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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 draft-ietf-emu-eaptlscert

Network Working Group                                           M. Sethi
Internet-Draft                                               J. Mattsson
Intended status: Informational                                  Ericsson
Expires: September 7, 2019                                     S. Turner
                                                                   sn3rd
                                                           March 6, 2019


        Handling Large Certificates and Long Certificate Chains
                        in TLS-based EAP Methods
                       draft-ms-emu-eaptlscert-02

Abstract

   EAP-TLS and other TLS-based EAP methods are widely deployed and used
   for network access authentication.  Large certificates and long
   certificate chains combined with authenticators that drop an EAP
   session after only 40 - 50 packets is a major deployment problem.
   This memo looks at the this problem in detail and describes the
   potential solutions available.

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 https://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 September 7, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://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



Sethi, et al.           Expires September 7, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods       March 2019


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Experience with Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Handling of Large Certificates and Long Certificate Chains  .   4
     4.1.  Updating Certificates and Certificate Chains  . . . . . .   4
       4.1.1.  Guidelines for certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Updating TLS and EAP-TLS Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.1.  Pre-distributing and Omitting CA Certificates . . . .   6
       4.2.2.  Caching Certificates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.3.  Compressing Certificates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Updating Authenticators (Access Points) . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in [RFC3748],
   provides a standard mechanism for support of multiple authentication
   methods.  EAP-Transport Layer Security (EAP-TLS) [RFC5216]
   [I-D.ietf-emu-eap-tls13] relies on TLS [RFC8446] to provide strong
   mutual authentication with certificates [RFC5280] and is widely
   deployed and often used for network access authentication.

   TLS certificates are often relatively large, and the certificate
   chains are often long.  Unlike the use of TLS on the web, where
   typically only the TLS server is authenticated; EAP-TLS deployments
   typically authenticates both the EAP peer and the EAP server.  Also,
   from deployment experience, EAP peers typically have longer
   certificate chains than servers.  Therefore, EAP-TLS authentication
   usually involve significantly more bytes than when TLS is used as
   part of HTTPS.

   As the EAP fragment size in typical deployments are just 1000 - 1500
   bytes, the EAP-TLS authentication needs to be fragmented into many
   smaller packets for transportation over the lower layers.  Such
   fragmentation can not only negatively affect the latency, but also



Sethi, et al.           Expires September 7, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods       March 2019


   results in other challenges.  For example, many EAP authenticator
   (access point) implementations will drop an EAP session if it hasn't
   finished after 40 - 50 packets.  This is a major problem and means
   that in many situations, the EAP peer cannot perform network access
   authentication even though both the sides have valid credentials for
   successful authentication and key derivation.

   This memo looks at related work and potential tools available for
   overcoming the deployment challenges induced by large certificates
   and long certificate chains.  It then discusses the solutions
   available to overcome these challenges.

2.  Terminology

   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 BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts used
   in EAP-TLS [RFC5216] and TLS [RFC8446].  In particular, this document
   frequently uses the following terms as they have been defined in
   [RFC5216]:

   Authenticator  The entity initiating EAP authentication.  Typically
         implemented as part of a network switch or a wireless access
         point.

   EAP peer  The entity that responds to the authenticator.  In
         [IEEE-802.1X], this entity is known as the supplicant.  In EAP-
         TLS, the EAP peer implements the TLS client role.

   EAP server  The entity that terminates the EAP authentication method
         with the peer.  In the case where no backend authentication
         server is used, the EAP server is part of the authenticator.
         In the case where the authenticator operates in pass-through
         mode, the EAP server is located on the backend authentication
         server.  In EAP-TLS, the EAP server implements the TLS server
         role.

3.  Experience with Deployments

   The EAP fragment size in typical deployments can be 1000 - 1500
   bytes.  Certificate sizes can be large for a number of reasons:

   o  Long Subject Alternative Name field.




Sethi, et al.           Expires September 7, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods       March 2019


   o  Long Public Key and Signature fields.

   o  Can contain multiple object identifiers (OID) that indicate the
      permitted uses of the certificate.  For example, Windows requires
      certain OID's in the certificates for EAP-TLS to work.

   o  Multiple user groups in the certificate.

   The certificate chain can typically include 2 - 6 certificates to the
   root-of-trust.

   Most common access point implementations drop EAP sessions that don't
   complete within 50 round trips.  This means that if the chain is
   larger than ~ 60 kB, EAP-TLS authentication cannot complete
   successfully in most deployments.

