based on the EAP-generated key.  Thus, EAP methods that do
   not provide mutual authentication or establish a shared secret key
   MUST NOT be used with the modifications presented in this document.


5.2  Authentication with separated IKEv2 responder/EAP server


   As described in Section 2, the EAP conversation can terminate either
   at the IKEv2 responder or at a backend AAA server.


   If the EAP method terminates at the IKEv2 responder then no key
   transport via the AAA infrastructure is required.  Pre-shared secret
   and public key based authentication offered by IKEv2 is then replaced
   by a wider range of authentication and key exchange methods.


   However, typically EAP will be used with a backend AAA server.  See
   [6] for a more complete discussion of the related security issues;
   here we provide only a short summary.


   When a backend server is used, there are actually two authentication
   exchanges: the EAP method between the client and the AAA server, and
   another authentication between the AAA server and IKEv2 gateway.  The
   AAA server authenticates the client using the selected EAP method,
   and they establish a session key.  The AAA server then sends this key
   to the IKEv2 gateway over a connection authenticated using, e.g.,
   IPsec or TLS.


   Some EAP methods do not have any concept of pass-through
   authenticator (e.g., NAS or IKEv2 gateway) identity, and these two
   authentications remain quite independent of each other.  That is,
   after the client has verified the AUTH payload sent by the IKEv2
   gateway, it knows that it is talking to SOME gateway trusted by the
   home AAA server, but not which one.  The situation is somewhat
   similar if a single cryptographic hardware accelerator, containing a
   single private key, would be shared between multiple IKEv2 gateways
   (perhaps in some kind of cluster configuration).  In particular, if
   one of the gateways is compromised, it can impersonate any of the
   other gateways towards the user (until the compromise is discovered
   and access rights revoked).


   In some environments it is not desirable to trust the IKEv2 gateways
   this much (also known as the "Lying NAS Problem").  EAP methods that
   provide what is called "connection binding" or "channel binding"
   transport some identity or identities of the gateway (or WLAN access
   point/NAS) inside the EAP method.  Then the AAA server can check that




Eronen & Tschofenig      Expires April 18, 2005                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         Extension for EAP in IKEv2           October 2004



   it is indeed sending the key to the gateway expected by the client.


   In some deployment configurations, AAA proxies may be present between
   the IKEv2 gateway and the backend AAA server.  These AAA proxies MUST
   be trusted for secure operation, and therefore SHOULD be avoided when
   possible; see [7] and [6] for more discussion.


5.3  Protection of EAP payloads


   Although the EAP payloads are encrypted and integrity protected with
   SK_e/SK_a, this does not provide any protection against active
   attackers.  Until the AUTH payload has been received and verified, a
   man-in-the-middle can change the KEi/KEr payloads and eavesdrop or
   modify the EAP payloads.


   In IEEE 802.11i WLANs, the EAP payloads are neither encrypted nor
   integrity protected (by the link layer), so EAP methods are typically
   designed to take that into account.


   In particular, EAP methods that are vulnerable to dictionary attacks
   when used in WLANs are still vulnerable (to active attackers) when
   run inside IKEv2.


5.4  User identity confidentiality


   IKEv2 provides confidentiality for the initiator identity against
   passive eavesdroppers, but not against active attackers.  The
   initiator announces its identity first (in message #3), before the
   responder has been authenticated.  The usage of EAP in IKEv2 does not
   change this situation, since the ID payload in message #3 is used
   instead of the EAP Identity Request/Response exchange.  This is
   somewhat unfortunate since when EAP is used with public key
   authentication of the responder, it would be possible to provide
   active user identity confidentiality for the initiator.


   IKEv2 protects the responder identity even against active attacks.
   This property cannot be provided when using EAP.  If public key
   responder authentication is used in addition to EAP, the responder
   reveals its identity before authenticating the initiator.  If only
   EAP is used (as proposed in this document), the situation depends on
   the EAP method used (in some EAP methods, the server reveals its
   identity first).


   Hence, if active user identity confidentiality for the initiator is
   required then EAP methods that offer this functionality have to be
   used (see [1], Section 7.3).






Eronen & Tschofenig      Expires April 18, 2005                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         Extension for EAP in IKEv2           October 2004



6.  Acknowledgments


   This document borrows some text from [1], [3], and [7].  We would
   also like to thank Hugo Krawczyk for interesting discussions about
   this topic.


7.  References


7.1  Normative References


   [1]  Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J. and H.
        Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3748,
        June 2004.


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


   [3]  Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
        draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-17 (work in progress), September 2004.


7.2  Informative References


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


   [5]   Aboba, B. and D. Simon, "EAP GSS Authentication Protocol",
         draft-aboba-pppext-eapgss-12 (work in progress), April 2002.


   [6]   Aboba, B., Simon, D., Arkko, J., Eronen, P. and H. Levkowetz,
         "EAP Key Management Framework", draft-ietf-eap-keying-03 (work
         in progress), July 2004.


