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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 7593

Network Working Group                                        K. Wierenga
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational                                 S. Winter
Expires: April 18, 2013                                          RESTENA
                                                           T. Wolniewicz
                                          Nicolaus Copernicus University
                                                        October 15, 2012


              The eduroam architecture for network roaming
                   draft-wierenga-ietf-eduroam-00.txt

Abstract

   This document describes the architecture of the eduroam service for
   federated (wireless) network access in academia.  The combination of
   802.1X, EAP and RADIUS that is used in eduroam provides a secure,
   scalable and deployable service for roaming network access.  The
   successful deployment of eduroam over the last decade in the
   educational sector may serve as an example for other sectors, hence
   this document.  In particular the initial architectural and standards
   choices and the changes that were prompted by operational experience
   are highlighted.

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 April 18, 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
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents



Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.3.  Design Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Classic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1.  Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.1.  802.1X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.2.  EAP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  Federation Trust Fabric  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.2.1.  RADIUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.  Issues with initial Trust Fabric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.1.  Server Failure Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.2.  No error condition signalling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.3.  Routing table complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.4.  UDP Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     3.5.  Insufficient payload encryption  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   4.  Enhanced Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.1.  Federation Trust Fabric  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       4.1.1.  RADIUS with TLS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       4.1.2.  Dynamic Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   5.  Abuse prevention and incident handling . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.1.  Incident Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.2.  Operator Name  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.3.  Chargeable User Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   6.  Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     6.1.  Collusion of RPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     6.2.  Exposing user credentials  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     6.3.  Track location of users  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     7.1.  Man in the middle and Tunneling Attacks  . . . . . . . . . 23
     7.2.  Denial of Service Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   Appendix B.  Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30



Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31


















































Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


1.  Introduction

   In 2002 the European Research and Education community set out to
   create a network roaming service for students and employees in
   academia [eduroam-start].  Now over 10 years later this service has
   grown to more than 5000 service locations, serving millions of users
   in all continents with the exception of Antarctica.

   This memo serves to explain the considerations for the design of
   eduroam as well as to document operational experience and resulting
   changes that led to IETF standardization effort like for example
   RADIUS over TCP [RFC6613] and RADIUS with TLS [RFC6614] and that
   promoted alternative use of RADIUS like in Abfab
   [I-D.ietf-abfab-arch].  Whereas the eduroam service is limited to
   academia, the eduroam architecture can easily be reused in other
   environments.

1.1.  Terminology

   XXX This document uses identity management and privacy terminology
   from [I-D.hansen-privacy-terminology].  In particular, this document
   uses the terms Identity Provider, Service Provider and identity
   management.

1.2.  Notational Conventions

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.3.  Design Goals

   The guiding design considerations of eduroam were as follows:

   - Unique identification of users at the edge of the network

   In order to determine whether a user has the right to use the network
   resources the user needs to be identified.  Furthermore, in case of
   abuse of the resources, there is a requirement to be able to identify
   the user.  Lastly, it should not be possible for a person to
   impersonate someone else or take over their identity.

   - Enable (trusted) guest use:

   In order to enable roaming it should be possible for users of
   participating institutions to get seamless access to the networks of
   other institutions that participate in the service.




Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


   - Scalable

   The infrastructure that is created should scale to a large number of
   users and organizations without requiring a lot of coordination and
   other administrative procedures (possibly after initial set up).
   Specifically, it should not be necessary to go through an
   administrative process when a user visits another organization.

   - Easy to install and use

   It should not be very complicated to participate in the roaming
   infrastructure as that may inhibit wide scale adoption.  In
   particular, there should be no or easy client installation and one-
   off configuration.

   - Secure and privacy preserving

   Whereas it is impossible to create a secure system in the absolute
   sense, it is important to have a system that strikes a good balance
   between ease of use and security.  One important design criteria has
   been that there needs to be a security association between the end-
   user and their home organization, so no exposure of credentials to a
   third party.  In particular, it should be possible for participating
   organizations to set their own requirements for the quality of
   authentication of users without the need for the infrastructure as a
   whole to implement the same standard.

   - Standards based

   In an infrastructure in which many thousands of organizations
   participate it is obvious that it should be possible to use equipment
   from different vendors, therefore it is important to base the
   infrastructure on open standards.

   These considerations have led to an architecture based on:

   o  802.1X ([dot1X-standard])as port based authentication framework
      using

   o  EAP ([RFC3748]) for integrity and confidentially protected
      transport of credentials and a

   o  RADIUS ([RFC2865]) hierarchy as trust fabric.








Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


2.  Classic Architecture

   Federations, like eduroam, implement essentially two types of trust.
   The trust relation between an end-user and the Identity Provider
   (IdP, operated by the home organization of the user) and between the
   IdP and the Service Provider (SP, in eduroam the operator of the
   network at the visited location).  In eduroam the establishment of
   the trust relation between user and IdP is through mutual
   authentication.  IdPs and SP establish trust through the use of a
   RADIUS hierarchy.