4.  Handling of Large Certificates and Long Certificate Chains

   This section discusses some possible alternatives for overcoming the
   challenge of large certificates and long certificate chains in EAP-
   TLS authentication.  In Section 4.1 we look at recommendations that
   require an update of the certificates or certifcate chains that are
   used for EAP-TLS authentication without requiring changes to the
   existing EAP-TLS code base.  We also provide some guidelines when
   issuing certificates for use with EAP-TLS.  In Section 4.2 we look at
   recommendations that rely on updates to the EAP-TLS implementations
   which can be deployed with existing certificates.  In Section 4.3 we
   shortly discuss the solution to update or reconfigure authenticator
   which can be deployed without changes to existing certificates or
   EAP-TLS code.

4.1.  Updating Certificates and Certificate Chains

   Many IETF protocols now use elliptic curve cryptography (ECC)
   [RFC6090] for the underlying cryptographic operations.  The use of
   ECC can reduce the size of certificates and signatures.  For example,
   at a 128-bit security level, the size of public keys with traditional
   RSA is about 384 bytes, while the size of public keys with ECC is
   only 32-64 bytes.  Similarly, the size of digital signatures with
   traditional RSA is 384 bytes, while the size is only 64 bytes with
   elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (ECDSA) and Edwards-curve
   digital signature algorithm (EdDSA) [RFC8032].  Using certificates
   that use ECC can reduce the number of messages in EAP-TLS
   authentication which can alleviate the problem of authenticators
   dropping an EAP session because of too many packets.  TLS 1.3
   [RFC8446] requires implementations to support ECC.  New cipher suites
   that use ECC are also specified for TLS 1.2 [RFC5289].  Using ECC




Sethi, et al.           Expires September 7, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods       March 2019


   based cipher suites with existing code can significantly reduce the
   number of messages in a single EAP session.

4.1.1.  Guidelines for certificates

   This section provides some recommendations for certificates used for
   EAP-TLS authentication:

   o  Object Identifiers (OIDs) is ASN.1 data type that defines unique
      identifiers for objects.  The OID's ASN.1 value, which is a string
      of integers, is then used to name objects to which they relate.
      The DER length for the 1st two integers is always one byte and
      subsequent integers are base 128-encoded in the fewest possible
      bytes.  OIDs are used lavishly in X.509 certificates and while not
      all can be avoided, e.g., OIDs for extensions or algorithms and
      their associate parameters, some are well within the certificate
      issuer's control:

      *  Each naming attribute in a DN (Directory Name) has one.  DNs
         used in the issuer and subject fields as well as numerous
         extensions.  A shallower naming will be smaller, e.g., C=FI,
         O=Example, SN=B0A123499EFC vs C=FI, O=Example, OU=Division 1,
         SOPN=Southern Finland, CN=Coolest IoT Gadget Ever,
         SN=B0A123499EFC.

      *  Every certificate policy (and qualifier) and any mappings to
         another policy uses identifiers.  Consider carefully what
         policies apply.

   o  DirectoryString and GeneralName types are used extensively to name
      things, e.g., the DN naming attribute O= (the organizational
      naming attribute) DirectoryString includes "Example" for the
      Example organization and uniformResourceIdentifier can be used to
      indicate the location of the CRL, e.g., "http://crl.example.com/
      sfig2s1-128.crl", in the CRL Distribution Point extension.  For
      these particular examples, each character is a byte.  For some
      non-ASCII character strings in the DN, characters can be multi-
      byte.  Obviously, the names need to be unique, but there is more
      than one way to accomplish this without long strings.  This is
      especially true if the names are not meant to be meaningful to
      users.

   o  Extensions are necessary to comply with [RFC5280], but the vast
      majority are optional.  Include only those that are necessary to
      operate.






Sethi, et al.           Expires September 7, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods       March 2019


4.2.  Updating TLS and EAP-TLS Code

4.2.1.  Pre-distributing and Omitting CA Certificates

   The TLS Certificate message conveys the sending endpoint's
   certificate chain.  TLS allows endpoints to reduce the sizes of the
   Certificate messages by omitting certificates that the other endpoint
   is known to possess.  When using TLS 1.3, all certificates that
   specify a trust anchor known by the other endpoint may be omitted
   (see Section 4.4.2 of [RFC8446]).  When using TLS 1.2 or earlier,
   only the self-signed certificate that specifies the root certificate
   authority may be omitted (see Section 7.4.2 of [RFC5246] Therefore,
   updating TLS implementations to version 1.3 can help to significantly
   reduce the number of messages exchanged for EAP-TLS authentication.
   The omitted certificates need to be pre-distributed independently of
   TLS and the TLS implementation need to be configured to omit the pre-
   distributed certificates.

