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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05

Network Working Group                                       S. Josefsson
Internet-Draft                                                    SJD AB
Intended status: Standards Track                                C. Latze
Expires: January 13, 2013                                       Swisscom
                                                           July 12, 2012

     SASL Mechanism Family for External Authentication: EXTERNAL-*


   This document describes a way to perform client authentication in the
   Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) framework by
   referring to the client authentication provided by an external
   security layer.  We specify a SASL mechanism family EXTERNAL-* and
   one instance EXTERNAL-TLS that rely on the Transport Layer Security
   (TLS) protocol.  This mechanism differs to the existing EXTERNAL
   mechanism by alleviating the a priori assumptions that servers and
   clients needs somehow negotiate out of band which secure channel that
   is intended.  This document also discuss the implementation of
   authorization decisions.

   See <http://josefsson.org/external-channel/> for more information.

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 January 13, 2013.

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

Josefsson & Latze       Expires January 13, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                 EXTERNAL-*                      July 2012

   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.

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

Josefsson & Latze       Expires January 13, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                 EXTERNAL-*                      July 2012

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Specification of EXTERNAL-* Mechanism Family . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Specification of EXTERNAL-TLS Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Making Authorization Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Josefsson & Latze       Expires January 13, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                 EXTERNAL-*                      July 2012

1.  Introduction

   The EXTERNAL mechanism, described in Appendix A of [RFC4422] allows a
   client to request the server to use credentials established by means
   external to the mechanism to authenticate the client.  The external
   means may be, for instance, TLS [RFC5246] or IP Security [RFC4301]

   The EXTERNAL mechanism requires some a priori agreement between the
   client and the server regarding which external channel, and
   consequently which external credentials, should be used for
   authentication.  In practice this has often meant that the EXTERNAL
   mechanism is only used when there is tight out of band interaction
   between the server administration and client user.  This has impacted
   the interoperability of the EXTERNAL mechanism.

   The EXTERNAL-* mechanism family, specified in this document, is
   similar to the EXTERNAL mechanism in that it relies on an external
   channel to perform the client authentication.  However, EXTERNAL-*
   provides a way for the client to provide an identifier of the
   external channel that is intended to provide the client credentials.
   The intention is that the server need not rely on a priori
   arrangement to identify the secure channel that was used, but can
   automatically find the intended channel and re-use its credentials
   for the SASL authentication.  Further, upon successful
   authentication, the client knows that the server used credentials
   from the indicated security channel.

   In the EXTERNAL-* mechanism family, the external channel is
   identified through the SASL mechanism name.

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

2.  Use Cases

   Depending on the application, in addition to authenticating a user it
   is also important to authenticate the device the user is logged in
   to.  Assuming that the user and the device ID consist of an X.509
   certificate, on way to authenticate a user and a device is to
   establish a secure tunnel based on the device's certificate.  The
   user certificate will then be used to authenticate the user within
   that tunnel.  Although this solution works nicely with today's
   authentication protocols it comes with a certain complexity since it
   requires a tunnel-in-tunnel setup.  It would be better to end up with
   only one secure tunnel while still being able to use both

Josefsson & Latze       Expires January 13, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                 EXTERNAL-*                      July 2012

   certificates.  Another point is that the authorization decision might
   be based on both authentications.  The user is only allowed to access
   certain resources if it uses a certain machine.

   One real world scenario of this use case the so called bring-your-
   own-device (BYOD) initiatives.  In BYOD, a company allows employees
   to bring their own hardware to access the company's infrastructure.
   This is risky since they still want to make sure that only this
   employee can access the infrastructure.  Therefore the company could
   issue a device certificate for this device as well as a user
   certificate for the employee in order to make sure that only this
   employee can access the network with his device.

   This scheme might be extended on even more than two identities.

   The EXTERNAL-TLS mechanism provides means to implement this scheme.

3.  Specification of EXTERNAL-* Mechanism Family

   The name of the mechanism family is "EXTERNAL-".

