TOC 
NETWORK WORKING GROUPN. Williams
Internet-DraftSun
Intended status: Standards TrackM. Richardson
Expires: February 7, 2009SSW
 August 06, 2008


Better-Than-Nothing-Security: An Unauthenticated Mode of IPsec
draft-ietf-btns-core-07.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 February 7, 2009.

Abstract

This document specifies how to use the Internet Key Exchange (IKE) protocols, such as IKEv1 and IKEv2, to setup "unauthenticated" security associations (SAs) for use with the IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and the IPsec Authentication Header (AH). No changes to IKEv2 bits-on-the-wire are required, but Peer Authorization Database (PAD) and Security Policy Database (SPD) extensions are specified. Unauthenticated IPsec is herein referred to by its popular acronym, "BTNS" (Better Than Nothing Security).



Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
1.1.  Conventions used in this document
2.  BTNS
3.  Usage Scenarios
3.1.  Example #1: A security gateway
3.2.  Example #2: A mixed end-system
3.3.  Example #3: A BTNS-only system
3.4.  Miscellaneous comments
4.  Security Considerations
4.1.  Connection-Latching and Channel Binding
4.2.  Leap-of-Faith (LoF) for BTNS
5.  IANA Considerations
6.  Acknowledgements
7.  References
7.1.  Normative References
7.2.  Informative References
§  Authors' Addresses
§  Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements




 TOC 

1.  Introduction

Here we describe how to establish unauthenticated IPsec SAs using IKEv2 [RFC4306] (Kaufman, C., “Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol,” December 2005.) and unauthenticated public keys. No new on-the-wire protocol elements are added to IKEv2.

The [RFC4301] (Kent, S. and K. Seo, “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol,” December 2005.) processing model is assumed.

This document does not define an opportunistic BTNS mode of IPsec whereby nodes may fallback to unprotected IP when their peers do not support IKEv2, nor does it describe "leap-of-faith" modes, or "connection latching."

See [I‑D.ietf‑btns‑prob‑and‑applic] (Touch, J., Black, D., and Y. Wang, “Problem and Applicability Statement for Better Than Nothing Security (BTNS),” July 2008.) for the applicability and uses of BTNS and definitions of these terms.

This document describes BTNS in terms of IKEv2 and [RFC4301] (Kent, S. and K. Seo, “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol,” December 2005.)'s concepts. There is no reason why the same methods cannot be used with IKEv1 [RFC2408] (Maughan, D., Schneider, M., and M. Schertler, “Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP),” November 1998.) [RFC2409] (Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, “The Internet Key Exchange (IKE),” November 1998.) and [RFC2401] (Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol,” November 1998.), however, those specifications do not include the PAD concepts, and therefore it may not be possible to implement BTNS on all compliant RFC2401 implementations.



 TOC 

1.1.  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] (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.).



 TOC 

2.  BTNS

The IPsec processing model is hereby modified as follows:

Nodes MUST reject IKE_SA proposals from peers that match non-BTNS PAD entries but fail to authenticate properly.

Nodes wishing to be treated as BTNS nodes by their peers MUST include bare public key CERT payloads. Currently only bare RSA public key CERT payloads are defined, which means that BTNS works only with RSA public keys at this time (see "Raw RSA Key" in section 3.6 of [RFC4306] (Kaufman, C., “Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol,” December 2005.)). Nodes MAY also include any number of certificates that bind the same public key. These certificates need not to have been pre-shared with their peers (e.g., because ephermal, self-signed). RSA keys for use in BTNS may be generated at any time, but "connection latching" [I‑D.ietf‑btns‑connection‑latching] (Williams, N., “IPsec Channels: Connection Latching,” August 2009.) requires that they remain constant between IKEv2 exchanges that are used to establish SAs for latched connections.

To preserve standard IPsec access control semantics:

As described above, the logical PAD ordering requirements can easily be implemented by searching the PAD twice at peer authentication time: once using the peer-asserted ID, and if that fails, once using the peer's public key as a PUBLICKEY ID. A single pass implementation that meets this requirement is permitted.

