INTERNET-DRAFT                                      Editor: R. Harrison
draft-ietf-ldapbis-authmeth-19.txt                         Novell, Inc.
Obsoletes: 2251, 2829, 2830                              November, 2005                               February 2006
Intended Category: Standards Track

                      LDAP: Authentication Methods
                          Security Mechanisms

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   This document is intended to be, after appropriate review and
   revision, submitted to the RFC Editor as a Standard Track document.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.  Technical discussion of
   this document will take place on the IETF LDAP Revision Working
   Group mailing list <>.  Please send
   editorial comments directly to the author

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


   This document describes authentication methods and security
   mechanisms of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP).

   This document details establishment of Transport Layer Security
   (TLS) using the StartTLS operation.

   This document details the simple Bind authentication method
   including anonymous, unauthenticated, and name/password mechanisms
   and the Secure Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Bind
   authentication method including the EXTERNAL mechanism.

   This document discusses various authentication and authorization
   states through which a session to an LDAP server may pass and the
   actions that trigger these state changes.

   This document, together with other documents in the LDAP Technical
   Specification (see section 1 of [Roadmap]), obsoletes RFC 2251, RFC
   2829 and RFC 2830.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction.....................................................3
   1.1. Relationship to Other Documents................................5
   1.2. Conventions....................................................6
   2. Implementation Requirements......................................6 Requirements......................................7
   3. StartTLS Operation...............................................7
   3.1. TLS Establishment Procedures...................................7
   3.1.1. StartTLS Request Sequencing..................................7 Sequencing..................................8
   3.1.2. Client Certificate...........................................8
   3.1.3. Server Identity Check........................................8 Comparison of DNS Names....................................9 Names...................................10 Comparison of IP Addresses................................10 Comparison of other subjectName types.....................10
   3.1.4. Discovery of Resultant Security Level.......................10
   3.1.5. Refresh of Server Capabilities Information..................11
   3.2. Effect of TLS on Authorization State..........................11
   3.3. TLS Ciphersuites..............................................11
   4. Authorization State.............................................12
   5. Bind Operation..................................................13
   5.1. Simple Authentication Method..................................13
   5.1.1. Anonymous Authentication Mechanism of Simple Bind...........13
   5.1.2. Unauthenticated Authentication Mechanism of Simple Bind.....13
   5.1.3. Name/Password Authentication Mechanism of Simple Bind.......14
   5.2. SASL Authentication Method....................................15
   5.2.1. SASL Protocol Profile.......................................15 SASL Service Name for LDAP................................15 SASL Authentication Initiation and Protocol Exchange......15 Optional Fields...........................................16 Octet Where Negotiated Security Layers Take Effect........17 Determination of Supported SASL Mechanisms................17 Rules for Using SASL Layers...............................17 Support for Multiple Authentications......................18 SASL Authorization Identities.............................18
   5.2.2. SASL Semantics Within LDAP..................................19
   5.2.3. SASL EXTERNAL Authentication Mechanism......................19 Implicit Assertion........................................19 Explicit Assertion........................................20
   6. Security Considerations.........................................20
   6.1. General LDAP Security Considerations..........................20
   6.2. StartTLS Security Considerations..............................20 Considerations..............................21
   6.3. Bind Operation Security Considerations........................21
   6.3.1. Unauthenticated Mechanism Security Considerations...........21
   6.3.2. Name/Password Mechanism Security Considerations.............21 Considerations.............22
   6.3.3. Password-related Security Considerations....................22
   6.3.4. Hashed Password Security Considerations.....................23
   6.4.SASL Security Considerations...................................23
   6.5. Related Security Considerations...............................23
   7. IANA Considerations.............................................23 Considerations.............................................24
   8. Acknowledgments.................................................23 Acknowledgments.................................................24
   9. Normative References............................................23 References............................................24
   10. Informative References.........................................25
   Author's Address...................................................25 Address...................................................26
   Appendix A. Authentication and Authorization Concepts..............25 Concepts..............26
   A.1. Access Control Policy.........................................26
   A.2. Access Control Factors........................................26
   A.3. Authentication, Credentials, Identity.........................26 Identity.........................27
   A.4. Authorization Identity........................................26 Identity........................................27
   Appendix B. Summary of Changes.....................................27
   B.1. Changes Made to RFC 2251......................................27 2251......................................28
   B.1.1. Section 4.2.1 (Sequencing of the Bind Request)..............27 Request)..............28
   B.1.2. Section 4.2.2 (Authentication and Other Security Services)..28
   B.2. Changes Made to RFC 2829......................................28
   B.2.1. Section 4 (Required security mechanisms)....................28 mechanisms)....................29
   B.2.2. Section 5.1 (Anonymous authentication procedure)............28 procedure)............29
   B.2.3. Section 6 (Password-based authentication)...................28 authentication)...................29
   B.2.4. Section 6.1 (Digest authentication).........................28 authentication).........................29
   B.2.5. Section 6.2 ("simple" authentication choice with TLS).......29
   B.2.6. Section 6.3 (Other authentication choices with TLS).........29
   B.2.7. Section 7.1 (Certificate-based authentication with TLS).....29 TLS).....30
   B.2.8. Section 8 (Other mechanisms)................................29 mechanisms)................................30
   B.2.9. Section 9 (Authorization identity)..........................29 identity)..........................30
   B.2.10. Section 10 (TLS Ciphersuites)..............................29 Ciphersuites)..............................30
   B.3. Changes Made to RFC 2830: ....................................30
   B.3.1. Section 3.6 (Server Identity Check).........................30
   B.3.2. Section 3.7 (Refresh of Server Capabilities Information)....30 Information)....31
   B.3.3. Section 5.2 (Effects of TLS on Authorization Identity)......30 Identity)......31
   B.3.4. Section 5.1.1 (TLS Closure Effects).........................30 Effects).........................31
   Appendix C. Changes for draft-ldapbis-authmeth-18..................30 draft-ldapbis-authmeth-19..................31
   Intellectual Property Rights.......................................31 Rights.......................................32
   Full Copyright Statement...........................................32 Statement...........................................33

1. Introduction
   The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [Roadmap] is a
   powerful protocol for accessing directories.  It offers means of
   searching, retrieving and manipulating directory content and ways to
   access a rich set of security functions.

   It is vital that these security functions be interoperable among all
   LDAP clients and servers on the Internet; therefore there has to be
   a minimum subset of security functions that is common to all
   implementations that claim LDAP conformance.

   Basic threats to an LDAP directory service include (but are not
   limited to):

   (1) Unauthorized access to directory data via data-retrieval

   (2) Unauthorized access to directory data by monitoring access of

   (3) Unauthorized access to reusable client authentication
       information by monitoring access of others.

   (4) Unauthorized modification of directory data.

   (5) Unauthorized modification of configuration information.

   (6) Denial of Service: Use of resources (commonly in excess) in a
       manner intended to deny service to others.

   (7) Spoofing: Tricking a user or client into believing that
       information came from the directory when in fact it did not,
       either by modifying data in transit or misdirecting the client's
       transport connection.  Tricking a user or client into sending
       privileged information to a hostile entity that appears to be
       the directory server but is not.  Tricking a directory server
       into believing that information came from a particular client
       when in fact it came from a hostile entity.

   (8) Hijacking: An attacker seizes control of an established protocol

   Threats (1), (4), (5), (6), (7) are (8) are active attacks.  Threats
   (2) and (3) are passive attacks.