   The mechanism family does not provide a security layer.  It provides
   similar functionality by relying on an external channel.

   The mechanism is capable of transferring an authorization identity
   string.  If the authorization identity string is empty, the client is
   requesting to act as the identity the server has associated with the
   client's credentials.  If the authorization identity string is non-
   empty, the client is requesting to act as the identity represented by
   the string.

   The client is expected to send data first in the authentication
   exchange.  Where the client does not provide an initial response data
   in its request to initiate the authentication exchange, the server is
   to respond to the request with an empty initial challenge and then
   the client is to provide its initial response.

   The client sends the initial response containing a UTF-8 [RFC3629]
   encoding of the requested authorization identity string.

   The authorization identity is non-empty when the client is requesting
   to act as the identity represented by the (non-empty) string.  The
   authorization identity is empty when the client is requesting to act
   as the identity the server associates with the external
   authentication credentials.

   The syntax of the initial response is specified as a value of the

Josefsson & Latze       Expires January 13, 2013                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                 EXTERNAL-*                      July 2012

   <extern-initial-resp> production detailed below using the Augmented
   Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234] notation.

      external-initial-resp = authz-id-string

      authz-id-string       = *( UTF8-char-no-nul )
      UTF8-char-no-nul      = UTF8-1-no-nul / UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
           ;; where the UTF8-2, UTF8-3, and UTF8-4 productions are
           ;; as defined in RFC 3629.

      UTF8-1-no-nul         = %x01-7F

   There are no additional challenges and responses.

   Hence, the server is to return the outcome of the authentication

   The external security channel to use is implied by the SASL mechanism
   name.  The channel has to be uniquely identifiable at both cliend and
   server side.  This means that mechanisms registered in this family
   MUST detail which channel should be chosen if there are layered
   channels of the same type.

   The exchange fails if

   - the client has not established its credentials via the indicated
   external channel,

   - the client's credentials are inadequate,

   - the client provided an empty authorization identity string and the
   server is unwilling or unable to associate an authorization identity
   with the client's credentials,

   - the client provided a non-empty authorization identity string that
   is invalid per the syntax requirements of the applicable application
   protocol specification,

   - the client provided a non-empty authorization identity string
   representing an identity that the client is not allowed to act as, or

   - the server is unwilling or unable to provide service to the client
   for any other reason.

   Otherwise the exchange is successful.  When indicating a successful
   outcome, additional data is not provided.

Josefsson & Latze       Expires January 13, 2013                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                 EXTERNAL-*                      July 2012

4.  Specification of EXTERNAL-TLS Mechanism

   The purpose of the EXTERNAL-TLS mechanism is to refer to the
   authentication completed by an already negotiated TLS [RFC5246]
   protocol.  This covers potentially both client and server
   authentication.  The typical scenario is that applications enable TLS
   protection of the application protocol using a STARTTLS-like
   functionality, performs whatever client and server authentication
   necessary within the TLS session, and then proceeds to the EXTERNAL-
   TLS mechanism negotiation.

   Usually the TLS channel will have only one TLS handshake, but
   multiple TLS handshakes (i.e., one initial TLS handshake followed by
   re-negotiations) MAY be used to establish multiple authentications.
   Implementations MUST only use credentials established securely with
   the TLS Renegotiation Extension [RFC5746].  The set of credentials
   relevant to EXTERNAL-TLS authentication starts with the inner-most
   TLS channel and includes each additional credential negotiated
   outside of the current TLS channel when that channel was negotiated
   using TLS Renegotiation Extension.

   For example, if an application opens up a TLS channel and starts SASL
   negotiation, and if that communication happens to be sent over a TLS-
   based VPN, the intended channel is the TLS channel opened by the
   application.  Only the credentials established by the application TLS
   handshake is relevant.