   These two forms of trust in turn provide the transitive trust that
   makes the SP allow the use of its network resources.

2.1.  Authentication

   Authentication in eduroam is achieved by using a combination of IEEE
   802.1X [dot1X-standard] and EAP [RFC4372].

2.1.1.  802.1X

   By using the 802.1X [dot1X-standard] framework for port-based network
   authentication, organizations that offer network access (SPs) for
   visiting (and local) eduroam users can make sure that only authorized
   users get access.  The user (or rather the user's supplicant) sends
   an access request to the authenticator (wireless access point or
   switch) at the SP, the authenticator forwards the access request to
   the authentication server of the SP which in turn proxies the request
   through the RADIUS hierarchy to the authentication server of the
   user's home organization (the IdP, see below).

   In order for users to be aware of the availability of the eduroam
   service, an SP that offers wireless network access MUST broadcast the
   SSID 'eduroam', unless that conflicts with the SSID of another
   eduroam SP, in which case an SSID starting with "eduroam-" MAY be
   used.  To protect user data confidentiality eduroam SPs IEEE 802.11
   wireless networks MUST support WPA2+AES, and MAY additionally support
   WPA/TKIP as a courtesy to users of legacy hardware.

2.1.2.  EAP

   The use of the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC4372]
   serves 2 purposes.  In the first place a proper chosen EAP-method
   allows for integrity and confidentiality protected transport of the
   user credentials to the home organization.  Secondly, by having all
   RADIUS servers transparently proxy access requests regardless of the
   EAP-method inside the RADIUS packet, the choice of EAP-method is
   between the 'home' organization of the user and the user, in other



Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


   words, in principle every authentication form that can be carried
   inside EAP can be used in eduroam, as long as they adhere to the
   policy with regards to security properties.



                               +-----+
                              /       \
                             /         \
                            /           \
                           /             \
          ,----------\    |               |   ,---------\
          |    SP    |    |    eduroam    |   |    IdP  |
          |          +----+  trust fabric +---+         |
          `------+---'    |               |   '-----+---'
                 |        |               |         |
                 |         \             /          |
                 |          \           /           |
                 |           \         /            |
                 |            \       /             |
            +----+             +-----+              +----+
            |                                            |
            |                                            |
        +---+--+                                      +--+---+
        |      |                                      |      |
      +-+------+-+    ___________________________     |      |
      |          |   O__________________________ )    +------+
      +----------+
      Host (supplicant)      EAP tunnel       Authentication server



                          Figure 1: Tunneled EAP

   Proxying of access requests is based on the outer identity in the
   EAP-message.  Those outer identities MUST be of the form
   something@realm, where the realm part is the domain name of the
   domain that the IdP belongs to.  In order to preserve privacy,
   participating organizations MUST deploy EAP-methods that provide
   mutual authentication.  For EAP methods that support outer identity,
   anonymous outer identities are recommended.  Most commonly used in
   eduroam are the so-called tunneled EAP-methods that first create a
   server authenticated TLS tunnel through which the user credentials
   are transmitted.







Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


2.2.  Federation Trust Fabric

   The eduroam federation trust fabric is based on RADIUS.  RADIUS trust
   is based on shared secrets between RADIUS peers.  In eduroam any
   RADIUS message originating from a trusted peer is implicitly assumed
   to originate from a member of the romaing consortium.

2.2.1.  RADIUS

   The eduroam trust fabric is based on a proxy hierarchy of RADIUS
   servers, loosely based on the DNS hierarchy.  That is, the
   organizational RADIUS servers agree on a shared secret with the
   national servers and the national servers agree on a shared secret
   with the root server.  Access requests are routed through a chain of
   RADIUS proxies towards the home organization of the user, and the
   access accept (or reject) follows the same path back.



































Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


                                  +-------+
                                  |       |
                                  |   .   |
                                  |       |
                                  +---+---+
                                    / | \
                  +----------------/  |  \---------------------+
                  |                   |                        |
                  |                   |                        |
                  |                   |                        |
               +--+---+            +--+--+                +----+---+
               |      |            |     |                |        |
               | .edu |    . . .   | .nl |      . . .     | .ac.uk |
               |      |            |     |                |        |
               +--+---+            +--+--+                +----+---+
                / | \                 | \                      |
               /  |  \                |  \                     |
              /   |   \               |   \                    |
       +-----+    |    +-----+        |    +------+            |
       |          |          |        |           |            |
       |          |          |        |           |            |
   +---+---+ +----+---+ +----+---+ +--+---+ +-----+----+ +-----+-----+
   |       | |        | |        | |      | |          | |           |
   |utk.edu| |utah.edu| |case.edu| |hva.nl| |surfnet.nl| |soton.ac.uk|
   |       | |        | |        | |      | |          | |           |
   +----+--+ +--------+ +--------+ +------+ +----+-----+ +-----------+
        |                                        |
        |                                        |
     +--+--+                                  +--+--+
     |     |                                  |     |
   +-+-----+-+                                |     |
   |         |                                +-----+
   +---------+
   user: paul@surfnet.nl             surfnet.nl Authentication server



