Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce
Network Working Group V. Smyslov
Internet-Draft ELVIS-PLUS
Intended status: Standards Track 14 April 2023
Expires: 16 October 2023
Announcing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv2
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce-03
Abstract
This specification defines a mechanism that allows the Internet Key
Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) implementations to indicate the list of
supported authentication methods to their peers while establishing
IKEv2 Security Association (SA). This mechanism improves
interoperability when IKEv2 partners are configured with multiple
different credentials to authenticate each other.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 16 October 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Smyslov Expires 16 October 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Announcing Supported Auth Methods April 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS Notify . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. 2-octet Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. 3-octet Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3. Multi-octet Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Interaction with IKE Extensions concerning Authentication . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
The Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) protocol, defined in
[RFC7296], performs authenticated key exchange in IPsec. IKEv2,
unlike its predecessor IKEv1, defined in [RFC2409], doesn't include a
mechanism to negotiate an authentication method that the peers would
use to authenticate each other. It is assumed that each peer selects
whatever authentication method it thinks is appropriate, depending on
authentication credentials it has.
This approach generally works well when there is no ambiguity in
selecting authentication credentials. The problem may arise when
there are several credentials of different type configured on one
peer, while only some of them are supported on the other peer.
Another problem situation is when a single credential may be used to
produce different types of authentication tokens (e.g. signatures of
different formats). Emerging post-quantum signature algorithms may
bring additional challenges for implementations, especially if so
called hybrid schemes are used (e.g. see
[I-D.ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs]).
This specification defines an extension to the IKEv2 protocol that
allows peers to announce their supported authentication methods, thus
decreasing risks of SA establishment failure in situations when there
are several ways for the peers to authenticate themselves.
Smyslov Expires 16 October 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Announcing Supported Auth Methods April 2023
2. Terminology and Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Protocol Details
When establishing IKE SA each party may send a list of authentication
methods it supports and is configured to use to its peer. The
sending party may additionally specify that some of the
authentication methods are only for use with the particular trust
anchors. Upon receiving this information the peer may take it into
consideration while selecting an algorithm for its authentication if
several alternatives are available.
3.1. Exchanges
If the responder is willing to use this extension, it includes a new
status type notify SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS in the IKE_SA_INIT response
message. This notification contains a list of authentication methods
supported by the responder.
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni -->
<-- HDR, SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ,]
[N(SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS)(...)]
Figure 1: The IKE_SA_INIT Exchange
If the initiator doesn't support this extension, it ignores the
received notification as an unknown status notify. Otherwise, it may
send the SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS notification in the IKE_AUTH request
message, with a list of authentication methods supported by the
initiator.
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR, SK {IDi, [CERT,] [CERTREQ,]
[IDr,] AUTH, SAi2, TSi, TSr,
[N(SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS)(...)] } -->
<-- HDR, SK {IDr, [CERT,]
AUTH, SAr2, TSi, TSr }
Figure 2: The IKE_AUTH Exchange
Smyslov Expires 16 October 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Announcing Supported Auth Methods April 2023
If the initiator is configured to use Extensible Authentication
Protocol (EAP) for authentication in IKEv2 (see Section 2.16 of
[RFC7296]), then it SHOULD NOT send the SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS
notification.
Since the responder sends the SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS notification in
the IKE_SA_INIT exchange, it must take care that the size of the
response message wouldn't grow too much so that IP fragmentation
takes place. If the following conditions are met:
* the SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS notification to be included is so
large, that the responder suspects that IP fragmentation of the
resulting IKE_SA_INIT response message may happen;
* both peers support the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange, defined in
[RFC9242] (i.e. the responder has received and is going to send
the INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED notification);
then the responder may choose not to send actual list of the
supported authentication methods in the IKE_SA_INIT exchange and
instead ask the initiator to start the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange for
the list to be sent in. In this case the responder includes
SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS notification containing no data in the
IKE_SA_INIT response.
If the initiator receives the empty SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS
notification in the IKE_SA_INIT exchange, it means that the responder
is going to send the list of the supported authentication methods in
the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange. If this exchange is to be initiated
anyway for some other reason, then the responder MAY use it to send
the SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS notification. Otherwise, the initiator
MAY start the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange just for this sole purpose by
sending an empty IKE_INTERMEDIATE request. The initiator MAY also
indicate its identity (and possibly the perceived responder's
identity too) by including the IDi payload (possibly along with the
IDr payload) into the IKE_INTERMEDIATE request. This information
could help the responder to send back only those authentication
methods, that are configured to be used for authentication of this
particular initiator. If these payloads are sent, they MUST be
identical to the IDi/IDr payloads sent later in the IKE_AUTH request.