   The server MUST NOT advertise the EXTERNAL-TLS mechanism if the
   client did not provided any supported form of client-side
   authentication in the TLS channel, e.g., X.509 client certificate,
   OpenPGP client key [RFC6091], or SRP [RFC5054].  The client MUST only
   request the EXTERNAL-TLS if it wishes to re-use the TLS client
   credentials for the SASL application.

5.  Making Authorization Decisions

   The server may use any mechanism to make authorization decisions.
   For illustration, we want to give some ideas on how this may work in
   practice.  This section is not normative.

   Typically external channels will not use authentication identities
   that can be used by the application protocol that uses an instance of
   the SASL EXTERNAL-* mechanism.  Thus, a mapping is normally required.
   There may be mappings from the external credential to a set of
   permitted identifiers, and a "default" identifier can be provided in
   the mapping table if the client do not specify a particular
   authorization identity.

Josefsson & Latze       Expires January 13, 2013                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                 EXTERNAL-*                      July 2012

   For example, when mapping from X.509 credentials used in TLS
   connections to simple usernames, a table stored on the server can
   contain hex-encoded hashes of client X.509 certificates and a set of

   aef3a7835277a28da831005c2ae3b919e2076a62 simon jas admin
   d2fc512490a15036460b5489401439d6da5407fa joe

   The server could extract a successfully authenticated X.509 client
   certificate from the TLS stack, hash it and look it up in the mapping
   table.  Each of the usernames given would be permitted authorization
   identities.  The first username given may be the default username if
   the client does not provide an authorization identity.

   When mapping from multiple re-negotiated TLS handshakes, the server
   could extract all successfully authenticated X.509 client
   certificates from the TLS stack, hash them, concatenate them and look
   the concatenation string up in the mapping table.  The following
   shows an example where a first TLS handshake has been negotiated to
   authenticate the client's machine and the second re-negotiated TLS
   handshake was used to authenticate the user.

       d2fc512490a15036460b5489401439d6da5407fa carolin@tux

   When mapping from OpenPGP credentials used in TLS [RFC6091], the
   mapping table could consist of verified OpenPGP fingerprints and a
   set of permitted usernames, such as the following table.

   0424D4EE81A0E3D119C6F835EDA21E94B565716F simon jas admin
   A4D94E92B0986AB5EE9DCD755DE249965B0358A2 werner
   90A79E2FC6F4AAB5B604974FE15DD857B15C37D1 nikos

   When SRP authentication with TLS [RFC5054] is used, the username
   provided may be the same as the application username, and no mapping
   would be necessary.

6.  Examples

   This section provides examples of EXTERNAL-TLS authentication
   exchanges.  The examples are intended to help the readers understand
   the above text.  The examples are not definitive.  The Application
   Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) [RFC2244] is used in the
   examples because ACAP sends the SASL tokens without additional

   The first example shows use of EXTERNAL-TLS with an empty

Josefsson & Latze       Expires January 13, 2013                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                 EXTERNAL-*                      July 2012

   authorization identity.  In this example, the initial response is not
   sent in the client's request to initiate the authentication exchange.

         S: * ACAP (SASL "GSSAPI")
         C: a001 STARTTLS
         S: a001 OK "Begin TLS negotiation now"
         <TLS negotiation, further commands are under TLS layer>
         S: + ""
         C: + ""
         S: a002 OK "Authenticated"

   The second example shows use of EXTERNAL-TLS with an authorization
   identity of "simon".  In this example, the initial response is sent
   with the client's request to initiate the authentication exchange.
   This saves a round-trip.

         S: * ACAP (SASL "GSSAPI")
         C: a001 STARTTLS
         S: a001 OK "Begin TLS negotiation now"
         <TLS negotiation, further commands are under TLS layer>
         C: a002 AUTHENTICATE "EXTERNAL-TLS" {5+}
         C: simon
         S: a002 NO "Cannot assume requested authorization identity"

   Note how the server rejects the authentication attempt with an
   authorization-related error message.  Presumably the client
   credentials presented in the TLS session does not give the client
   authority to assume the identity of "simon".