                    Figure 2: eduroam RADIUS hierarchy

   Routing of access requests to the home IdP is done based on the realm
   part of the outer identity.  For example, when user paul@surfnet.nl
   of SURFnet (surfnet.nl) tries to gain wireless network access at the
   University of Tennessee at Knoxville (utk.edu) the following happens:

   o  Paul's supplicant transmits an EAP access request to the Access
      Point (Authenticator) at UTK with outer identity say
      anonymous@surfnet.nl




Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


   o  The Access Point forwards the EAP message to its Authentication
      Server (the UTK RADIUS server)

   o  The UTK RADIUS server checks the realm to see if it is a local
      realm, since it isn't the request is proxied to the .edu RADIUS
      server

   o  The .edu RADIUS server verifies the realm, and since it is not a
      in a .edu subdomain it proxies the request to the root server

   o  The root RADIUS server proxies the request to the .nl RADIUS
      server

   o  The .nl RADIUS server proxies the request to the surfnet.nl server

   o  The surfnet.nl RADIUS server decapsulates the EAP message and
      verifies the user credentials

   o  The surfnet.nl RADIUS server informs the utk.edu server of the
      outcome of the authentication request (accept or deny) by proxying
      the outcome through the RADIUS hierarchy in reverse order.

   o  The UTK RADIUS server instructs the UTK Access Point to either
      accept or deny access based on the outcome of the authentication.

   Note: The depiction of the root RADIUS server is a simplification of
   reality.  In reality the root server is distributed over 3 continents
   and each maintains a list of top level realms a specific root server
   is responsible for.  So in reality, for intercontinental roaming
   there is an extra proxy step from one root server to the other
   involved.




















Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


3.  Issues with initial Trust Fabric

   While the hierarchical RADIUS architecture in the previous section
   has served as the basis for eduroam Operations for an entire decade,
   the exponential growth of authentications is expected to lead to
   performance and operations bottlenecks on the aggregation proxies.
   The following sections describe some of the shortcomings, and the
   resulting conclusions.

3.1.  Server Failure Handling

   In eduroam, authentication requests for roaming users are statically
   routed through pre-configured proxies.  The number of proxies varies:
   in a national roaming case, the number of proxies is typically 1 or 2
   (some countries deploy regional proxies, which are in turn aggregated
   by a national proxy); in international roaming, 3 or 4 proxy servers
   are typically involved (the number may be higher along some routes).

   RFC2865 [RFC2865] does not define a failover algorithm.  In
   particular, the failure of a server needs to be deducted from the
   absence of a reply.  Operational experience has shown that this has
   detrimental effects on the infrastructure and end user experience:

   1.  Authentication failure: the first user whose authentication path
       is along a newly-failed server will experience a long delay and
       possibly timeout

   2.  Wrongly deducted states: since the proxy chain is longer than 1
       hop, a failure further down in the authentication path is
       indistinguishable from a failure in the next hop.

   3.  Inability to determine recovery of a server: only a "live"
       authentication request sent to a server which is believed
       inoperable can lead to the discovery that the server is in
       working order again.  This issue has been resolved with RFC5997
       [RFC5997].

   The second point can have significant impact on the operational state
   of the system in a worst-case scenario: Imagine one realm's home
   server being inoperable.  A user from that realm is trying to roam
   internationally and tries to authenticate.  The RADIUS server on the
   hotspot location will assume its own national proxy is down, because
   it does not reply.  That national server, being perfectly alive, in
   turn will assume that the international aggregation proxy is down;
   which in turn will believe the home country proxy national server is
   down.  None of these assumptions are true.  Worse yet: should any of
   these servers trigger a failover to a redundant backup RADIUS server,
   it will still not receive a reply, because the request will still be



Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


   routed to the same defunct home server.  Within a short time, all
   redundant aggregation proxies might be considered defunct by their
   preceding hop.

   In the absence of proper next-hop state derivation, some interesting
   concepts have been introduced by eduroam participants; the most
   noteworthy being a failover logic which considers up/down states not
   per next-hop RADIUS peer, but instead per realm (See [
   http://wiki.eduroam.cz/dead-realm/docs/dead-realm.html ] for
   details).  As of recent, RFC5997 [RFC5997] implementations and
   cautious failover parameters make such a worst-case scenario very
   unlikely to happen, but are still an important issue to consider.

3.2.  No error condition signalling

   The RADIUS protocol lacks signalling of error conditions, and the
   IEEE 802.1X protocol does not allows to convey extended failure
   reasons to the end-user's device.  For eduroam, this creates issues
   in a twofold way:

   o  The home server may have an operational problem, for example if
      its authentication decisions depend on an external data source
      such as ActiveDirectory or an SQL server, and if these external
      dependencies are out of order.  If the RADIUS interface is still
      functional, there are two options how to reply to an Access-
      Request which can't be serviced due to such error conditions:

      1.  Do Not Reply: the inability to reach a conclusion can be
          treated by not replying to the request.  The upside of this
          approach is that the end-user's software doesn't come to wrong
          conclusions and won't give unhelpful hints such as "maybe your
          password is wrong".  The downside is that intermediate proxies
          may come to wrong conclusions because their downstream RADIUS
          server isn't responding.