If the responder has sent any CERTREQ payload in the IKE_SA_INIT,
then it MUST re-send the same payload(s) in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE
response containing the SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS notification if any of
the included Announcements has a non-zero Cert Link field (see
Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.2.3). This requirement allows peers to
have a list of Announcements and a list of CAs in the same message,
which simplifies their linking (note, that this requirement is always
Smyslov Expires 16 October 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Announcing Supported Auth Methods April 2023
fulfilled for the IKE_SA_INIT and IKE_AUTH exchanges). However, if
for any reason the responder doesn't re-send CERTREQ payload(s) in
the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange, then the initiator MUST NOT abort
negotiation. Instead, the initiator MAY either link the
Announcements to the CAs received in the IKE_SA_INIT response, or MAY
ignore the SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS notification entirely.
If multiple IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges take place during IKE SA
establishments, it is RECOMMENDED that the responder use the last
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange (the one just before IKE_AUTH) to send the
list of supported auth methods. However, it is not always possible
for the responder to know how many IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges the
initiator will use. In this case the responder MAY send the list in
any IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange. If the initiator sends IDi/IDr in an
IKE_INTERMEDIATE request, then it is RECOMMENDED that the responder
sends back the list of authentication methods in the response.
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni -->
<-- HDR, SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ,]
[N(SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS)()]
HDR, SK {..., [IDi, [IDr,]]} -->
<-- HDR, SK {..., [CERTREQ,]
[N(SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS)(...)] }
HDR, SK {IDi, [CERT,] [CERTREQ,]
[IDr,] AUTH, SAi2, TSi, TSr,
[N(SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS)(...)] } -->
<-- HDR, SK {IDr, [CERT,]
AUTH, SAr2, TSi, TSr }
Figure 3: Using the IKE_INTERMEDIATE Exchange for sending auth
methods
Note, that sending the SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS notification and using
information obtained from it is optional for both the initiator and
the responder.
3.2. SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS Notify
The format of the SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS notification is shown below.
Smyslov Expires 16 October 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Announcing Supported Auth Methods April 2023
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Payload |C| RESERVED | Payload Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol ID | SPI Size | Notify Message Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ List of Supported Auth Methods Announcements ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS Notify
The Notify payload format is defined in Section 3.10 of [RFC7296].
When a Notify payload of type SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS is sent, the
Protocol ID field is set to 0, the SPI Size is set to 0, meaning
there is no SPI field, and the Notify Message Type is set to <TBA by
IANA>.
The Notification Data field contains the list of supported
authentication methods announcements. Each individual announcement
is a variable-size data blob, which format depends on the announced
authentication method. The blob always starts with an octet
containing the length of the blob followed by an octet containing the
authentication method. Authentication methods are represented as
values from the "IKEv2 Authentication Method" registry defined in
[IKEV2-IANA]. The meaning of the remaining octets of the blob, if
any, depends on the authentication method and is defined below.
Note, that for the currently defined authentication methods the
length octet fully defines both the format and the semantics of the
blob.
If more authentication methods are defined in future, the
corresponding documents must describe the semantics of the
announcements for these methods. Implementations MUST ignore
announcements which semantics they don't understand.
3.2.1. 2-octet Announcement
If the announcement contains an authentication method that is not
concerned with public key cryptography, then the following format is
used.
Smyslov Expires 16 October 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Announcing Supported Auth Methods April 2023
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length (=2) | Auth Method |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Supported Authentication Method
* Length - Length of the blob, must be 2 for this case.
* Auth Method - Announced authentication method.
This format is applicable for the authentication methods "Shared Key
Message Integrity Code" (2) and "NULL Authentication" (13). Note,
that authentication method "Generic Secure Password Authentication
Method" (12) would also fall in this category, however it is
negotiated separately (see [RFC6467] and for this reason there is no
point to announce it via this mechanism. See also Section 4.
3.2.2. 3-octet Announcement
If the announcement contains an authentication method that is
concerned with public key cryptography, then the following format is
used. This format allows to link the announcement with a particular
trust anchor from the Certificate Request payload.
1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length (=3) | Auth Method | Cert Link |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Supported Authentication Method
* Length - Length of the blob, must be 3 for this case.
* Auth Method - Announced authentication method.