4.2.2.  Caching Certificates

   The TLS Cached Information Extension [RFC7924] specifies an extension
   where a server can exclude transmission of certificate information
   cached in an earlier TLS handshake.  The client and the server would
   first execute the full TLS handshake.  The client would then cache
   the certificate provided by the server.  When the TLS client later
   connects to the same TLS server without using session resumption, it
   can attach the "cached_info" extension to the ClientHello message.
   This would allow the client to indicate that it has cached the
   certificate.  The client would also include a fingerprint of the
   server certificate chain.  If the server's certificate has not
   changed, then the server does not need to send its certificate and
   the corresponding certificate chain again.  In case information has
   changed, which can be seen from the fingerprint provided by the
   client, the certificate payload is transmitted to the client to allow
   the client to update the cache.  The extension however necessitates a
   successful full handshake before any caching.  This extension can be
   useful when, for example, when a successful authentication between an
   EAP peer and EAP server has occurred in the home network.  If
   authenticators in a roaming network are more strict at dropping long
   EAP sessions, an EAP peer can use the Cached Information Extension to
   reduce the total number of messages.

   However, if all authenticators drop the EAP session for a given EAP
   peer and EAP server combination, a successful full handshake is not
   possible.  An option in such a scenario would be to cache validated
   certificate chains even if the EAP-TLS exchange fails, but this is
   currently not allowed according to [RFC7924].




Sethi, et al.           Expires September 7, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods       March 2019


4.2.3.  Compressing Certificates

   The TLS working group is also working on an extension for TLS 1.3
   [I-D.ietf-tls-certificate-compression] that allows compression of
   certificates and certificate chains during full handshakes.  The
   client can indicate support for compressed server certificates by
   including this extension in the ClientHello message.  Similarly, the
   server can indicate support for compression of client certificates by
   including this extension in the CertificateRequest message.  While
   such an extension can alleviate the problem of excessive
   fragmentation in EAP-TLS, it can only be used with TLS version 1.3
   and higher.  Deployments that rely on older versions of TLS cannot
   benefit from this extension.

4.3.  Updating Authenticators (Access Points)

   TODO: Shortly describe why this is hard.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   TBD

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-emu-eap-tls13]
              Mattsson, J. and M. Sethi, "Using EAP-TLS with TLS 1.3",
              draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-03 (work in progress), November
              2018.

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

   [RFC3748]  Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
              Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol
              (EAP)", RFC 3748, DOI 10.17487/RFC3748, June 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748>.

   [RFC5216]  Simon, D., Aboba, B., and R. Hurst, "The EAP-TLS
              Authentication Protocol", RFC 5216, DOI 10.17487/RFC5216,
              March 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5216>.



Sethi, et al.           Expires September 7, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods       March 2019


   [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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-tls-certificate-compression]
              Ghedini, A. and V. Vasiliev, "TLS Certificate
              Compression", draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression-04
              (work in progress), October 2018.

   [IEEE-802.1X]
              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE
              Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks -- Port-
              Based Network Access Control", IEEE Standard 802.1X-2010 ,
              February 2010.

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

   [RFC5289]  Rescorla, E., "TLS Elliptic Curve Cipher Suites with SHA-
              256/384 and AES Galois Counter Mode (GCM)", RFC 5289,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5289, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5289>.

   [RFC6090]  McGrew, D., Igoe, K., and M. Salter, "Fundamental Elliptic
              Curve Cryptography Algorithms", RFC 6090,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6090, February 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6090>.

   [RFC7924]  Santesson, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Cached Information Extension", RFC 7924,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7924, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7924>.

   [RFC8032]  Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
              Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.




Sethi, et al.           Expires September 7, 2019               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods       March 2019


   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

Acknowledgements

   This draft is a result of several useful discussions with Alan DeKok,
   Bernard Aboba, Jari Arkko, Darshak Thakore, and Hannes Tschofening.

Authors' Addresses

   Mohit Sethi
   Ericsson
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: mohit@piuha.net


   John Mattsson
   Ericsson
   Kista
   Sweden

   Email: john.mattsson@ericsson.com


   Sean Turner
   sn3rd

   Email: sean@sn3rd.com




















Sethi, et al.           Expires September 7, 2019               [Page 9]


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