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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 6717

Network Working Group                                            H. Hotz
Internet-Draft                                Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Intended status: Informational                  California Institute of
Expires: August 24, 2012                                      Technology
                                                              R. Allbery
                                                     Stanford University
                                                       February 21, 2012

             KX509 Kerberized Certificate Issuance Protocol


   This document describes a protocol, called kx509, for using Kerberos
   tickets to acquire X.509 certificates.  These certificates may be
   used for many of the same purposes as X.509 certificates acquired by
   other means, but if a Kerberos infrastructure already exists then the
   overhead of using kx509 may be much less.

   While not (previously) standardized, this protocol is already in use
   at several large organizations, and certificates issued with this
   protocol are recognized by the International Grid Trust Federation.

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 August 24, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                    KX509                    February 2012

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Protocol Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Request Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Reply Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Appendix A.  Certificate Cacheing and Deployment Considerations  . 11
   Appendix B.  Historic Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Appendix C.  Change History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                    KX509                    February 2012

1.  Introduction

   The two primary ways of providing cryptographically secure
   identification on the Internet are Kerberos tickets [RFC4120], and
   X.509 [RFC5280] and [X.509] certificates.

   In practical IT infrastructure where both are in use, it's highly
   desirable to deploy their support in a way which guarantees they both
   authoritatively refer to the same entities.  There is already a
   widely-adopted standard for using X.509 certificates to acquire
   corresponding Kerberos tickets called PKINIT [RFC4556].  This
   document describes the kx509 protocol for supporting the symmetric
   operation of acquiring X.509 certificates using Kerberos tickets.

   Preparing and reviewing this document exposed a number of issues
   which are discussed in the security considerations.  Unfortunately,
   some of them can only be addressed with an incompatible upgrade to
   this protocol.  The Kerberos working group has an expected work item
   to address these issues.

   The International Grid Trust Federation [IGTF] supports the use of
   Short Lived Credential Services [SLCS] as a means to authenticate for
   resource usage based on other, native identity stores which an
   organization maintains.  X.509 certificates issued using the kx509
   protocol based on a Kerberos identity is one of the recognized
   Credential Services.  The certificate profile for that use is outside
   the scope of this RFC, but is described in [GRID-prof].

   In normal operation kx509 can be used after a Kerberos ticket-
   granting-ticket (TGT) is acquired, which is most likely during user
   login.  First, the client generates a RSA public/private key-pair.
   Next, using the Kerberos ticket-granting-ticket, it acquires a
   Kerberos service ticket for the KCA (Kerberized Certificate
   Authority), and uses this to send the public half of its key-pair.
   The KCA will decrypt the service ticket, verify the integrity of the
   incoming packet, determine the identity of the user, and use the
   session key to send back a corresponding X.509 certificate.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Protocol Data

   The protocol consists of a single request/reply exchange using UDP.

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                    KX509                    February 2012

   Both the request and the reply packet begin with four bytes of
   version ID information, followed by a DER encoded ASN.1 message.  The
   first two bytes of the version ID are reserved.  They MUST be set to
   zero when sent, and SHOULD be ignored when received.  The third and
   fourth bytes are the major and minor version numbers, respectively.
   The version of the protocol described in this document is designated
   2.0, so the first four bytes of the packet are 0, 0, 2, 0.

   Incompatible variations of this protocol MUST use a different major
   version number.

2.1.  Request Packet

   The request consists of a version ID, followed by a DER encoded ASN.1
   message containing a Kerberos AP_REQ, integrity check data on the
   request, and public key generated by the client.  The ASN.1 encoding

   KX509Request ::= SEQUENCE {
           ap-req OCTET STRING,
           pk-hash OCTET STRING,
           pk-key OCTET STRING

   The ap-req is as described in [RFC4120] Section 5.5.1.

   The pk-hash is HMAC using SHA-1 as the underlying hash.  All 160 bits
   are sent.  The key used is the Kerberos session key.  The data to be
   hashed is the concatenation of

   o  4-byte version ID at the beginning of the packet.

   o  OCTET STRING of the ap-req.

   o  OCTET STRING of the pk-key.

   The pk-key contains a public key.  This key and its corresponding
   private key are generated by the client before contacting the server.
   Implementations of this protocol MUST support RSA keys, in which case
   the key is a DER encoded RSAPublicKey as defined in [RFC3447],
   section A.1.1, and then stored in this octet string in the request.
   Use of other public-key types is not defined.