   Threats (1), (4), (5) and (6) are due to hostile clients.  Threats
   (2), (3), (7) and (8) are due to hostile agents on the path between
   client and server or hostile agents posing as a server, e.g. e.g., IP

   LDAP offers the following security mechanisms:

   (1) Authentication by means of the Bind operation.  The Bind
       operation provides a simple method which supports anonymous,
       unauthenticated, and name/password mechanisms, and the Secure Simple
       Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) method which supports a
       wide variety of authentication mechanisms.

   (2) Mechanisms to support vendor-specific access control facilities
       (LDAP does not offer a standard access control facility).

   (3) Data integrity service by means of security layers in Transport
       Layer Security (TLS) or SASL mechanisms.

   (4) Data confidentiality service by means of security layers in TLS
       or SASL mechanisms.

   (5) Server resource usage limitation by means of administrative
       limits configured on the server.

   (6) Server authentication by means of the TLS protocol or SASL

   LDAP may also be protected by means outside the LDAP protocol, e.g. e.g.,
   with IP-level security [RFC2401]. [RFC4301].

   Experience has shown that simply allowing implementations to pick
   and choose the security mechanisms that will be implemented is not a
   strategy that leads to interoperability.  In the absence of
   mandates, clients will continue to be written that do not support
   any security function supported by the server, or worse, they will
   only support mechanisms that provide inadequate security for most

   It is desirable to allow clients to authenticate using a variety of
   mechanisms including mechanisms where identities are represented as
   distinguished names [X.501][Models] in string form [LDAPDN] or as
   used in different systems (e.g. (e.g., simple user names [RFC4013]).
   Because some authentication mechanisms transmit credentials in plain
   text form, and/or do not provide data security services and/or are
   subject to passive attacks, it is necessary to ensure secure
   interoperability by identifying a mandatory-to-implement mechanism
   for establishing transport-layer security services.

   The set of security mechanisms provided in LDAP and described in
   this document is intended to meet the security needs for a wide
   range of deployment scenarios and still provide a high degree of
   interoperability among various LDAP implementations and deployments.

1.1. Relationship to Other Documents

   This document is an integral part of the LDAP Technical
   Specification [Roadmap].

   This document, together with [Roadmap], [Protocol], and [Models],
   obsoletes RFC 2251 in its entirety. Sections 4.2.1 (portions), and
   4.2.2 of RFC 2251 are obsoleted by this document. Appendix  B.1
   summarizes the substantive changes made to RFC 2251 by this document.

   This document obsoletes RFC 2829 in its entirety. Appendix B.2
   summarizes the substantive changes made to RFC 2829 by this document.

   Sections 2 and 4 of RFC 2830 are obsoleted by [Protocol].  The
   remainder of RFC 2830 is obsoleted by this document. Appendix B.3
   summarizes the substantive changes made to RFC 2830 by this document.

1.2. Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
   "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
   described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   The term "user" represents any human or application entity which is
   accessing the directory using a directory client.  A directory
   client (or client) is also known as a directory user agent (DUA).

   The term "transport connection" refers to the underlying transport
   services used to carry the protocol exchange, as well as
   associations established by these services.

   The term "TLS layer" refers to TLS services used in providing
   security services, as well as associations established by these

   The term "SASL layer" refers to SASL services used in providing
   security services, as well as associations established by these

   The term "LDAP message layer" refers to the LDAP Message (PDU)
   services used in providing directory services, as well as
   associations established by these services.

   The term "LDAP session" refers to combined services (transport
   connection, TLS layer, SASL layer, LDAP message layer) and their

   In general, security terms in this document are used consistently
   with the definitions provided in [RFC2828].  In addition, several
   terms and concepts relating to security, authentication, and
   authorization are presented in Appendix A of this document.  While
   the formal definition of these terms and concepts is outside the
   scope of this document, an understanding of them is prerequisite to
   understanding much of the material in this document.  Readers who
   are unfamiliar with security-related concepts are encouraged to
   review Appendix A before reading the remainder of this document.

2. Implementation Requirements

   LDAP server implementations MUST support the anonymous
   authentication mechanism of the simple Bind method (section 5.1.1).

   LDAP implementations that support any authentication mechanism other
   than the anonymous authentication mechanism of the simple Bind
   method MUST support the name/password authentication mechanism of
   the simple Bind method (section 5.1.3) and MUST be capable of
   protecting this name/password authentication using TLS as
   established by the StartTLS operation (section 3).

   Implementations SHOULD disallow the use of the name/password
   authentication mechanism by default when suitable data security
   services are not in place, and MAY provide other suitable data
   security services for use with this authentication mechanism.

   Implementations MAY support additional authentication mechanisms.
   Some of these mechanisms are discussed below.

   LDAP server implementations SHOULD support client assertion of
   authorization identity via the SASL EXTERNAL mechanism (section

   LDAP server implementations that support no authentication mechanism
   other than the anonymous mechanism of the simple bind method SHOULD
   support use of TLS as established by the the StartTLS operation
   (section 3).  (Other servers MUST support TLS per the second
   paragraph of this section.)

   Implementations supporting TLS MUST support the
   TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA ciphersuite and SHOULD support the
   TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA ciphersuite.  Support for the
   latter ciphersuite is recommended to encourage interoperability with
   implementations conforming to earlier LDAP StartTLS specifications.

3. StartTLS Operation

   The Start Transport Layer Security (StartTLS) operation defined in
   section 4.14 of [Protocol] provides the ability to establish TLS
   [TLS] in an LDAP session.

   The goals of using the TLS [TLS] protocol with LDAP are to ensure
   data confidentiality and integrity, and to optionally provide for
   authentication.  TLS expressly provides these capabilities, although
   the authentication services of TLS are available to LDAP only in
   combination with the SASL EXTERNAL authentication method (see
   section 5.2.3), and then only if the SASL EXTERNAL implementation
   chooses to make use of the TLS credentials.

3.1. TLS Establishment Procedures
   This section describes the overall procedures clients and servers
   must follow for TLS establishment.  These procedures take into
   consideration various aspects of the TLS layer including discovery
   of resultant security level and assertion of the client's
   authorization identity.

3.1.1. StartTLS Request Sequencing

   A client may send the StartTLS extended request at any time after
   establishing an LDAP session, except:

      - when TLS is currently established on the session,
      - when a multi-stage SASL negotiation is in progress on the
        session, or
      - when there are outstanding responses for operation requests
        previously issued on the session.

   As described in [Protocol] Section 4.14.1, a (detected) violation of
   any of these requirements results in a return of the operationsError

   Client implementers should ensure that they strictly follow these
   operation sequencing requirements to prevent interoperability
   issues.  Operational experience has shown that violating these
   requirements causes interoperability issues because there are race
   conditions that prevent servers from detecting some violations of
   these requirements due to factors such as server hardware speed and
   network latencies.

   There is no general requirement that the client have or have not
   already performed a Bind operation (section 5) before sending a
   StartTLS operation request, however where a client intends to
   perform both a Bind operation and a StartTLS operation, it SHOULD
   first perform the StartTLS operation so that the Bind request and
   response messages are protected by the data security services
   established by the StartTLS operation.

3.1.2. Client Certificate

   If an LDAP server requests or demands that a client provide a user
   certificate during TLS negotiation and the client does not present a
   suitable user certificate (e.g. (e.g., one that can be validated), the
   server may use a local security policy to determine whether to
   successfully complete TLS negotiation.