      2.  Reply with Reject: in this option, the inability to reach a
          conclusion is treated like an authentication failure.  The
          upside of this approach is that intermediate proxies maintain
          a correct view on the reachability state of their RADIUS peer.
          The downside is that EAP supplicants on end-user devices often
          react with either false advice ("your password is wrong") or
          even trigger permanent configuration changes (e.g. the Windows
          built-in supplicant will delete the credential set from its
          registry, prompting the user for their password on the next
          connection attempt).  The latter case of Windows is a source
          of significant helpdesk activity; users may have forgotten
          their password after initially storing it, but are suddenly
          prompted again.



Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


   o  There have been epic discussions in the eduroam community which of
      the two approaches is more appropriate; but they were not
      conclusive.

   o  Similar considerations as above apply when an intermediate proxy
      does not receive a reply from a downstream RADIUS server.  The
      proxy may either choose not to reply to the original request,
      leading to retries and its upstream peers coming to wrong
      conclusions about its own availability; or it may decide to reply
      with Access-Reject to indicate its own liveliness, but again with
      implications for the end user.

   The ability to send Status-Server watchdog requests is only of use
   reactively if a downstream server doesn't reply.  The active link-
   state monitoring of the TCP connection with e.g.  RADIUS/TLS gives a
   clearer indication whether there is an alive RADIUS peer, but does
   not solve the defunct backend problem.  An explicit ability to send
   Error-Replies, on the RADIUS (for other RADIUS peer information) and
   EAP level (for end-user supplicant information), would alleviate
   these problems but is currently not available.

3.3.  Routing table complexity

   The aggregation of RADIUS requests based on the structure of the
   user's realm implies that realms ending with the same top-level
   domain are routed to the same server; i.e. to a common administrative
   domain.  While this is true for ccTLDs, which map into national
   eduroam federations, it is not true for realms residing in gTLDs.
   Realms in gTLDs were historically discouraged because the automatic
   mapping "realm ending" -> "eduroam federation's server" could not be
   applied.  However, with growing demand from eduroam realm
   administrators, it became necessary to create exceptional entries in
   the forwarding rules; such realms need to be mapped on a realm-by-
   realm basis to their eduroam federations.  Example: "kit.edu" needs
   to be routed to the German federation server; "iu.edu" neeeds to be
   routed to the U.S.A. federation server.

   While the ccTLDs occupied only approx. 50 routing entries in total
   (and has a upper bound of approx. 200), the potential size of the
   routing table becomes virtually unlimited if it needs to accomodate
   all individual entries in .edu, .org, etc.

   In addition to that, all these routes need to be synchronised between
   three international root servers, and the updates needed to be
   applied manually to RADIUS server configuration files.  The frequency
   of the required updates made this approach fragile and error-prone as
   the number of entries grew.




Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


3.4.  UDP Issues

   RADIUS is based on UDP, which was a reasonable choice when its main
   use was with simple PAP requests which required only exactly one
   packet exchange in each direction.

   When transporting EAP over RADIUS, the EAP conversations requires
   multiple round-trips; depending on the total payload size, 8-10
   round-trips are not uncommon.  The loss of a single UDP packet will
   lead to user-visible delays and might result in servers being marked
   as dead due to the absence of a reply.  The proxy path in eduroam
   consists of several proxies, all of which introduce a tiny packet
   loss probability; i.e. the more proxies are needed, the higher the
   failure rate is going to be.

   For some EAP types, depending on the exact payload size they carry,
   RADIUS servers and/or supplicants may choose to fill as much EAP data
   into a single RADIUS packet as the supplicant's layer 2 medium allows
   for, typically 1500 Bytes.  In that case, the RADIUS encapsulation
   around the EAP-Message will itself also exceed 1500 Byte size which
   in turn means the UDP datagram which carries the RADIUS packet will
   need to be fragmented on the IP layer.  While this is not a problem
   in theory, practice has shown evidence of misbehaving firewalls which
   erroneously discard non-first UDP fragments, which ultimately leads
   to a denial of service for users with such EAP types and that
   specific configuration.

   One EAP type proved to be particularly problematic: EAP-TLS.  While
   it is possible to configure the EAP server to send smaller chunks of
   EAP payload to the supplicant (e.g. 1200 Bytes, to allow for another
   300 Bytes of RADIUS overhead without fragmentation), very often the
   supplicants which send the client certificate do not expose such a
   configuration detail to the user.  Consequently, when the client
   certificate is beyond 1500 Bytes in size, the EAP-Message will always
   make use of the maximum possible layer-2 chunk size, which introduces
   the fragmentation on the path EAP peer -> EAP server.