2.2.  Reply Packet

   The reply consists of a version ID, followed by a DER encoded ASN.1
   message containing an error code, and an optional authentication
   hash, optional certificate, and optional error text.  The service

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                    KX509                    February 2012

   SHOULD return replies of the same version as the request where

   KX509Response ::= SEQUENCE {
           error-code[0] INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
           hash[1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
           certificate[2] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
           e-text[3] VisibleString OPTIONAL

   Although the format of the reply contains independently optional
   objects, the server MUST only generate replies with one of the
   following allowed combinations.

               |            | hash | certificate |        |
               | error-code | hash |             | e-text |
               | error-code |      |             | e-text |

   The first case is returned when the server successfully generates a
   certificate for the user.  The certificate is a DER encoded
   Certificate as defined in [RFC5280] Section A, page 116.

   The second case is returned when the server successfully
   authenticates the user and their key, but is unable for some other
   reason to generate a certificate.

   The third case MAY be returned if the server is unable to
   successfully authenticate the user and intends to return some
   unauthenticated information to the client.

   The hash on a response is computed using SHA-1 HMAC as for the

   The data that is hashed is the concatenation of the following things:

   o  4-byte version ID at the beginning of the packet.

   o  DER representation of the error-code exclusive of the tag and
      length, if it is present.

   o  OCTET STRING of the certificate, if it is present.

   o  VisibleString representation of the e-text exclusive of the tag
      and length, if it is present.

   In other words, the hash is computed on the data in the fields which

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                    KX509                    February 2012

   are present exclusive of the overall ASN.1 wrapping.

   The e-text MAY be translated into other character sets for display
   purposes, but the hash is computed on the e-text in its VisibleString
   representation.  If the e-text contains NUL characters, the client
   MAY ignore any part of the error message after the first NUL
   character for display purposes.

   As implied by the above table, if the reply does not contain a
   certificate it MUST contain an error message and a non-zero error
   code.  Conversely, if a certificate is returned then the error code
   MUST be zero.  The server SHOULD use the DEFAULT encoding for a zero
   error-code value by omitting any explicit error-code from the reply.

   The defined error codes are as follows:

   | error-code | Condition                   | Example                |
   | 1          | Permanent problem with      | Incompatible version   |
   |            | client request              |                        |
   | 2          | Solvable problem with       | Expired Kerberos       |
   |            | client request              | credentials            |
   | 3          | Temporary problem with      | Packet loss            |
   |            | client request              |                        |
   | 4          | Permanent problem with the  | Internal               |
   |            | server                      | misconfiguration       |
   | 5          | Temporary problem with the  | Server overloaded      |
   |            | server                      |                        |

   If a client error is returned, the client SHOULD NOT retry the
   request unless some remedial action is first taken, although if
   error-code 3 is returned, the client MAY retry with other servers
   before giving up.

   If a server error is returned, it is RECOMMENDED that the client
   retry the request with a different server if one is known.

   Since all KCAs serving a Kerberos realm are intended to be
   equivalent, in accordance with [RFC5280] Section, the
   certificates returned from different KCAs serving the same Kerberos
   realm MUST NOT contain duplicate serial numbers.

   This protocol and document do not address certificate verification or
   path construction.  There are no provisions for returning any
   additional certificates which might be needed.  Any application using
   a returned certificate must be configured independently to address

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                    KX509                    February 2012

   these issues.  An incompatible upgrade to this protocol will provide
   options to address this issue.

   The returned certificate MUST identify the Kerberos client principal
   from the ap-req in the original KX509Request in the subject of the
   cert, or in a subjectAltName extension.  The identification MUST be
   unique within the organization's deployed infrastructure.  It is
   RECOMMENDED that a subjectAltName extension be included of type id-
   pkinit-san as described in [RFC4556] Section 3.2.2.  Note that the
   id-pkinit-san is simply a standard representation of a Kerberos
   principal, and has no other implications with respect to PKINIT.

   Other extensions MAY be added according to local policy.

3.  Protocol Operation

   Absent errors, the protocol consists of a single request, sent via
   UDP, and a single reply, also sent via UDP.

   There is no special provision for requests or replies which exceed
   the allowable size of a UDP packet.  Also some implementations have
   imposed hard size limits which are smaller than a typical UDP MTU,
   and will limit the use of extensions and the supportable key size.
   Even without hard limits, if the request or reply exceeds the MTU
   size of a UDP packet for the infrastructure in use, then the
   reliability of the exchange will decrease significantly.

   For "normal" Kerberos ap-req structures, and "normal" X.509
   certificates, this is unlikely unless the Kerberos service ticket
   contains large amounts of authorization data.  For this reason, it is
   RECOMMENDED that service tickets for the KCA be issued without
   authorization data.  If the KCA performs authorization, it should do
   so by other means.

   Before constructing the request, the client must know the canonical
   name(s) and port(s) of the server(s) to contact.  It MAY determine
   them by looking up the service's SRV record as described in[RFC2782].
   The entry to be used is _kca._udp._realm_, where _realm_ is the
   Kerberos realm, used as part of the DNS name.