   If a client that has provided a suitable certificate subsequently
   performs a Bind operation using the SASL EXTERNAL authentication
   mechanism (section 5.2.3), information in the certificate may be
   used by the server to identify and authenticate the client.

3.1.3. Server Identity Check
   In order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks the client MUST verify
   the server's identity (as presented in the server's Certificate
   message).  In this section, the client's understanding of the
   server's identity (typically the identity used to establish the
   transport connection) is called the "reference identity".

   The client determines the type (e.g. (e.g., DNS name or IP address) of the
   reference identity and performs a comparison between the reference
   identity and each subjectAltName value of the corresponding type
   until a match is produced.  Once a match is produced, the server's
   identity has been verified and the server identity check is
   complete. Different subjectAltName types are matched in different
   ways.  Sections - explain how to compare values of
   various subjectAltName types.

   The client may map the reference identity to a different type prior
   to performing a comparison. Mappings may be performed for all
   available subjectAltName types to which the reference identity can
   be mapped, however the reference identity should only be mapped to
   types for which the mapping is either inherently secure (e.g. (e.g.,
   extracting the DNS name from a URI to compare with a subjectAltName
   of type dNSName) or for which the mapping is performed in a secure
   manner (e.g. (e.g., using DNSSec, or using user- (or admin-) configured
   host-to-address/address-to-host lookup tables).

   The server's identity may also be verified by comparing the
   reference identity to the Common Name (CN) [Schema] value in the
   leaf RDN of the subjectName field of the server's certificate.  This
   comparison is performed using the rules for comparison of DNS names
   in section below, with the exception that no wildcard
   matching is allowed.  Although the use of the Common Name value is
   existing practice, it is deprecated and Certification Authorities
   are encouraged to provide subjectAltName values instead.  Note that
   the TLS implementation may represent DNs in certificates according
   to X.500 or other conventions.  For example, some X.500
   implementations order the RDNs in a DN using a left-to-right (most
   significant to least significant) convention instead of LDAP's
   right-to-left convention.

   If the server identity check fails, user-oriented clients SHOULD
   either notify the user (clients may give the user the opportunity to
   continue with the LDAP session in this case) or close the transport
   connection and indicate that the server's identity is suspect.
   Automated clients SHOULD close the transport connection and then
   return or log an error indicating that the server's identity is
   suspect or both.

   Beyond the server identity check described in this section, clients
   should be prepared to do further checking to ensure that the server
   is authorized to provide the service it is requested to provide.
   The client may need to make use of local policy information in
   making this determination. Comparison of DNS Names

   If the reference identity is an internationalized domain name,
   conforming implementations MUST convert it to the ASCII Compatible
   Encoding (ACE) format as specified in section 4 of RFC 3490
   [RFC3490] before comparison with subjectAltName values of type
   dNSName.  Specifically, conforming implementations MUST perform the
   conversion operation specified in section 4 of RFC 3490 as follows:

         * in step 1, the domain name SHALL be considered a "stored
         * in step 3, set the flag called "UseSTD3ASCIIRules";
         * in step 4, process each label with the "ToASCII"
           operation; and
         * in step 5, change all label separators to U+002E (full

   After performing the "to-ASCII" conversion, the DNS labels and names
   MUST be compared for equality according to the rules specified in
   section 3 of RFC3490.

   The '*' (ASCII 42) wildcard character is allowed in subjectAltName
   values of type dNSName and then only as the left-most (least
   significant) DNS label in that value.  This wildcard matches any
   left-most DNS label in the server name.  That is, the subject
   * matches the server names and but does not match or Comparison of IP Addresses

   When the reference identity is an IP address, the identity MUST be
   converted to the "network byte order" octet string representation
   [RFC791][RFC2460].  For IP Version 4, as specified in RFC 791, the
   octet string will contain exactly four octets.  For IP Version 6, as
   specified in RFC 2460, the octet string will contain exactly sixteen
   octets.  This octet string is then compared against subjectAltName
   values of type iPAddress.  A match occurs if the reference identity
   octet string and value octet strings are identical. Comparison of other subjectName types

   Client implementations MAY support matching against subjectAltName
   values of other types as described in other documents.

3.1.4. Discovery of Resultant Security Level
   After a TLS layer is established in an LDAP session, both parties
   are to each independently decide whether or not to continue based on
   local policy and the security level achieved.  If either party
   decides that the security level is inadequate for it to continue, it
   SHOULD remove the TLS layer immediately after the TLS
   (re)negotiation has completed (see [Protocol] section 4.14.3 and
   section 3.2 below).  Implementations may reevaluate the security
   level at any time and, upon finding it inadequate, should remove the
   TLS layer.

3.1.5. Refresh of Server Capabilities Information

   After a TLS layer is established in an LDAP session, the client
   SHOULD discard or refresh all information about the server it
   obtained prior to the initiation of the TLS negotiation and not
   obtained through secure mechanisms. This protects against man-in-
   the-middle attacks that may have altered any server capabilities
   information retrieved prior to TLS layer installation.

   The server may advertise different capabilities after installing a
   TLS layer.  In particular, the value of 'supportedSASLMechanisms'
   may be different after a TLS layer has been installed (specifically,
   the EXTERNAL and PLAIN [PLAIN] mechanisms are likely to be listed
   only after a TLS layer has been installed).

3.2. Effect of TLS on Authorization State

   The establishment, change, and/or closure of TLS may cause the
   authorization state to move to a new state.  This is discussed
   further in Section 4.

3.3. TLS Ciphersuites

   Several issues should be considered when selecting TLS ciphersuites
   that are appropriate for use in a given circumstance.  These issues
   include the following:

     - The ciphersuite's ability to provide adequate confidentiality
       protection for passwords and other data sent over the transport
       connection.  Client and server implementers should recognize
       that some TLS ciphersuites provide no confidentiality protection
       while other ciphersuites that do provide confidentiality
       protection may be vulnerable to being cracked using brute force
       methods, especially in light of ever-increasing CPU speeds that
       reduce the time needed to successfully mount such attacks.

     - Client and server implementers should carefully consider the
       value of the password or data being protected versus the level
       of confidentiality protection provided by the ciphersuite to
       ensure that the level of protection afforded by the ciphersuite
       is appropriate.

     - The ciphersuite's vulnerability (or lack thereof) to man-in-the-
       middle attacks.  Ciphersuites vulnerable to man-in-the-middle
       attacks SHOULD NOT be used to protect passwords or sensitive
       data, unless the network configuration is such that the danger
       of a man-in-the-middle attack is tolerable. negligible.

     - After a TLS negotiation (either initial or subsequent) is
       completed, both protocol peers should independently verify that
       the security services provided by the negotiated ciphersuite are
       adequate for the intended use of the LDAP session.  If not, the
       TLS layer should be closed.

4. Authorization State

   Every LDAP session has an associated authorization state.  This
   state is comprised of numerous factors such as what (if any)
   authorization state has been established, how it was established,
   and what security services are in place.  Some factors may be
   determined and/or affected by protocol events (e.g. (e.g., Bind, StartTLS,
   or TLS closure), and some factors may be determined by external
   events (e.g. (e.g., time of day or server load).

   While it is often convenient to view authorization state in
   simplistic terms (as we often do in this technical specification)
   such as "an anonymous state", it is noted that authorization systems
   in LDAP implementations commonly involve many factors which
   interrelate in complex manners.