   The operational experience regarding EAP-TLS leads to the following
   RECOMMENDATION: EAP supplicants should either make the maximum EAP
   chunk size configurable OR use cautious values regarding the EAP
   chunk size (e.g. max. 1200 Bytes per chunk, even if the layer 2
   medium provides foresaw more space).

   Both of the previously mentioned sources of errors (packet loss,
   fragment discard) are hard to diagnose and can lead to significant
   user frustration for the affected users.





Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


3.5.  Insufficient payload encryption

   The RADIUS protocol's design foresaw only the encryption of select
   RADIUS attributes, most notably User-Password.  With EAP methods
   conforming to the requirements of RFC4017, the user's credential is
   not transmitted using the User-Password attribute, and stronger
   encryption than the one for RADIUS' User-Password is in use
   (typically TLS).

   Still, the use of EAP does not encrypt all personally identifiable
   details of the user session.  In particular, the user's computing
   device can be identified by inspecting the Calling-Station-ID
   attribute; and the user's location may be derived from observing NAS-
   IP-Address, NAS-Identifier or Operator-Name attributes.  Since these
   attributes are not encrypted, even IP-layer third parties can harvest
   the corresponding data.  In a worst-case scenario, this enables the
   creation of mobility profiles.

   These profiles are not necessarily linkable to an actual user because
   EAP allows for the use of anonymous outer identities and protected
   credential exchanges.  However, practical experience has shown that
   many users neglect to configure their supplicants in a privacy-
   preserving way.  Worse, for EAP-TLS users, the use of EAP-TLS
   identity protection is not usually implemented and cannot be used.
   In eduroam, concerned individuals and IdPs which use EAP-TLS are
   using pseudonymous client certificates to provide for better privacy.

   One way out, at least for EAP types involving a username, is to
   pursue the creation and deployment of pre-configured supplicant
   configuration which makes all the required settings in user devices
   prior to their first connection attempt; this depends heavily on the
   remote configuration possibilities of the supplicants though.

   A further threat involves the verification of the EAP server's
   identity.  Even though the cryptographic foundation, TLS tunnels, is
   sound, there is a weakness in the supplicant configuration: many
   users do not understand or are willing to invest time into the
   inspection of server certificates or the installation of a trusted
   CA.  As a result, users may easily be tricked into connecting to an
   unauthorized EAP server, ultimately leading to a leak of their
   credentials to that unauthorized third party.

   Again, one way out of this particular threat is to pursue the
   creation and deployment of pre-configured supplicant configuration
   which makes all the required settings in user devices prior to their
   first connection attempt.

   Note: there are many different and vendor-proprietary ways to pre-



Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


   configure a device with the necessary EAP parameters (examples
   include Apple, Inc's "mobileconfig" and Microsoft's "EAPHost" XML
   schema).  Some manufacturers even completely lack any means to
   distribute EAP configuration data.  We believe there is value in
   defining a common EAP configuration meta data format which could be
   used across manufacturers; ideally leading to a situation where any
   IEEE 802.1X network end-user merely needs to apply this configuration
   file to configure any of his devices securely with the required
   connection properties.

   Another possible threat involves transport of user-specific
   attributes in a Reply-Message.  If, for example, a RADIUS server
   sends back a hypothetical RADIUS Vendor-Specific-Attribute "User-Role
   = Student of Computer Science" (e.g. for consumption of a SP RADIUS
   server and subsequent assignment into a "student" VLAN), this
   information would also be visible for third parties and could be
   added to the mobility profile.

   The only way out to mitigate all information leakage to third parties
   is by protecting the entire RADIUS packet payload so that IP-layer
   third parties can not extract privacy-relevant information.  RFC2865
   RADIUS does not offer this possibility though.

   Note: This operational experience of eduroam could be taken as a
   guideline for supplicant implementers to leave sufficient space in
   transmitted packets.

























Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


4.  Enhanced Architecture

   The operational difficulties with an ever increasing number of
   participants as documented in the previous section have led to a
   number of changes to the eduroam architecture that in turn have, as
   mentioned in the introduction, led to standardization effort.

   Note: The enhanced architecture components are fully backwards
   compatible with the existing installed base, and is in fact gradually
   replacing those parts of it where problems may arise.

4.1.  Federation Trust Fabric

   Whereas the user authentication using 802.1X and EAP has remained
   unchanged (i.e. no need for end-users to change any configurations),
   the issues as reported above have resulted in a major overhaul of the
   way EAP messages are transported from the RADIUS server of the SP to
   that of the IdP and back.  The two fundamental changes are the use of
   TCP instead of UDP and reliance on TLS instead of shared secrets
   between RADIUS peers.