   The client has to acquire a service ticket in order to construct the
   ap-req for the service.  Conventionally, the Kerberos service
   principal name to use for this service has a first component of
   "kca_service".  Absent local configuration or other external
   knowledge of the correct principal to use, the second and final
   component is conventionally the canonical name of the KCA server
   being contacted, and the realm of the principal is determined

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                    KX509                    February 2012

   following normal Kerberos domain to realm mapping conventions, as
   discussed in [RFC4120] Section 1.3.

   When the server receives a request, it MUST verify the following
   properties of the request before issuing a certificate:

   o  The AP-REQ can be decoded and is not expired.

   o  If the request uses cross-realm authentication, then it satisfies
      the requirements of local policy and [RFC4120] Sections 1.2 and

   o  The request's hash is valid.

   The server SHOULD make other sanity checks, such as a minimum public
   key length, to the extent feasible.

   The server MAY decline to respond to an erroneous request.  If it
   does not receive a response a client MAY retry its request, but the
   client SHOULD wait at least one second before doing so.

   The client MUST verify any hash in the reply, and MUST NOT use any
   certificate in a reply whose hash does not verify.  The client MAY
   display the e-text if the hash is absent or does not verify, but
   SHOULD indicate the message is not authenticated.

4.  Acknowledgements

   The original version of kx509 was implemented using Kerberos 4 at the
   University of Michigan, and was nicely documented in [KX509].  Many
   thanks to them for their original work, as well as the subsequent

   While developing this document I received important corrections and
   comments from Jeffrey Altman, and Love Hornquist Astrand.  I also
   received many helpful comments and corrections from Doug Engert,
   Jeffrey Hutzelman, Sam Hartman, Timothy J. Miller, Chaskiel Grundman,
   and Jim Schaad.  Alan Sill provided the references to the
   International Grid Trust Federation and its acceptable credential
   services.  Example network traffic was provided by Doug Engert,
   Marcus Watts, Matt Crawford, and Chaskiel Grundman from their
   deployments, and was extremely useful for verifying the reality of
   this specification.

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                    KX509                    February 2012

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to add "kca_service" as a GSSAPI/Kerberos/SASL
   service name for a "Kerberized Certificate Authority".

   This service is conventionally run on UDP port 9878, but this memo
   does not request that IANA standardize the port number.

6.  Security Considerations

   The only encrypted information in the protocol is that used by
   Kerberos itself.  The considerations for any Kerberized service apply

   The public key in the request is sent in the clear, and without any
   guarantees that the requestor actually possesses the corresponding
   private key.  Therefore the only appropriate uses of the returned
   certificate are those where the identity of the requestor is
   unimportant, or the subsequent use independently guarantees that the
   user possesses the private key.  This issue is expected to be
   addressed in a future version of this protocol.

   For example, if the kx509-issued certificate is used for a digital
   signature in a way which does not independently demonstrate proof-of-
   possession of the private key, then an eavesdropper could request
   their own valid certificate via kx509 and claim to have originated
   material signed by the legitimate, original requestor.  [RFC4211],
   Appendix C contains a more detailed discussion of why proof-of-
   possession is important.

   An example which should be safe is initial client authentication with
   TLS [RFC5246] connections.  If a client certificate is used then a
   Certificate Verify message (Section 7.4.8 of that RFC) is added to
   the handshake exchange.  It includes a signature of the handshake
   messages to that point.  Those messages depend on data known only to
   the client and server ends of the specific connection, so computing
   the signature proves possession of the private key.  This application
   was the original intended use case for kx509.

   Some information, such as the public key and certificate, is
   transmitted in the clear but (as the name implies) were generally
   intended to be publicly available.  However their visibility could
   still raise privacy concerns.  The hash is used to protect their

   The policies for issuing Kerberos tickets and X.509 certificates are
   usually expressed very differently.  An implementation of this

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                    KX509                    February 2012

   protocol should not provide a mechanism for bypassing ticket or
   certificate policies.

   In particular, if the issued certificate can be used with PKINIT,
   this authentication loop SHOULD NOT bypass policy limits for either
   X.509 certificates or Kerberos tickets.

   X.509 certificates are usually issued with considerably longer
   validity times than Kerberos tickets.  Care should be taken that the
   issued certificate is not valid for longer than the intended policy
   should allow.  Note that [RFC4556] Section REQUIRES that the
   lifetime of an issued ticket not exceed the lifetime of the
   predecessor certificate.  By analogy it is RECOMMENDED that the
   lifetime of an issued certificate not exceed the lifetime of the
   predecessor Kerberos ticket unless the implications with respect to
   local policy and supporting infrastructure are clearly understood and
   allow it.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC3447]  Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, "Public-Key Cryptography
              Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications
              Version 2.1", RFC 3447, February 2003.

   [RFC4120]  Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The
              Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120,
              July 2005.

   [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.