   Authorization in LDAP is a local matter.  One of the key factors in
   making authorization decisions is authorization identity.  The Bind
   operation defined in section 4.2 of [Protocol] and discussed further
   in section 5 below allows information to be exchanged between the
   client and server to establish an authorization identity for the
   LDAP session.  The Bind operation may also be used to move the LDAP
   session to an anonymous authorization state (see section 5.1.1).

   Upon initial establishment of the LDAP session, the session has an
   anonymous authorization identity.  Among other things this implies
   that the client need not send a BindRequest in the first PDU of the
   LDAP message layer.  The client may send any operation request prior
   to performing a Bind operation, and the server MUST treat it as if
   it had been performed after an anonymous Bind operation (section

   Upon receipt of a Bind request, the server immediately moves the
   session to an anonymous authorization state.  If the Bind request is
   successful, the session is moved to the requested authentication
   state with its associated authorization state.  Otherwise, the
   session remains in an anonymous state.

   It is noted that other events both internal and external to LDAP may
   result in the authentication and authorization states being moved to
   an anonymous one.  For instance, the establishment, change or
   closure of data security services may result in a move to an
   anonymous state, or the user's credential information (e.g. (e.g.,
   certificate) may have expired.  The former is an example of an event
   internal to LDAP whereas the latter is an example of an event
   external to LDAP.

5. Bind Operation

   The Bind operation ([Protocol] section 4.2) allows authentication
   information to be exchanged between the client and server to
   establish a new authorization state.

   The Bind request typically specifies the desired authentication
   identity.  Some Bind mechanisms also allow the client to specify the
   authorization identity.  If the authorization identity is not
   specified, the server derives it from the authentication identity in
   an implementation-specific manner.

   If the authorization identity is specified, the server MUST verify
   that the client's authentication identity is permitted to assume
   (e.g., proxy for) the asserted authorization identity.  The server
   MUST reject the Bind operation with an invalidCredentials resultCode
   in the Bind response if the client is not so authorized.

5.1. Simple Authentication Method

   The simple authentication method of the Bind Operation provides
   three authentication mechanisms:

     - An anonymous authentication mechanism (section 5.1.1).

     - An unauthenticated authentication mechanism (section 5.1.2).

     - A name/password authentication mechanism using credentials
       consisting of a name (in the form of an LDAP distinguished name
       [LDAPDN]) and a password (section 5.1.3).

5.1.1. Anonymous Authentication Mechanism of Simple Bind

   An LDAP client may use the anonymous authentication mechanism of the
   simple Bind method to explicitly establish an anonymous
   authorization state by sending a Bind request with a name value of
   zero length and specifying the simple authentication choice
   containing a password value of zero length.

5.1.2. Unauthenticated Authentication Mechanism of Simple Bind
   An LDAP client may use the unauthenticated authentication mechanism
   of the simple Bind method to establish an anonymous authorization
   state by sending a Bind request with a name value (a distinguished
   name in LDAP string form [LDAPDN] of non-zero length) and specifying
   the simple authentication choice containing a password value of zero

   The distinguished name value provided by the client is intended to
   be used for trace (e.g. (e.g., logging) purposes only.  The value is not
   to be authenticated or otherwise validated (including verification
   that the DN refers to an existing directory object).  The value is
   not to be used (directly or indirectly) for authorization purposes.

   Unauthenticated Bind operations can have significant security issues
   (see section 6.3.1).  In particular, users intending to perform
   Name/Password Authentication may inadvertently provide an empty
   password and thus cause poorly implemented clients to request
   Unauthenticated access.  Clients SHOULD be implemented to require
   user selection of the Unauthenticated Authentication Mechanism by
   means other than user input of an empty password.  Clients SHOULD
   disallow an empty password input to a Name/Password Authentication
   user interface.  Additionally, Servers SHOULD by default fail
   Unauthenticated Bind requests with a resultCode of

5.1.3. Name/Password Authentication Mechanism of Simple Bind

   An LDAP client may use the name/password authentication mechanism of
   the simple Bind method to establish an authenticated authorization
   state by sending a Bind request with a name value (a distinguished
   name in LDAP string form [LDAPDN] of non-zero length) and specifying
   the simple authentication choice containing an OCTET STRING password
   value of non-zero length.

   Servers that map the DN sent in the Bind request to a directory
   entry with an associated set of one or more passwords used with this
   mechanism will compare the presented password to that set of
   passwords. The presented password is considered valid if it matches
   any member of this set.

   A resultCode of invalidDNSyntax indicates that the DN sent in the
   name value is syntactically invalid.  A resultCode of
   invalidCredentials indicates that the DN is syntactically correct
   but not valid for purposes of authentication, or the password is not
   valid for the DN or the server otherwise considers the credentials
   to be invalid.  A resultCode of success indicates that the
   credentials are valid and the server is willing to provide service
   to the entity these credentials identify.

   Server behavior is undefined for Bind requests specifying the
   name/password authentication mechanism with a zero-length name value
   and a password value of non-zero length.

   The name/password authentication mechanism of the simple Bind method
   is not suitable for authentication in environments without
   confidentiality protection.

5.2. SASL Authentication Method

   The sasl authentication method of the Bind Operation provides
   facilities for using any SASL mechanism including authentication
   mechanisms and other services (e.g. (e.g., data security services).

5.2.1. SASL Protocol Profile

   LDAP allows authentication via any SASL mechanism [SASL].  As LDAP
   includes native anonymous and name/password (plain text)
   authentication methods, the ANONYMOUS [ANONYMOUS] and PLAIN [PLAIN]
   SASL mechanisms are typically not used with LDAP.

   Each protocol that utilizes SASL services is required to supply
   certain information profiling the way they are exposed through the
   protocol ([SASL] section 4).  This section explains how each of
   these profiling requirements are met by LDAP. SASL Service Name for LDAP

   The SASL service name for LDAP is "ldap", which has been registered
   with the IANA as a SASL service name. SASL Authentication Initiation and Protocol Exchange

   SASL authentication is initiated via a BindRequest message
   ([Protocol] section 4.2) with the following parameters:

      - The version is 3.
      - The AuthenticationChoice is sasl.
      - The mechanism element of the SaslCredentials sequence contains
        the value of the desired SASL mechanism.
      - The optional credentials field of the SaslCredentials sequence
        MAY be used to provide an initial client response for
        mechanisms that are defined to have the client send data first
        (see [SASL] sections 3 and 5 ).

   In general, a SASL authentication protocol exchange consists of a
   series of server challenges and client responses, the contents of
   which are specific to and defined by the SASL mechanism.  Thus for
   some SASL authentication mechanisms, it may be necessary for the
   client to respond to one or more server challenges by sending
   BindRequest messages multiple times.  A challenge is indicated by
   the server sending a BindResponse message with the resultCode set to
   saslBindInProgress.  This indicates that the server requires the
   client to send a new BindRequest message with the same SASL
   mechanism to continue the authentication process.

   To the LDAP message layer, these challenges and responses are opaque
   binary tokens of arbitrary length.  LDAP servers use the
   serverSaslCreds field (an OCTET STRING) in a BindResponse message to
   transmit each challenge.  LDAP clients use the credentials field
   (an OCTET STRING) in the SaslCredentials sequence of a BindRequest
   message to transmit each response.  Note that unlike some Internet
   protocols where SASL is used, LDAP is not text based and does not
   Base64-transform these challenge and response values.

   Clients sending a BindRequest message with the sasl choice selected
   SHOULD send a zero-length value in the name field.  Servers
   receiving a BindRequest message with the sasl choice selected SHALL
   ignore any value in the name field.