4.1.1.  RADIUS with TLS

   The deficiencies of RADIUS over UDP as described in Section 3.4
   warranted a search for a replacement of RFC2865 [RFC2865] for the
   transport of EAP.  By the time this need was understood, the
   designated successor protocol to RADIUS, Diameter [RFC3588], was
   already specified by the IETF.  However, within the operational
   constraints of eduroam:

   o  reasonably cheap to deploy on many administrative domains

   o  supporting NASREQ Application

   o  supporting EAP Application

   o  supporting Diameter Redirect

   o  supporting validation of authentication requests of the most
      popular EAP types (EAP-TTLS, PEAP, and EAP-TLS)

   o  possibility to retrieve these credentials from popular backends
      such as Microsoft ActiveDirectory, MySQL

   no single implementation could be found.  In addition to that, no
   Wireless Access Points at the disposal of eduroam participants
   supported Diameter, nor did any of the manufacturers have a roadmap
   towards Diameter support.  This led to the open question of lossless



Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


   translation from RADIUS to Diameter and vice versa; a question not
   satisfactorily answered by NASREQ.

   After monitoring the Diameter implementation landscape for a while,
   it became clear that a solution with better compatibility and a
   plausible upgrade path from the existing RADIUS hierarchy was needed.
   The eduroam community actively engaged in the IETF towards the
   specification of several enhancements to RADIUS to overcome the
   limitations mentioned in Section 3.  The outcome of this process was
   [RFC6614] and [I-D.ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery].

   With its use of TCP instead of UDP, and with its full packet
   encryption, while maintaining full packet format compatibility with
   RADIUS/UDP, RADIUS/TLS [RFC6614] allows to upgrade any given RADIUS
   link in eduroam without the need of a "flag day".

   In a first upgrade phase, the classic eduroam hierarchy (forwarding
   decision taken by inspecting the realm) remains intact.  That way,
   RADIUS/TLS merely enhances the underlying transport of the RADIUS
   datagrams.  But this already provides some key advantages:

   o  explicit peer reachability detection using long-lived TCP sessions

   o  protection of user credentials and all privacy-relevant RADIUS
      attributes

   RADIUS/TLS connections for the static hierarchy could be realised
   with the TLS-PSK operation mode (which effectively provides a 1:1
   replacement for RADIUS/UDP's "shared secrets"), but since this
   operation mode is not widely supported as of yet, all RADIUS/TLS
   links in eduroam are secured by TLS with X.509 certificates from a
   set of accredited CAs.

   This first deployment phase does not yet solve the routing table
   complexity problem (see (Section 3.3); this aspect is covered by
   introducing dynamic discovery for RADIUS/TLS servers.

4.1.2.  Dynamic Discovery

   XXX











Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


5.  Abuse prevention and incident handling

   Since the eduroam service is a confederation of autonomous networks,
   there is little justification for transferring accounting information
   from the visited site to any other in general, or in particular to
   the home organization of the user.  Accounting in eduroam is
   therefore considered to be a local matter of the visited site.  The
   eduroam compliance statement ([eduroam-compliance]) in fact specifies
   that accounting traffic SHOULD NOT be forwarded.

   The static routing infrastructure of eduroam acts as a filtering
   system blocking accounting traffic from misconfigured local RADIUS
   servers.  Proxy servers are configured to terminate accounting
   request traffic by answering to Accounting-Requests with an
   Accounting-Response in order to prevent the retransmission of
   orphaned Accounting-Request messages.

   Roaming creates accounting problems identified by [RFC4372]
   (Chargeable User Identity).  Since the NAS can only see the (likely
   anonymous) outer identity of the user, it is impossible to correlate
   usage with a specific user (who may use multiple devices).  A NAS
   that supports Chargeable User Identity can request additional
   information - Chargeable-User-Identity and if this is supplied by the
   authenticating RADIS server in the Access-Accept message, this value
   will then be added to corresponding Access-Request packets.  While
   eduroam does not have any charging mechanisms, it may still be
   desirable to identify traffic originating from one particular user.
   One of the reasons is to prevent abuse of guest access by users
   living nearby university campuses.  Chargeable User Identity supplies
   the perfect answer to this problem, however at the moment of writing,
   to our knowledge only one hardware vendor (Meru Networks) implements
   RFC4372 on their Access Points.  For all other vendors, requesting
   the Chargeable-User-Identity attribute needs to happen on the RADIUS
   server to which the Access Point is connected to.  Currently, the
   RADIUS servers FreeRADIUS and Radiator can be retrofitted with the
   ability to do this.

5.1.  Incident Handling

   10 years of experience with eduroam have not exposed any serious
   incident.  This may be taken as evidence for proper security design
   and awareness of users that they are identifiable, acts as an
   effective deterrent.

   For example the European eduroam policy [eduroam-policy] describes
   incident scenarios and actions to be taken, in this document we
   present the relevant technical issues.




Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


   The first action in the case of an incident is to block the user's
   access to eduroam at the visited site.  Since the roaming user's true
   identity is likely hidden behind an anonymous/fake outer identity,
   the visited site can only rely on the realm of the user.  Without
   cooperation from the user's home institution, the visited
   institution's options are limited to blocking authentications from
   the entire realm, which may be considered as too harsh.  On the other
   hand, the home institution has only the possibility of blacking the
   user's authentication entirely, thus blocking this user from
   accessing eduroam in all sites.  This may also be seen as a too harsh
   an action, especially since visited and home sites could differ in
   interpreting the user's actions.  Introduction of support for
   Operator-Name and Chargeable-User-Identity (see below) to eduroam can
   significantly improve the situation.