The BTNS entry ID constraint non-overlap requirement can easily be implemented by searching the PAD twice: once when BTNS peers authenticate, and again when BTNS peers negotiate child SAs. In the first pass the PAD is searched for a matching PAD entry as described above, and in the second it is searched to make sure that BTNS peers' asserted child SA traffic selectors do not conflict with non-BTNS PAD entries. Single pass implementations that preserve these semantics are feasible.



 TOC 

3.  Usage Scenarios

In order to explain the above rules a number of scenarios will be examined. The goal here is to persuade the reader that the above rules are both sufficient and necessary.

This section is informative only.



To explain the scenarios a reference diagram describing an example network will be used. It is as follows:

                          [Q]  [R]
     AS1                   .    .              AS2
  [A]----+----[SG-A].......+....+.......[SG-B]-------[B]
                           ......               \
                           ..PI..                ----[btns-B]
                           ......
              [btns-C].....+....+.......[btns-D]

 Figure 1: Reference Network Diagram 

In this diagram, there are six end-nodes: A, B, C and D. Two of the systems are security gateways: SG-A, SG-B, protecting networks on which [A] and [B] reside. There is a node [Q] which is IPsec and BTNS capable, and node [R] is a simple node, with no IPsec or BTNS capability. Nodes [C] and [D] are BTNS capable.

Nodes [C] and [Q] have fixed addresses. Node [D] has a non-fixed address.

We will examine how these various nodes communicate with node SG-A, and/or how SG-A rejects communications with some such nodes. In the first example, we examine SG-A's point of view. In the second example we look at Q's point of view. In the third example we look at C's point of view.

PI is the Public Internet ("The Wild").



 TOC 

3.1.  Example #1: A security gateway

The machine that we will care in this example is [SG-A], a firewall device of some kind which we wish to configure to respond to BTNS connections from [C].

SG-A has the following PAD and SPD entries:


                             Child SA
      Rule Remote ID        IDs allowed  SPD Search by
      ---- ---------        -----------  -------------
       1   <B's ID>         <B's network> by-IP
       2   <Q's ID>         <Q's host>     by-IP
       3   PUBLICKEY:any         ANY       by-IP

The last entry is the BTNS entry.

 Figure 2: SG-A PAD table 

Note that [SG-A]'s PAD entry has one and only one wildcard PAD entry: the BTNS catch-all PAD entry as the last entry, as described in Section 2 (BTNS).

<Child SA IDs allowed> and <SPD Search by> are from [RFC4301] (Kent, S. and K. Seo, “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol,” December 2005.) section 4.4.3



      Rule Local Remote Next Layer BTNS  Action
            addr  addr   Protocol   ok
      ---- ----- ------ ---------- ----  -----------------------
       1   [A]    [R]      ANY      N/A  BYPASS
       2   [A]    [Q]      ANY      no   PROTECT(ESP,tunnel,AES,
                                                     SHA256)
       3   [A]     B-net   ANY      no   PROTECT(ESP,tunnel,AES,
                                                     SHA256)
       4   [A]     ANY     ANY      yes  PROTECT(ESP,transport,
                                                     integr+conf)

 Figure 3: [SG-A] SPD table 

The processing by [SG-A] of SA establishment attempts by various peers is as follows:



 TOC 

3.2.  Example #2: A mixed end-system

[Q] is an NFSv4 server.

[Q] is a native IPsec implementation, and it's NFSv4 implementation is IPsec-aware.

[Q] wants to protect all traffic with [A]. [Q] also wants to protect NFSv4 traffice with all peers. It's PAD and SPD are configured as follows:


                             Child SA
      Rule Remote ID        IDs allowed  SPD Search by
      ---- ---------        -----------  -------------
       1   <[A]'s ID>       <[A]'s address>  by-IP
       2   PUBLICKEY:any    ANY            by-IP

The last entry is the BTNS entry.