   A client may abort a SASL Bind negotiation by sending a BindRequest
   message with a different value in the mechanism field of
   SaslCredentials or with an AuthenticationChoice other than sasl.

   If the client sends a BindRequest with the sasl mechanism field as
   an empty string, the server MUST return a BindResponse with a
   resultCode of authMethodNotSupported.  This will allow the client to
   abort a negotiation if it wishes to try again with the same SASL

   The server indicates completion of the SASL challenge-response
   exchange by responding with a BindResponse in which the resultCode
   value is not saslBindInProgress.

   The serverSaslCreds field in the BindResponse can be used to include
   an optional challenge with a success notification for mechanisms
   which are defined to have the server send additional data along with
   the indication of successful completion. Optional Fields

   As discussed above, LDAP provides an optional field for carrying an
   initial response in the message initiating the SASL exchange and
   provides an optional field for carrying additional data in the
   message indicating outcome of the authentication exchange.  As the
   mechanism-specific content in these fields may be zero-length, SASL
   requires protocol specifications to detail how an empty field is
   distinguished from an absent field.

   Zero-length initial response data is distinguished from no initial
   response data in the initiating message, a BindRequest PDU, by the
   presence of the SaslCredentials.credentials OCTET STRING (of length
   zero) in that PDU.   If the client does not intend to send an
   initial response with the BindRequest initiating the SASL exchange,
   it MUST omit the SaslCredentials.credentials OCTET STRING (rather
   than including an zero-length OCTET STRING).

   Zero-length additional data is distinguished from no additional
   response data in the outcome message, a BindResponse PDU, by the
   presence of the serverSaslCreds OCTET STRING (of length zero) in
   that PDU.  If a server does not intend to send additional data in
   the BindResponse message indicating outcome of the exchange, the
   server SHALL omit the serverSaslCreds OCTET STRING (rather than
   including a zero-length OCTET STRING). Octet Where Negotiated Security Layers Take Effect

   SASL layers take effect following the transmission by the server and
   reception by the client of the final BindResponse in the SASL
   exchange with a resultCode of success.

   Once a SASL layer providing data integrity or confidentiality
   services takes effect, the layer remains in effect until a new layer
   is installed (i.e. at the first octet following the final
   BindResponse of the Bind operation that caused the new layer to take
   effect).  Thus, an established SASL layer is not affected by a
   failed or non-SASL Bind. Determination of Supported SASL Mechanisms

   Clients may determine the SASL mechanisms a server supports by
   reading the 'supportedSASLMechanisms' attribute from the root DSE
   (DSA-Specific Entry) ([Models] section 5.1).  The values of this
   attribute, if any, list the mechanisms the server supports in the
   current LDAP session state.  LDAP servers SHOULD allow all clients--
   even those with an anonymous authorization--to retrieve the
   'supportedSASLMechanisms' attribute of the root DSE. DSE both before and
   after the SASL authentication exchange.  The purpose of the latter
   is to allow the client to detect possible downgrade attacks (see
   section 6.4 and [SASL] section 6.1.2).

   Because SASL mechanisms provide critical security functions, clients
   and servers should be configurable to specify what mechanisms are
   acceptable and allow only those mechanisms to be used.  Both clients
   and servers must confirm that the negotiated security level meets
   their requirements before proceeding to use the session. Rules for Using SASL Layers
   Upon installing a SASL layer, the client SHOULD discard or refresh
   all information about the server it obtained prior to the initiation
   of the SASL negotiation and not obtained through secure mechanisms.

   If a lower level security layer (such as TLS) is installed, any SASL
   layer SHALL be layered on top of such security layers regardless of
   the order of their negotiation.  In all other respects, the SASL
   layer and other security layers act independently, e.g. e.g., if both a
   TLS layer and a SASL layer are in effect then removing the SASL TLS layer
   does not affect the continuing service of the TLS layer and
   vice versa. SASL layer. Support for Multiple Authentications

   LDAP supports multiple SASL authentications as defined in [SASL]
   section 4. SASL Authorization Identities

   Some SASL mechanisms allow clients to request a desired
   authorization identity for the LDAP session ([SASL] section 3.4.
   The decision to allow or disallow the current authentication
   identity to have access to the requested authorization identity is a
   matter of local policy.  The authorization identity is a string of
   UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded [Unicode] characters corresponding to the
   following ABNF [RFC2234bis] grammar:

        authzId = dnAuthzId / uAuthzId

        ; distinguished-name-based authz id
        dnAuthzId =  "dn:" distinguishedName

        ; unspecified authorization id, UTF-8 encoded
        uAuthzId = "u:" userid
        userid = *UTF8    ; syntax unspecified

   where the distinguishedName rule is defined in section 3 of [LDAPDN]
   and the UTF8 rule is defined in section 1.4 of [Models].

   The dnAuthzId choice is used to assert authorization identities in
   the form of a distinguished name to be matched in accordance with
   the distinguishedNameMatch matching rule [Syntaxes].  There is no
   requirement that the asserted distinguishedName value be that of an
   entry in the directory.

   The uAuthzId choice allows clients to assert an authorization
   identity that is not in distinguished name form.  The format of
   userid is defined only as a sequence of UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded
   [Unicode] characters, and any further interpretation is a local
   matter.  For example, the userid could identify a user of a specific
   directory service, be a login name or be an email address.  A
   uAuthzId SHOULD NOT be assumed to be globally unique.  To compare
   uAuthzID values, each uAuthzID value MUST be prepared as a "query"
   string using [RFC4013] and then the two values are compared octet-

   The above grammar is extensible.  The authzId production may be
   extended to support additional forms of identities.  Each form is
   distinguished by its unique prefix (see section 3.12 of [LDAPIANA]
   for registration requirements).

5.2.2. SASL Semantics Within LDAP

   Implementers must take care to maintain the semantics of SASL
   specifications when handling data that has different semantics in
   the LDAP protocol.

   For example, the SASL DIGEST-MD5 authentication mechanism [RFC2829]
   utilizes an authentication identity and a realm which are
   syntactically simple strings and semantically simple username and
   realm values ([DIGEST-MD5] section 2.1). These values are not LDAP
   DNs, and there is no requirement that they be represented or treated
   as such.

5.2.3. SASL EXTERNAL Authentication Mechanism

   A client can use the SASL EXTERNAL [SASL] mechanism to request the
   LDAP server to authenticate and establish a resulting authorization
   identity using security credentials exchanged by a lower security
   layer (such as by TLS authentication or IP-level security
   [RFC2401]). authentication).  If the client's
   authentication credentials have not been established at a lower
   security layer, the SASL EXTERNAL Bind MUST fail with a resultCode
   of inappropriateAuthentication.  Although this situation has the
   effect of leaving the LDAP session in an anonymous state (section
   4), the state of any installed security layer is unaffected.

   A client may either request that its authorization identity be
   automatically derived from its authentication credentials exchanged
   at a lower security layer or it may explicitly provide a desired
   authorization identity.  The former is known as an implicit
   assertion, and the latter as an explicit assertion. Implicit Assertion
   An implicit authorization identity assertion is performed by
   invoking a Bind request of the SASL form using the EXTERNAL
   mechanism name that does not include the optional credentials field
   (found within the SaslCredentials sequence in the BindRequest).  The
   server will derive the client's authorization identity from the
   authentication identity supplied by a security layer (e.g. (e.g., a public
   key certificate used during TLS layer installation) according to
   local policy.  The underlying mechanics of how this is accomplished
   are implementation specific. Explicit Assertion

   An explicit authorization identity assertion is performed by
   invoking a Bind request of the SASL form using the EXTERNAL
   mechanism name that includes the credentials field (found within the
   SaslCredentials sequence in the BindRequest).  The value of the
   credentials field (an OCTET STRING) is the asserted authorization
   identity and MUST be constructed as documented in section

6. Security Considerations

   Security issues are discussed throughout this document.  The
   unsurprising conclusion is that security is an integral and
   necessary part of LDAP.  This section discusses a number of LDAP-
   related security considerations.