* Cert Link - Links this announcement with particular CA.
Smyslov Expires 16 October 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Announcing Supported Auth Methods April 2023
If the Cert Link field contains non-zero value N, it means that the
announced authentication method is intended to be used only with the
N-th trust anchor (CA certificate) from the Certificate Request
payload(s) sent by this peer. If it is zero, then this
authentication method may be used with any CA. If multiple CERTREQ
payloads were sent, the CAs from all of them are treated as a single
list for the purpose of the linking. If no Certificate Request
payload were receives, the content of this field MUST be ignored and
treated as zero.
This format is applicable for the authentication methods "RSA Digital
Signature" (1), "DSS Digital Signature" (3), "ECDSA with SHA-256 on
the P-256 curve" (9), "ECDSA with SHA-384 on the P-384 curve" (10)
and "ECDSA with SHA-512 on the P-512 curve" (11). Note however, that
these authentication methods are currently superseded by the "Digital
Signature" (14) authentication method, which has a different
announcement format, described below.
3.2.3. Multi-octet Announcement
The following format is currently used only with the "Digital
Signature" (14) authentication method.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length (>3) | Auth Method | Cert Link | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
~ AlgorithmIdentifier ASN.1 object ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Supported Authentication Method
* Length - Length of the blob, must be greater than 3 for this case.
* Auth Method - Announced authentication method, at the time of
writing this document only value 14 ("Digital Signature") is
allowed.
* Cert Link - Links this announcement with particular CA; see
Section 3.2.2 for details.
* AlgorithmIdentifier ASN.1 object - DER-encoded AlgorithmIdentifier
ASN.1 object.
Smyslov Expires 16 October 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Announcing Supported Auth Methods April 2023
The "Digital Signature" authentication method, defined in [RFC7427],
supersedes previously defined signature authentication methods. In
this case the real authentication algorithm is identified via
AlgorithmIdentifier ASN.1 object. Appendix A in [RFC7427] contains
examples of Commonly Used ASN.1 Objects.
4. Interaction with IKE Extensions concerning Authentication
Generally in IKEv2 each party independently determines the way it
authenticates itself to the peer. In other words, authentication
methods selected by the peers need not be the same. However, some
IKEv2 extensions break this rule.
The prominent example is [RFC6467], (Secure Password Framework for
Internet Key Exchange Version 2), which defines a framework for using
Password-authenticated key exchanges (PAKE) in IKEv2. With this
framework peers negotiate using one of PAKE methods in the
IKE_SA_INIT exchange - the initiator sends a list of supported PAKE
methods in the request and the responder picks one of them and sends
it back in the response.
If peers negotiate PAKE for authentication, then the selected PAKE
method is used by both initiator and responder and no other
authentication methods are involved. For this reason there is no
point to announce supported authentication methods in this case.
Thus, if the peers choose to go with PAKE, they MUST NOT send the
SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS notification.
5. Security Considerations
Security considerations for IKEv2 protocol are discussed in
[RFC7296]. It is believed that this extension doesn't add new
vulnerabilities to the protocol.
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new Notify Message Types in the "Notify
Message Types - Status Types" registry:
<TBA> SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS
7. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Paul Wouters for his valuable comments
and proposals for protocol improvement.
8. References
Smyslov Expires 16 October 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Announcing Supported Auth Methods April 2023
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[RFC7427] Kivinen, T. and J. Snyder, "Signature Authentication in
the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 7427,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7427, January 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7427>.
[RFC9242] Smyslov, V., "Intermediate Exchange in the Internet Key
Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 9242,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9242, May 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9242>.
[IKEV2-IANA]
IANA, "Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)
Parameters", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-
parameters/ikev2-parameters.xhtml#ikev2-parameters-7>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2409] Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange
(IKE)", RFC 2409, DOI 10.17487/RFC2409, November 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2409>.
[RFC6467] Kivinen, T., "Secure Password Framework for Internet Key
Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 6467,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6467, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6467>.
[I-D.ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs]
Ounsworth, M., Gray, J., and M. Pala, "Composite
Signatures For Use In Internet PKI", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs-08, 13
March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs-08>.
Smyslov Expires 16 October 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Announcing Supported Auth Methods April 2023
Author's Address
Valery Smyslov
ELVIS-PLUS
PO Box 81
Moscow (Zelenograd)
124460
Russian Federation
Phone: +7 495 276 0211
Email: svan@elvis.ru
Smyslov Expires 16 October 2023 [Page 11]
