NETWORK WORKING GROUP N. Williams Internet-Draft Sun Intended status: Informational September 12, 2006 Expires: March 16, 2007 GSS-API Domain-Based Service Names and Name Type draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names-03.txt 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. 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- Drafts. 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 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 16, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Williams Expires March 16, 2007 [Page 1] Internet-Draft GSS Domain Based Names September 2006 Abstract This document describes domainname-based service principal names and the corresponding name type for the Generic Security Service Application Programming Interface (GSS-API). Domain-based service names are similar to host-based service names, but using a domain name (not necessarily an Internet domain name) in addition to a hostname. The primary purpose of domain-based names is to provide a measure of protection to applications that utilize insecure service discovery protocols. This is achieved by providing a way to name clustered services after the "domain" which they service, thereby allowing their clients to authorize the service's servers based on authentication of their service names. Table of Contents 1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Name Type OID and Symbolic Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Query and Display Syntaxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Examples of domain-based names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Application protocol examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. NFSv4 domain-wide namespace root server discovery . . . . . 7 5.2. LDAP server discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 11 Williams Expires March 16, 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft GSS Domain Based Names September 2006 1. Conventions used in this document 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 [RFC2119]. Williams Expires March 16, 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft GSS Domain Based Names September 2006 2. Introduction Some applications need to discover the names of servers for a specific resource. Some common methods for server discovery are insecure, e.g., queries for DNS [RFC1035] SRV resource records [RFC2782] without using DNSSEC [RFC4033] and subject to attacks whereby a client can be re-directed to incorrect and possibly malicious servers. A client may even be re-directed to a server that has credentials for itself and may thus authenticate itself to the client, and yet it could be incorrect or malicious (because it has been compromised, say). Domain-based names allow for GSS-API [RFC2743] initiator applications (clients) to authorize acceptor principals (servers) to serve the resource for which the client used insecure server discovery without either securing the server discovery method nor requiring an additional protocol for server authorization -- either a discovered server has credentials for authenticating the domain-based service names that it is intended to respond to, or it does not. Availability of valid credentials for authenticating domain-based names embodies the authorization of a given server to a domain-wide service. A domain-based name consists of three required elements: o a service name o a domain name o a hostname For the purposes of domain-based names a "domain" is defined by the applications that use domain-based names. An application protocol might use a simple DNS domainname, such as "example.com" for naming, while another it might use the DNS domainname of the SRV RRs it queries (e.g., "_tcp._foo.example.com"), and yet another may use something that does not resemble a DNS domainname. Application protocol specifications that provide for use of domain-based service names MUST define the domain-portion of their domain-based names. Note that domain-based naming isn't new. According to a report to the KITTEN WG mailing list there exists at least one implementation of LDAP which uses domain-based service naming, and the DIGEST-MD5 HTTP/SASL mechanism [RFC2831] describes a similar notion (see section 2.1.2, description of the "serv-name" field of the digest-response). Williams Expires March 16, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft GSS Domain Based Names September 2006 3. Name Type OID and Symbolic Name The new name type has an OID of [NOTE: OID assignment to be made with IANA.] {iso(1) org(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) nametypes(6) gss- domain-based(5)} The recommended symbolic name for this GSS-API name type is "GSS_C_NT_DOMAINBASED_SERVICE". Williams Expires March 16, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft GSS Domain Based Names September 2006 4. Query and Display Syntaxes There is a single name syntax for domain-based names. The syntax is: domain-based-name := '@' '@' Note that for Internet domain names the trailing '.' MUST NOT be included in the hostname part of the display form GSS-API domain- based MNs; hostnames MUST NOT contain '@'. 4.1. Examples of domain-based names These examples are not normative: o ldap@example.tld@ds1.example.tld o nfs@example.tld@nfsroot1.example.tld Williams Expires March 16, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft GSS Domain Based Names September 2006 5. Application protocol examples The following examples are not normative. They describe how the author envisions two applications' use of domain-based names. 5.1. NFSv4 domain-wide namespace root server discovery Work is ongoing to provide a method for constructing domain-wide NFSv4 [RFC3530] filesystem namespaces where there is a single "root" with one or more servers (replicas) and multiple filesystems glued into the namespace through use of "referrals." Clients could then construct a "global" namespace through use of the DNS domain hierarchy. Here clients would always know, from context, when they need to find the root servers for a given DNS domain. Root server discovery would be performed using DNS SRV RR lookups, without using DNSSEC where DNSSEC has not been deployed. When using RPCSEC_GSS [RFC2203] for security NFSv4 clients would then use domain-based names to ensure that that the servers named in the SRV RRs are in fact authorized to be the NFSv4 root servers for the target domain. 5.2. LDAP server discovery LDAP clients using the GSS-API through SASL too would benefit from use of domain-based names to protect server discovery through insecure DNS SRV RR lookups, much as described above. Unlike NFSv4 clients, not all LDAP clients may always know from context when they should use domain-based names. That's because existing clients may use host-based naming to authenticate servers discovered through SRV RR lookups. Changing such clients to use domain-based naming when domain-based acceptor credentials have not been deployed to LDAP servers, or when LDAP servers have not been modified to allow use of domain-based naming, would break interoperability. That is, there is a legacy server interoperability issue here. Therefore LDAP clients may require additional configuration at deployment time to enable (or disable) use of domain-based naming. Note: whether SASL [RFC4422] or its GSS-API bridges [I-D.ietf-sasl-gssapi] [I-D.josefsson-sasl-gs2] require updates in order allow use of domain-based names is not relevant to the theory of how domain-based naming would protect LDAP clients' server discovery. Williams Expires March 16, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft GSS Domain Based Names September 2006 6. Security Considerations Use of GSS-API domain-based names may not be negotiable by some GSS- API mechanisms, and some acceptors may not support GSS-API domain- based names. In such cases initiators are left to fallback on the use of hostbased names, in which case the initiators MUST also verify that the acceptor's hostbased name is authorized to provide the given service for the domain that the initiator had wanted. The above security consideration also applies to all GSS-API initiators who lack support for domain-based service names. Williams Expires March 16, 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft GSS Domain Based Names September 2006 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000. [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000. [RFC2831] Leach, P. and C. Newman, "Using Digest Authentication as a SASL Mechanism", RFC 2831, May 2000. [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March 2005. 7.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-sasl-gssapi] Melnikov, A., "The Kerberos V5 ("GSSAPI") SASL mechanism", draft-ietf-sasl-gssapi-06 (work in progress), June 2006. [I-D.josefsson-sasl-gs2] Josefsson, S., "Using GSS-API Mechanisms in SASL: The GS2 Mechanism Family", draft-josefsson-sasl-gs2-00 (work in progress), November 2005. [RFC2203] Eisler, M., Chiu, A., and L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol Specification", RFC 2203, September 1997. [RFC3530] Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R., Beame, C., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol", RFC 3530, April 2003. [RFC4422] Melnikov, A. and K. Zeilenga, "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006. Williams Expires March 16, 2007 [Page 9] Internet-Draft GSS Domain Based Names September 2006 Author's Address Nicolas Williams Sun Microsystems 5300 Riata Trace Ct Austin, TX 78727 US Email: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com Williams Expires March 16, 2007 [Page 10] Internet-Draft GSS Domain Based Names September 2006 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (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 an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property 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 at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 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-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Williams Expires March 16, 2007 [Page 11]