6.1. General LDAP Security Considerations

   LDAP itself provides no security or protection from accessing or
   updating the directory by other means than through the LDAP
   protocol, e.g. e.g., from inspection of server database files by database

   Sensitive data may be carried in almost any LDAP message and its
   disclosure may be subject to privacy laws or other legal regulation
   in many countries.  Implementers should take appropriate measures to
   protect sensitive data from disclosure to unauthorized entities.

   A session on which the client has not established data integrity and
   privacy services (e.g (e.g., via StartTLS, IPSec IPsec or a suitable SASL
   mechanism) is subject to man-in-the-middle attacks to view and
   modify information in transit.  Client and server implementers
   SHOULD take measures to protect sensitive data in the LDAP session
   from these attacks by using data protection services as discussed in
   this document.  Clients and servers should provide the ability to be
   configured to require these protections.  A resultCode of
   confidentialityRequired indicates that the server requires
   establishment of (stronger) data confidentiality protection in order
   to perform the requested operation.

   Access control should always be applied when reading sensitive
   information or updating directory information.

   Various security factors, including authentication and authorization
   information and data security services may change during the course
   of the LDAP session, or even during the performance of a particular
   operation.  Implementations should be robust in the handling of
   changing security factors.

6.2. StartTLS Security Considerations

   All security gained via use of the StartTLS operation is gained by
   the use of TLS itself.  The StartTLS operation, on its own, does not
   provide any additional security.

   The level of security provided through the use of TLS depends
   directly on both the quality of the TLS implementation used and the
   style of usage of that implementation.  Additionally, a man-in-the-
   middle attacker can remove the StartTLS extended operation from the
   'supportedExtension' attribute of the root DSE.  Both parties SHOULD
   independently ascertain and consent to the security level achieved
   once TLS is established and before beginning use of the TLS-
   protected session.  For example, the security level of the TLS layer
   might have been negotiated down to plaintext.

   Clients SHOULD by default MUST either warn the user when the security level achieved
   does not provide an acceptable level of data confidentiality and/or
   data integrity protection, or be configured configurable to refuse to proceed
   without an acceptable level of security.

   As stated in section 3.1.2, a server may use a local security policy
   to determine whether to successfully complete TLS negotiation.
   Information in the user's certificate that is originated or verified
   by the certification authority should be used by the policy
   administrator when configuring the identification and authorization

   Server implementers SHOULD allow server administrators to elect
   whether and when data confidentiality and integrity are required, as
   well as elect whether authentication of the client during the TLS
   handshake is required.

   Implementers should be aware of and understand TLS security
   considerations as discussed in the TLS specification [TLS].

6.3. Bind Operation Security Considerations

   This section discusses several security considerations relevant to
   LDAP authentication via the Bind operation.

6.3.1. Unauthenticated Mechanism Security Considerations
   Operational experience shows that clients can (and frequently do)
   misuse the unauthenticated authentication mechanism of the simple
   Bind method (see section 5.1.2).  For example, a client program
   might make a decision to grant access to non-directory information
   on the basis of successfully completing a Bind operation.  LDAP
   server implementations may return a success response to an
   unauthenticated Bind request.  This may erroneously leave the client
   with the impression that the server has successfully authenticated
   the identity represented by the distinguished name when in reality,
   an anonymous authorization state has been established.  Clients that
   use the results from a simple Bind operation to make authorization
   decisions should actively detect unauthenticated Bind requests (by
   verifying that the supplied password is not empty) and react

6.3.2. Name/Password Mechanism Security Considerations

   The name/password authentication mechanism of the simple Bind method
   discloses the password to the server, which is an inherent security
   risk.  There are other mechanisms such as SASL DIGEST-MD5 [RFC2829]
   that do not disclose the password to the server.

6.3.3. Password-related Security Considerations

   LDAP allows multi-valued password attributes.  In systems where
   entries are expected to have one and only one password,
   administrative controls should be provided to enforce this behavior.

   The use of clear text passwords and other unprotected authentication
   credentials is strongly discouraged over open networks when the
   underlying transport service cannot guarantee confidentiality.  LDAP
   implementations SHOULD NOT by default support authentication methods
   using clear text passwords and other unprotected authentication
   credentials unless the data on the session is protected using TLS or
   other data confidentiality and data integrity protection.

   The transmission of passwords in the clear--typically for
   authentication or modification--poses a significant security risk.
   This risk can be avoided by using SASL authentication [SASL]
   mechanisms that do not transmit passwords in the clear or by
   negotiating transport or session layer data confidentiality services
   before transmitting password values.

   To mitigate the security risks associated with the transfer of
   passwords, a server implementation that supports any password-based
   authentication mechanism that transmits passwords in the clear MUST
   support a policy mechanism that at the time of authentication or
   password modification, requires:

        A TLS layer has been successfully installed.


        Some other data confidentiality mechanism that protects the
        password value from eavesdropping has been provided.


        The server returns a resultCode of confidentialityRequired for
        the operation (i.e. name/password Bind with password value,
        SASL Bind transmitting a password value in the clear, add or
        modify including a userPassword value, etc.), even if the
        password value is correct.

   Server implementations may also want to provide policy mechanisms to
   invalidate or otherwise protect accounts in situations where a
   server detects that a password for an account has been transmitted
   in the clear.

6.3.4. Hashed Password Security Considerations

   Some authentication mechanisms (e.g. (e.g., DIGEST-MD5) transmit a hash of
   the password value that may be vulnerable to offline dictionary
   attacks.  Implementers should take care to protect such hashed
   password values during transmission using TLS or other
   confidentiality mechanisms.


6.4.SASL Security Considerations

   Until data integrity service is installed on an LDAP session, an
   attacker can modify the transmitted values of the
   'supportedSASLMechanisms' attribute response and thus downgrade the
   list of available SASL mechanisms to include only the least secure
   mechanism.  To detect this type of attack, the client may retrieve
   the SASL mechanisms the server makes available both before and after
   data integrity service is installed on an LDAP session.  If the
   client finds that the integrity-protected list (the list obtained
   after data integrity service was installed) contains a stronger
   mechanism than those in the previously obtained list, the client
   should assume the previously obtained list was modified by an
   attacker.  In this circumstance it is recommended that the client
   close the underlying transport connection and then reconnect to
   reestablish the session.

6.5. Related Security Considerations

   Additional security considerations relating to the various
   authentication methods and mechanisms discussed in this document
   apply and can be found in [SASL], [RFC4013], [StringPrep] and

7. IANA Considerations

   It is requested that the IANA update the LDAP Protocol Mechanism
   registry to indicate that this document and [Protocol] provide the
   definitive technical specification for the StartTLS
   ( extended operation.

8. Acknowledgments

   This document combines information originally contained in RFC 2251,
   RFC 2829 and RFC 2830 which are products of the LDAP Extensions
   (LDAPEXT) Working Group.

   This document is a product of the IETF LDAP Revision (LDAPBIS)
   working group.