5.2.  Operator Name

   The Operator-Name attribute is defined in [RFC5580] as a means of
   unique identification of the access site.

   The Proxy infrastructure of eduroam makes it impossible for home
   sites to tell where their users roam to.  While this may be seen as a
   positive aspect enhancing user's privacy, it also makes user support,
   roaming statistics and blocking offending user's access to eduroam
   significantly harder.

   Sites participating in eduroam are encouraged to add the Operator-
   Name attribute using the REALM namespace, i.e. sending a realm name
   under control of the given site.

   The introduction of Operator-Name in eduroam has identified one
   operational problem - the identifier 126 assigned to this attribute
   has been previously used by some vendors for their specific purposes
   and has been included in attribute dictionaries of several RADIUS
   server distributions.  Since the syntax of this hijacked attribute
   had been set to Integer, this introduces a syntax clash with the the
   RFC definition (OctetString).  Operational tests in eduroam have
   shown that servers using the Integer syntax for attribute 126 may
   either truncate the value to 4 octets or even drop the entire RADIUS
   packet (thus making authentication impossible).  The eduroam
   monitoring and eduroam test tools try to locate problematic sites.

   When a visited site sends its Operator-Name value, it creates a
   possibility for the home sites to set up conditional blocking rules,
   depriving certain users of access to selected sites.  Such action
   will cause much less concern then blocking users from all of eduroam.

   In eduroam the Operator Name is also used for the generation of



Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


   Chargeable User Identity values.

   The addition of Operator-Name is a straightforward configuration of
   the RADIUS server and may be easily introduced on a large scale.

5.3.  Chargeable User Identifier

   The Chargeable-User-Identity (CUI) attribute is defined by RFC4372
   [RFC4372] as an answer to accounting problems caused by the use of
   anonymous identity in some EAP methods.  In eduroam the primary use
   of CUI is in incident handling, but it can also enhance local
   accounting.

   The eduroam policy requires that a given user's CUI generated for
   requests originating form different sites should be different (to
   prevent collusion attacks).  The eduroam policy thus mandates that a
   CUI request be accompanied by the Operator-Name attribute, which is
   used as one of the inputs for the CUI generation algorithm.  The
   Operator-Name requirement is considered to be the "business
   requirement" described in Section 2.1 of RFC4372 [RFC4372] and hence
   conforms to the RFC.

   When eduroam started considering using CUI, there were no NAS
   implementations, therefore the only solution was moving all CUI
   support to the RADIUS server.

   CUI request generation requires only the addition of NUL CUI
   attributes to outgoing Access-Requests, however the real strength of
   CUI comes with accounting.  Implementation of CUI based accounting in
   the server requires that the authentication and accounting RADIUS
   servers used directly by the NAS are actually the same or at least
   have access to a common source of information.  Upon processing of an
   Access-Accept the authenticating RADIUS server must store the
   received CUI value together with the device's Calling-Station-Id in a
   temporary database.  Upon receipt of an Accounting-Request, the
   server needs to update the packet with the CUI value read from the
   database.

   A wide introduction of CUI support in eduroam will significantly
   simplify incident handling at visited sites.  Introducing local, per-
   user access restriction will be possible.  Visited sites will also be
   able to notify the home site about the introduction of such a
   restriction, pointing to the CUI value an thus making it possible for
   the home site to identify the user.  When the user reports the
   problem at his home support, the reason will be already known.






Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


6.  Privacy Considerations

   XXX

6.1.  Collusion of RPs

   XXX

6.2.  Exposing user credentials

   XXX

6.3.  Track location of users

   XXX




































Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


7.  Security Considerations

   This section addresses only security considerations associated with
   the use of eduroam.  For considerations relating to 802.1X, RADIUS
   and EAP in general, the reader is referred to the respective
   specification and to other literature.

7.1.  Man in the middle and Tunneling Attacks

   XXX

7.2.  Denial of Service Attacks

   XXX





































Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


8.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA Considerations
















































Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.hansen-privacy-terminology]
              Hansen, M., Tschofenig, H., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Terminology", draft-hansen-privacy-terminology-03 (work in
              progress), October 2011.

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

   [RFC2865]  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
              "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
              RFC 2865, June 2000.

   [RFC2866]  Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.

   [RFC3748]  Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
              Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)",
              RFC 3748, June 2004.

   [RFC4279]  Eronen, P. and H. Tschofenig, "Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites
              for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 4279,
              December 2005.

   [RFC4372]  Adrangi, F., Lior, A., Korhonen, J., and J. Loughney,
              "Chargeable User Identity", RFC 4372, January 2006.

   [RFC5176]  Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D., and B.
              Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
              Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 5176,
              January 2008.

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

   [RFC5247]  Aboba, B., Simon, D., and P. Eronen, "Extensible
              Authentication Protocol (EAP) Key Management Framework",
              RFC 5247, August 2008.