7.2.  Informative References

              "GRID Certificate Profile", March 2008,

   [IGTF]     "The International Grid Trust Federation",

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                    KX509                    February 2012

   [KX509]    Doster, W., Watts, M., and D. Hyde, "The KX509 Protocol",
              September 2001, <http://www.citi.umich.edu/techreports/

   [RFC2782]  Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
              specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
              February 2000.

   [RFC4211]  Schaad, J., "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
              Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)", RFC 4211,
              September 2005.

   [RFC4556]  Zhu, L. and B. Tung, "Public Key Cryptography for Initial
              Authentication in Kerberos (PKINIT)", RFC 4556, June 2006.

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

   [SLCS]     "Short Lived Credential Services", February 2009,

   [X.509]    International Telecommunications Union, "Recommendation
              X.509: The Directory: Public-key and attribute certificate
              framework", November 2008.

Appendix A.  Certificate Cacheing and Deployment Considerations

   As noted in the Security Considerations section, the functional
   lifetime of the acquired X.509 certificate should usually match the
   lifetime of its predecessor Kerberos ticket.  Therefore, it is likely
   that X.509 certificates issued with this protocol should be deleted
   when the supporting Kerberos tickets are deleted.  That makes the
   Kerberos ticket cache a reasonable location to store the certificate
   (and its private key).

   On the other hand applications, such as web browsers, probably expect
   certificates in different stores.

   A widely used solution to this dichotomy is to implement a PKCS11
   library which supports the KX509-acquired credentials.  The
   credentials remain stored in the kerberos credentials cache, but full
   PKI functionality is still available via a standard interface for PKI

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                    KX509                    February 2012

Appendix B.  Historic Extensions

   This appendix documents extensions to the kx509 protocol which are
   either no longer in use, or are expected to be dropped.

   A subjectAltName othername extension of type kcaAuthRealm (OID value is frequently used to include the client's
   realm as an ASN.1 octet string.

   The Microsoft-defined userPrincipalName has frequently been used for
   the same purpose as the id-pkinit-san.

   The historic implementations of this protocol included provisions for
   DSA keys in place of RSA.  DSA does not appear to be in use.  A
   future version of this protocol will use a standard certificate
   request structure which will provide algorithm agility.

   The historic implementations of this protocol allowed an optional
   client-version field (at the end of the request) of type
   VisibleString.  If present, the KCA copied it into the issued
   certificate as an extension with the oid  This
   feature does not appear to be in use.

Appendix C.  Change History

   RFC Editor Note: Delete this appendix before final publication.

   Changes from Draft -03 to Draft -04:

   1.  The list of possible issues was deleted.  Either appropriate
       comments have been added to the text, or the issue is mentioned
       as something to be addressed in an incompatible future version of
       this protocol.

   2.  Clarified the hash computations in sections 2.1 and 2.2.

   3.  Clarified the procedure for determining the Kerberos principal of
       the KCA in section 3.

   4.  Clarified the discussion of the "proof-of-possession" issue in
       the Security Considerations with appropriate references.

   Changes from Draft -02 to Draft -03:

   1.  The abstract was expanded.

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                    KX509                    February 2012

   2.  Additional information was provided on traditional UDP size
       restrictions and their effect on reliability and key sizes in
       section 3.

   3.  The updates to the security considerations for digital signature
       usage were incomplete, and have been rewritten.

   4.  Information on an optional client version feature (which does not
       appear to be actually in use) was added to the request ASN.1, and
       Appendix B, and the title of the appendix changed.

   5.  As before some minor changes to wording were made for clarity,
       but are not believed to have changed the meaning.

   Changes from Draft -01 to Draft -02:

   1.  The retry behavior was made slightly less specific.

   2.  The traditionally used SAN extensions were moved to a new
       appendix, leaving only the id-pkinit-san as the RECOMMENDED SAN.

   3.  The absolute prohibition against digital signatures in the
       Security Considerations section was relaxed since there are
       legitimate situations where a signature based on the KX509
       certificate is still useful.  (E.g. integrity protection where
       the actual signing identity is not important.)

   4.  Reference to TAGPMA in the abstract was replaced with a reference
       to its parent, the International Grid Trust Federation, and more
       detailed informative references were expanded in the

   5.  Assorted other wording changes were made for clarity, but are not
       believed to have changed the meaning.

Authors' Addresses

   Henry B. Hotz
   Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
   4800 Oak Grove Dr.
   Pasadena, CA  91109

   Phone: +01 818 354-4880
   Email: hotz@jpl.nasa.gov

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                    KX509                    February 2012

   Russ Allbery
   Stanford University
   P.O. Box 20066
   Stanford, CA  94309

   Email: rra@stanford.edu
   URI:   http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/

Hotz & Allbery           Expires August 24, 2012               [Page 14]

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