9. Normative References

   [[Note to the RFC Editor: please replace the citation tags used in
   referencing Internet-Drafts with tags of the form RFCnnnn.]]

   [LDAPDN]     Zeilenga, Kurt D. (editor), "LDAP: String
                Representation of Distinguished Names", draft-ietf-
                ldapbis-dn-xx.txt, a work in progress.

   [LDAPIANA]   Zeilenga, K., "IANA Considerations for LDAP", draft-
                ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-xx.txt, (a work in progress).

   [Matching]   Hoffman, Paul and Steve Hanna, "Matching Text Strings
                in PKIX Certificates", draft-hoffman-pkix-stringmatch-
                xx.txt, a work in progress.

   [Models]     Zeilenga, Kurt D. (editor), "LDAP: Directory
                Information Models", draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-xx.txt,
                a work in progress.

   [Protocol]   Sermersheim, J., "LDAP: The Protocol", draft-ietf-
                ldapbis-protocol-xx.txt, a work in progress.

   [RFC791]     Information Sciences Institute, "INTERNET PROTOCOL
                791, September 1981.

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

   [RFC2234bis] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
                Syntax Specifications: ABNF", draft-crocker-abnf-
                rfc2234bis-xx, a work in progress.

   [RFC2460]    Deering, S., R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
                (IPv6)", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC3490]    Falstrom, P., P. Hoffman, and A. Costello,
                "Internationalizing Domain Names In Applications
                (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.

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

   [RFC4013]    Zeilenga, K., "SASLprep: Stringprep Profile for User
                Names and Passwords", RFC 4013, February 2005.

   [Roadmap]    K. Zeilenga, "LDAP: Technical Specification Road Map",
                draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-xx.txt, a work in progress.

   [SASL]       Melnikov, A. (editor), "Simple Authentication and
                Security Layer (SASL)", draft-ietf-sasl-rfc2222bis-
                xx.txt, a work in progress.

   [Schema]     Dally, K. (editor), "LDAP: User Schema", draft-ietf-
                ldapbis-user-schema-xx.txt, a work in progress.

   [StringPrep] M. Blanchet, "Preparation of Internationalized Strings
                ('stringprep')", draft-hoffman-rfc3454bis-xx.txt, a
                work in progress.

   [Syntaxes]   Legg, S. (editor), "LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules",
                draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-xx.txt, a work in progress.

   [TLS]        Dierks, T. and C. Allen. "The TLS Protocol Version
                1.1", draft-ietf-tls-rfc2246-bis-xx.txt, a work in

   [Unicode]    The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
                3.2.0" is defined by "The Unicode Standard, Version
                3.0" (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2000. ISBN 0-201-
                61633-5), as amended by the "Unicode Standard Annex
                #27: Unicode 3.1"
                ( and by the
                "Unicode Standard Annex #28: Unicode 3.2"

10. Informative References

   [[Note to the RFC Editor: please replace the citation tags used in
   referencing Internet-Drafts with tags of the form RFCnnnn.]]

   [ANONYMOUS]  Zeilenga, K., "Anonymous SASL Mechanism", draft-
                zeilenga-sasl-anon-xx.txt, a work in progress.

   [DIGEST-MD5] Leach, P. C. Newman, and A. Melnikov, "Using Digest
                Authentication as a SASL Mechanism", draft-ietf-sasl-
                rfc2831bis-xx.txt, a work in progress.

   [PLAIN]      Zeilenga, K.,"Plain SASL Mechanism", draft-zeilenga-
                sasl-plain-xx.txt, a work in progress.

   [RFC2828]    Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary", RFC 2828, May

   [RFC2829]    Wahl, M. et al, "Authentication Methods for LDAP", RFC
                2829, May 2000.


   [RFC4301]    Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
                Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. 4301, December 2005.

Author's Address

   Roger Harrison
   Novell, Inc.
   1800 S. Novell Place
   Provo, UT 84606
   +1 801 861 2642

Appendix A. Authentication and Authorization Concepts

   This appendix is non-normative.

   This appendix defines basic terms, concepts, and interrelationships
   regarding authentication, authorization, credentials, and identity.
   These concepts are used in describing how various security
   approaches are utilized in client authentication and authorization.

A.1. Access Control Policy

   An access control policy is a set of rules defining the protection
   of resources, generally in terms of the capabilities of persons or
   other entities accessing those resources.  Security objects and
   mechanisms, such as those described here, enable the expression of
   access control policies and their enforcement.

A.2. Access Control Factors

   A request, when it is being processed by a server, may be associated
   with a wide variety of security-related factors ([Protocol] section
   4.2).  The server uses these factors to determine whether and how to
   process the request.  These are called access control factors
   (ACFs).  They might include source IP address, encryption strength,
   the type of operation being requested, time of day, etc..  Some
   factors may be specific to the request itself, others may be
   associated with the transport connection via which the request is
   transmitted, others (e.g. (e.g., time of day) may be "environmental".

   Access control policies are expressed in terms of access control
   factors.  For example, "a request having ACFs i,j,k can perform
   operation Y on resource Z." The set of ACFs that a server makes
   available for such expressions is implementation-specific.

A.3. Authentication, Credentials, Identity

   Authentication credentials are the evidence supplied by one party to
   another, asserting the identity of the supplying party (e.g. (e.g., a
   user) who is attempting to establish a new authorization state with
   the other party (typically a server).  Authentication is the process
   of generating, transmitting, and verifying these credentials and
   thus the identity they assert.  An authentication identity is the
   name presented in a credential.

   There are many forms of authentication credentials. The form used
   depends upon the particular authentication mechanism negotiated by
   the parties.  X.509 certificates, Kerberos tickets, and simple
   identity and password pairs are all examples of authentication
   credential forms.  Note that an authentication mechanism may
   constrain the form of authentication identities used with it.

A.4. Authorization Identity

   An authorization identity is one kind of access control factor.  It
   is the name of the user or other entity that requests that
   operations be performed.  Access control policies are often
   expressed in terms of authorization identities; for example, "entity
   X can perform operation Y on resource Z."

   The authorization identity of an LDAP session is often semantically
   the same as the authentication identity presented by the client, but
   it may be different.  SASL allows clients to specify an
   authorization identity distinct from the authentication identity
   asserted by the client's credentials.  This permits agents such as
   proxy servers to authenticate using their own credentials, yet
   request the access privileges of the identity for which they are
   proxying [SASL].  Also, the form of authentication identity supplied
   by a service like TLS may not correspond to the authorization
   identities used to express a server's access control policy,
   requiring a server-specific mapping to be done.  The method by which
   a server composes and validates an authorization identity from the
   authentication credentials supplied by a client is implementation

Appendix B. Summary of Changes

   This appendix is non-normative.

   This appendix summarizes substantive changes made to RFC 2251, RFC
   2829 and RFC 2830.  In addition to the specific changes detailed
   below, the reader of this document should be aware that numerous
   general editorial changes have been made to the original content
   from the source documents.  These changes include the following:

     - The material originally found in RFC 2251 sections 4.2.1 and
       4.2.2, RFC 2829 (all sections except sections 2 and 4) and RFC
       2830 was combined into a single document

     - The combined material was substantially reorganized and edited
       to group related subjects, improve the document flow and clarify

     - Changes were made throughout the text to align with definitions
       of LDAP protocol layers and IETF security terminology.