   [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.

   [RFC5580]  Tschofenig, H., Adrangi, F., Jones, M., Lior, A., and B.
              Aboba, "Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and Diameter",



Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


              RFC 5580, August 2009.

   [RFC5997]  DeKok, A., "Use of Status-Server Packets in the Remote
              Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Protocol",
              RFC 5997, August 2010.

   [RFC6066]  Eastlake, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions:
              Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, January 2011.

   [RFC6613]  DeKok, A., "RADIUS over TCP", RFC 6613, May 2012.

   [RFC6614]  Winter, S., McCauley, M., Venaas, S., and K. Wierenga,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS",
              RFC 6614, May 2012.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-abfab-arch]
              Howlett, J., Hartman, S., Tschofenig, H., Lear, E., and J.
              Schaad, "Application Bridging for Federated Access Beyond
              Web (ABFAB) Architecture", draft-ietf-abfab-arch-03 (work
              in progress), July 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-radext-dtls]
              DeKok, A., "DTLS as a Transport Layer for RADIUS",
              draft-ietf-radext-dtls-02 (work in progress), July 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery]
              Winter, S. and M. McCauley, "NAI-based Dynamic Peer
              Discovery for RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS",
              draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-04 (work in progress),
              June 2012.

   [MD5-attacks]
              Black, J., Cochran, M., and T. Highland, "A Study of the
              MD5 Attacks: Insights and Improvements", October 2006,
              <http://www.springerlink.com/content/40867l85727r7084/>.

   [RFC3539]  Aboba, B. and J. Wood, "Authentication, Authorization and
              Accounting (AAA) Transport Profile", RFC 3539, June 2003.

   [RFC3588]  Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
              Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.

   [RFC4107]  Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for Cryptographic
              Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, June 2005.

   [RFC4346]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security



Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.

   [RFC4953]  Touch, J., "Defending TCP Against Spoofing Attacks",
              RFC 4953, July 2007.

   [RFC6125]  Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
              Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
              within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
              (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, March 2011.

   [RFC6421]  Nelson, D., "Crypto-Agility Requirements for Remote
              Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 6421,
              November 2011.

   [dot1X-standard]
              IEEE, "IEEE std 802.1X-2010", February 2010, <http://
              standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.1X-2010.pdf>.

   [eduroam-compliance]
              Trans-European Research and Education Networking
              Association, "eduroam compliance statement", 2011, <http:/
              /www.eduroam.org/downloads/docs/
              eduroam_Compliance_Statement_v1_0.pdf>.

   [eduroam-homepage]
              Trans-European Research and Education Networking
              Association, "eduroam Homepage", 2007,
              <http://www.eduroam.org/>.

   [eduroam-policy]
              Trans-European Research and Education Networking
              Association, "European eduroam policy", 2011, <http://
              www.eduroam.org/downloads/docs/
              GN3-12-194_eduroam-policy-%20for-
              signing_ver2%204_18052012.pdf>.

   [eduroam-start]
              Wierenga, K., "Initial proposal for (now) eduroam", 2002,
              <http://www.terena.org/activities/tf-mobility/
              start-of-eduroam.pdf>.

   [geant2]   Delivery of Advanced Network Technology to Europe,
              "European Commission Information Society and Media:
              GEANT2", 2008, <http://www.geant2.net/>.

   [radsec-whitepaper]
              Open System Consultants, "RadSec - a secure, reliable



Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


              RADIUS Protocol", May 2005,
              <http://www.open.com.au/radiator/radsec-whitepaper.pdf>.

   [radsecproxy-impl]
              Venaas, S., "radsecproxy Project Homepage", 2007,
              <http://software.uninett.no/radsecproxy/>.

   [terena]   TERENA, "Trans-European Research and Education Networking
              Association", 2008, <http://www.terena.org/>.










































Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank the participants in the TERENA Task
   Force on Mobility and Network Middleware as well as the Geant project
   for their reviews and contributions.

   The eduroam trademark is registered by TERENA.












































Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


Appendix B.  Changes

   This section to be removed prior to publication.

   o  00 Initial Revision.














































Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                   eduroam                    October 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Klaas Wierenga
   Cisco Systems
   Haarlerbergweg 13-19
   Amsterdam  1101 CH
   The Netherlands

   Phone: +31 20 357 1752
   Email: klaas@cisco.com


   Stefan Winter
   Fondation RESTENA
   6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
   Luxembourg  1359
   Luxembourg

   Phone: +352 424409 1
   Fax:   +352 422473
   Email: stefan.winter@restena.lu
   URI:   http://www.restena.lu.


   Tomasz Wolniewicz
   Nicolaus Copernicus University
   pl. Rapackiego 1
   Torun
   Poland

   Phone: +48-56-611-2750
   Fax:   +48-56-622-1850
   Email: twoln@umk.pl
   URI:   http://www.home.umk.pl/~twoln/

















Wierenga, et al.         Expires April 18, 2013                [Page 31]


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