   The third example shows use of EXTERNAL-TLS with multiple re-
   negotiated TLS handshakes.  The first TLS negotiation could have been
   authenticated with a device certificate, and the TLS re-negotiation
   could have been authenticated with a user certificate.  Furthermore,
   an authorization identity of "carolin@tux" is used.

         S: * ACAP (SASL "GSSAPI")
         C: a001 STARTTLS
         S: a001 OK "Begin TLS negotiation now"
         <TLS negotiation, further commands are under TLS layer>
         <TLS re-negotiation, further commands are under TLS layer>
         S: + ""
         C: + carolin@tux
         S: a002 OK "Authenticated"

Josefsson & Latze       Expires January 13, 2013                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                 EXTERNAL-*                      July 2012

7.  IANA Considerations

   The IANA is requested to add to the SASL mechanisms registry the
   following entry.

         Subject: Registration of SASL mechanism family EXTERNAL-*
         SASL family name (or prefix for the family): EXTERNAL-
         Security considerations: [THIS-DOC]
         Published specification (recommended): [THIS-DOC]
         Person & email address to contact for further information:
             Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
         Intended usage: COMMON
         Owner/Change controller: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>

   IANA will register new SASL mechanism names under the "EXTERNAL-"
   namespace on a First Come First Served basis, as defined in
   [RFC5226].  IANA has the right to reject obviously bogus registration
   requests, but will perform no review of claims made in the
   registration form.

   Registration of a SASL mechanism under the "EXTERNAL-" namespace is
   requested by filling in the same template used in [RFC4422] using a
   name prefixed with "EXTERNAL-".

   While this registration procedure does not require expert review,
   authors of SASL mechanisms are encouraged to seek community review
   and comment whenever that is feasible.  Authors may seek community
   review by posting a specification of their proposed mechanism as an
   Internet-Draft.  SASL mechanisms intended for widespread use should
   be standardized through the normal IETF process, when appropriate.

8.  Security Considerations

   The security of external channel is critical to the security of this
   mechanism.  It is important that the client authentication provided
   by the security channel is securely bound to any confidentiality or
   integrity services that protects the security channel.

   The EXTERNAL-* mechanism family does not authenticate clients itself,
   it relies on implementation to perform the authentication as part of
   the external channel.  Care must be taken to ensure that the client
   credential has been authenticated, rather than just blindly accepted
   as part of a leap-of-faith setup.

Josefsson & Latze       Expires January 13, 2013               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                 EXTERNAL-*                      July 2012

9.  Acknowledgements

   Significant amount of text in this document is copied from SASL

   The document was improved by discussion in the SASL Working Group
   between Chris Newman, Philip Guenther, Alexey Melnikov, Hallvard B
   Furuseth, Nicolas Williams, Sam Hartman, Jeffrey Hutzelman, and Kurt

   Further fruitful discussions took place with Paul Sangster and Gloria

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

   [RFC4422]  Melnikov, A. and K. Zeilenga, "Simple Authentication and
              Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006.

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

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

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

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2244]  Newman, C. and J. Myers, "ACAP -- Application
              Configuration Access Protocol", RFC 2244, November 1997.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC5054]  Taylor, D., Wu, T., Mavrogiannopoulos, N., and T. Perrin,
              "Using the Secure Remote Password (SRP) Protocol for TLS
              Authentication", RFC 5054, November 2007.

Josefsson & Latze       Expires January 13, 2013               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                 EXTERNAL-*                      July 2012

   [RFC6091]  Mavrogiannopoulos, N. and D. Gillmor, "Using OpenPGP Keys
              for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authentication",
              RFC 6091, February 2011.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

Authors' Addresses

   Simon Josefsson

   Email: simon@josefsson.org

   Carolin Latze

   Email: carolin.latze@swisscom.com

Josefsson & Latze       Expires January 13, 2013               [Page 12]

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