     - Substantial updates and additions were made to security
       considerations from both documents based on current operational

B.1. Changes Made to RFC 2251

   This section summarizes the substantive changes made to sections
   4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of RFC 2251 by this document.  Additional
   substantive changes to section 4.2.1 of RFC 2251 are also documented
   in [Protocol].

B.1.1. Section 4.2.1 (Sequencing of the Bind Request)

     - Paragraph 1: Removed the sentence, "If at any stage the client
       wishes to abort the bind process it MAY unbind and then drop the
       underlying connection."  The Unbind operation still permits this
       behavior, but it is not documented explicitly.

     - Clarified that the session is moved to an anonymous state upon
       receipt of the BindRequest PDU and that it is only moved to a
       non-anonymous state if and when the Bind request is successful.

B.1.2. Section 4.2.2 (Authentication and Other Security Services)

     - RFC 2251 states that anonymous authentication MUST be performed
       using the simple bind method. This specification defines the
       anonymous authentication mechanism of the simple bind method and
       requires all conforming implementations to support it.  Other
       authentication mechanisms producing anonymous authentication and
       authorization state may also be implemented and used by
       conforming implementations.

B.2. Changes Made to RFC 2829
   This section summarizes the substantive changes made to RFC 2829.

B.2.1. Section 4 (Required security mechanisms)

     - The name/password authentication mechanism (see section B.2.5
       below) protected by TLS replaces the SASL DIGEST-MD5 mechanism
       as LDAP's mandatory-to-implement password-based authentication
       mechanism.  Implementations are encouraged to continue
       supporting SASL DIGEST-MD5 [RFC2829].

B.2.2. Section 5.1 (Anonymous authentication procedure)

     - Clarified that anonymous authentication involves a name value of
       zero length and a password value of zero length.  The
       unauthenticated authentication mechanism was added to handle
       simple Bind requests involving a name value with a non-zero
       length and a password value of zero length.

B.2.3. Section 6 (Password-based authentication)

     - See section B.2.1.

B.2.4. Section 6.1 (Digest authentication)

     - As the SASL-DIGEST-MD5 mechanism is no longer mandatory to
       implement, this section is now historical and was not included
       in this document. RFC 2829 section 6.1 continues to document the
       SASL DIGEST-MD5 authentication mechanism.

B.2.5. Section 6.2 ("simple" authentication choice with TLS)

     - Renamed the "simple" authentication mechanism to the
       name/password authentication mechanism to better describe it.

     - The use of TLS was generalized to align with definitions of LDAP
       protocol layers.  TLS establishment is now discussed as an
       independent subject and is generalized for use with all
       authentication mechanisms and other security layers.

     - Removed the implication that the userPassword attribute is the
       sole location for storage of password values to be used in
       authentication.  There is no longer any implied requirement for
       how or where passwords are stored at the server for use in

B.2.6. Section 6.3 (Other authentication choices with TLS)
     - See section B.2.5.

B.2.7. Section 7.1 (Certificate-based authentication with TLS)

     - See section B.2.5.

B.2.8. Section 8 (Other mechanisms)

     - All SASL authentication mechanisms are explicitly allowed within
       LDAP. Specifically, this means the SASL ANONYMOUS and SASL PLAIN
       mechanisms are no longer precluded from use within LDAP.

B.2.9. Section 9 (Authorization identity)

     - Specified matching rules for dnAuthzID and uAuthzID values. In
       particular, the DN value in the dnAuthzID form must be matched
       using DN matching rules and the uAuthzID value MUST be prepared
       using SASLprep rules before being compared octet-wise.

     - Clarified that uAuthzID values should not be assumed to be
       globally unique.

B.2.10. Section 10 (TLS Ciphersuites)

     - TLS Ciphersuite recommendations are no longer included in this
       specification.  Implementations must still support the
       TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA ciphersuite.

     - Clarified that anonymous authentication involves a name value of
       zero length and a password value of zero length.  The
       unauthenticated authentication mechanism was added to handle
       simple Bind requests involving a name value with a non-zero
       length and a password value of zero length.

B.3. Changes Made to RFC 2830:

   This section summarizes the substantive changes made to sections 3
   and 5 of RFC 2830. Readers should consult [Protocol] for summaries
   of changes to other sections.

B.3.1. Section 3.6 (Server Identity Check)
     - Substantially updated the server identity check algorithm to
       ensure that it is complete and robust.  In particular, the use
       of all relevant values in the subjectAltName and the subjectName
       fields are covered by the algorithm and matching rules are
       specified for each type of value.  Mapped (derived) forms of the
       server identity may now be used when the mapping is performed in
       a secure fashion.

B.3.2. Section 3.7 (Refresh of Server Capabilities Information)

     - Clients are no longer required to always refresh information
       about server capabilities following TLS establishment to allow
       for situations where this information was obtained through a
       secure mechanism.

B.3.3. Section 5.2 (Effects of TLS on Authorization Identity)

     - Establishing a TLS layer on an LDAP session may now cause the
       authorization state of the LDAP session to change.

B.3.4. Section 5.1.1 (TLS Closure Effects)

     - Closing a TLS layer on an LDAP session changes the
       authentication and authorization state of the LDAP session based
       on local policy. Specifically, this means that implementations
       are not required to to change the authentication and
       authorization states to anonymous upon TLS closure.

Appendix C. Changes for draft-ldapbis-authmeth-18 draft-ldapbis-authmeth-19

   [[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix upon publication
   of this Internet-Draft as an RFC.]]

   This appendix is non-normative.

   This appendix summarizes changes made in this revision of the


     - Resolved This draft has addressed all known outstanding issues and comments raised for -17 draft. the -18 version.

     - Edits Several minor edits for clarity and consistency.

   Section 1.1 to remove typos based on
       feedback from WG, IETF and IESG reviews.

     - Added paragraph detailing which statement regarding RFCs are obsoleted by this document.

   Section 2
     - Deleted a sentence at the end of paragraph 2 that is redundant
       with the first sentence of paragraph 3. Changed mandatory-to-implement TLS ciphersuite from
       TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA based on IESG recommendation and
       WG consensus.

     - Restored a wildcard matching example Clarified that was inadvertently
       deleted 'supportedSASLMechanisms' should be retrievable
       by extensive edits all clients both before and after SASL negotiation to this section in -16 draft. allow
       detection of mechanism downgrade attacks.

   Section 5.1.2
     - Substantially edited this section Changed wording to clarify reflect the proper (and
       improper) use of the distinguished name in fact that SASL layers cannot be
       uninstalled from the unauthenticated
       authentication mechanism. session.

   Section 5.2.3
     - Clarified Removed reference to IPsec as a source of authorization identity.

   Section 6.2
     - When TLS layer does not provide an acceptable level of security
       client and server behavior MUST warn the user or refuse to protect against proceed. (This was
       changed from SHOULD based on IESG recommendation and WG

     - Added a security
       risks associated with consideration regarding the unauthenticated authentication
       mechanism. proper usage of
       information found in the client certificate.

   Section 6.4
     - Moved last sentence of this section into Added a new section
       detailing optional fields used by LDAP.

   Section 5.2.2
     - Removed the third paragraph because it provided an example that
       was misleading in that it implied on SASL security considerations that one could accurately
       match data prepared for use with
       discusses SASL mechanisms using LDAP
       matching semantics.

   Appendix B mechanism downgrade attacks.

   Section 10
     - Added a list of substantive changes Replaced references to RFC 2251. 2401 with RFC 4301.

Intellectual Property Rights

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
   in this document or the extent to which any license under such
   rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
   it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
   Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
   documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on