   [7]   Eronen, P., Hiller, T. and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible
         Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application",
         draft-ietf-aaa-eap-09 (work in progress), August 2004.


   [8]   Forsberg, D., Ohba, Y., Patil, B., Tschofenig, H. and A. Yegin,
         "Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access
         (PANA)", draft-ietf-pana-pana-05 (work in progress), July 2004.


   [9]   Funk, P. and S. Blake-Wilson, "EAP Tunneled TLS Authentication
         Protocol (EAP-TTLS)", draft-ietf-pppext-eap-ttls-05 (work in
         progress), July 2004.


   [10]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Local and
         Metropolitan Area Networks: Port-Based Network Access Control",
         IEEE Standard 802.1X-2001, 2001.




Eronen & Tschofenig      Expires April 18, 2005                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         Extension for EAP in IKEv2           October 2004



   [11]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Information
         technology - Telecommunications and information exchange
         between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks -
         Specific Requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
         Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications",  IEEE
         Standard 802.11-1999, 1999.


   [12]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE
         Standard for Information technology - Telecommunications and
         information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan
         area networks - Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless
         Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
         specifications: Amendment 6: Medium Access Control (MAC)
         Security Enhancements",  IEEE Standard 802.11i-2004, July 2004.


   [13]  Palekar, A., Simon, D., Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Zorn, G. and S.
         Josefsson, "Protected EAP Protocol (PEAP)",
         draft-josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap-09 (work in progress),
         October 2004.


   [14]  Puthenkulam, J., "The Compound Authentication Binding Problem",
         draft-puthenkulam-eap-binding-04 (work in progress), October
         2003.


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


   [16]  Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC
         1661, July 1994.


   [17]  Thomas, M. and J. Vilhuber, "Kerberized Internet Negotiation of
         Keys (KINK)", draft-ietf-kink-kink-06 (work in progress),
         December 2003.


   [18]  Tschofenig, H., Kroeselberg, D. and Y. Ohba, "EAP IKEv2 Method
         (EAP-IKEv2)", draft-tschofenig-eap-ikev2-04 (work in progress),
         July 2004.














Eronen & Tschofenig      Expires April 18, 2005                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         Extension for EAP in IKEv2           October 2004



Authors' Addresses


   Pasi Eronen
   Nokia Research Center
   P.O. Box 407
   FIN-00045 Nokia Group
   Finland


   EMail: pasi.eronen@nokia.com



   Hannes Tschofenig
   Siemens
   Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
   Munich, Bayern  81739
   Germany


   EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com


Appendix A.  Alternative Approaches


   In this section we list alternatives which have been considered
   during the work on this document.  Finally, the solution presented in
   Section 3 seems to fit better into IKEv2.


A.1  Ignore AUTH payload at the initiator


   With this approach, the initiator simply ignores the AUTH payload in
   message #4 (but obviously must check the second AUTH payload later!).
   The main advantage of this approach is that no protocol modifications
   are required and no signature verification is required.


   The initiator could signal the responder (using a NOTIFY payload)
   that it did not verify the first AUTH payload.


A.2  Unauthenticated PKs in AUTH payload (message 4)


   The first solution approach suggests the use of unauthenticated
   public keys in the public key signature AUTH payload (for message 4).


   That is, the initiator verifies the signature in the AUTH payload,
   but does not verify that the public key indeed belongs to the
   intended party (using certificates)--since it doesn't have a PKI that
   would allow this.  This could be used with X.509 certificates (the
   initiator ignores all other fields of the certificate except the
   public key), or "Raw RSA Key" CERT payloads.


   This approach has the advantage that initiators that wish to perform




Eronen & Tschofenig      Expires April 18, 2005                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         Extension for EAP in IKEv2           October 2004



   certificate-based responder authentication (in addition to EAP) may
   do so, without requiring the responder to handle these cases
   separately.


   If using RSA, the overhead of signature verification is quite small
   (compared to g^xy calculation).


A.3  Use EAP derived session keys for IKEv2


   It has been proposed that when using an EAP methods that provides
   mutual authentication and key agreement, the IKEv2 Diffie-Hellman
   exchange could also be omitted.  This would mean that the sessions
   keys for IPsec SAs established later would rely only on EAP-provided
   keys.


   It seems the only benefit of this approach is saving some computation
   time (g^xy calculation).  This approach requires designing a
   completely new protocol (which would not resemble IKEv2 anymore) we
   do not believe that it should be considered.  Nevertheless, we
   include it for completeness.
































Eronen & Tschofenig      Expires April 18, 2005                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         Extension for EAP in IKEv2           October 2004



Intellectual Property Statement


   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
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.



Disclaimer of Validity


   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.



Copyright Statement


   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  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.



Acknowledgment


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Eronen & Tschofenig      Expires April 18, 2005                [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/