 Figure 4: [Q] PAD table 



      Rule Local Remote Next Layer BTNS  Action
            addr  addr   Protocol   ok
      ---- ----- ------ ---------- ----  -----------------------
       1    [Q]    [A]     ANY      no   PROTECT(ESP,tunnel,AES,
                                                     SHA256)
       2    [Q]    ANY     ANY      yes  PROTECT(ESP,transport,
            with                                      integr+conf)
          port 2049

 Figure 5: [Q] SPD table 

The same analysis shown above in Section 3.1 (Example #1: A security gateway) applies here with respect to [SG-A], [C] and rogue peers. The second SPD entry permits any BTNS capable node to negotiate a port-specific SA to port 2049, the port on which NFSv4 runs. Additionally [SG-B] is treated as a BTNS peer as it is not known to [Q], and therefore any host behind [SG-B] can access the NFSv4 service on [Q]. As [Q] has no formal relationship with [SG-B], rogues can impersonate [B] (i.e., assert [B]'s addresses).



 TOC 

3.3.  Example #3: A BTNS-only system

[C] supports only BTNS and wants to use BTNS to protect NFSv4 traffic. It's PAD and SPD are configured as follows:


                             Child SA
      Rule Remote ID        IDs allowed  SPD Search by
      ---- ---------        -----------  -------------
       1   PUBLICKEY:any    ANY          by-IP

The last (and only) entry is the BTNS entry.

 Figure 6: Q PAD table 



      Rule Local Remote Next Layer BTNS  Action
            addr  addr   Protocol   ok
      ---- ----- ------ ---------- ----  -----------------------
       1    [C]    ANY      ANY      yes  PROTECT(ESP,transport,
                  with                               integr+conf)
                  port
                  2049

       2    [C]    ANY      ANY      N/A  BYPASS

 Figure 7: SG-A SPD table 

The analysis from Section 3.1 (Example #1: A security gateway) applies as follows:



 TOC 

3.4.  Miscellaneous comments

If [SG-A] were not BTNS-capable then it would not have PAD and SPD entries #3 and #4, respectively in example #1. Then [C] would be rejected as usual under the standard IPsec model [RFC4301] (Kent, S. and K. Seo, “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol,” December 2005.).

Similarly, if [Q] were not BTNS-capable then it would not have PAD and SPD entries #2 in example #2. Then [C] would be rejected as usual under the standard IPsec model [RFC4301] (Kent, S. and K. Seo, “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol,” December 2005.).



 TOC 

4.  Security Considerations

Unauthenticated security association negotiation is subject to MITM attacks and should be used with care. Where security infrastructures are lacking this may indeed be better than nothing.

Use with applications that bind authentication at higher network layers to secure channels at lower layers may provide one secure way to use unauthenticated IPsec, but this is not specified herein.

The BTNS PAD entry must be last and its child SA ID constraints must be non-overlapping with any other PAD entry, as described in section 2, in order to ensure that no BTNS peer can impersonate another IPsec non-BTNS peer.



 TOC 

4.1.  Connection-Latching and Channel Binding

BTNS is subject to MITM attacks. One way to protect against MITM attacks subsequent to initial communications is to use "connection latching" [I‑D.ietf‑btns‑connection‑latching] (Williams, N., “IPsec Channels: Connection Latching,” August 2009.). In connection latching, ULPs cooperate with IPsec to bind discrete packet flows to sequences of similar SAs. Connection latching requires native IPsec implementations.

MITMs can be detected by using application-layer authentication frameworks and/or mechanisms, such as the GSS-API [RFC2743] (Linn, J., “Generic Security Service Application Program Interface Version 2, Update 1,” January 2000.), with channel binding [RFC5056] (Williams, N., “On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure Channels,” November 2007.). IPsec "channels" are nothing other than latched connnections.



 TOC 

4.2.  Leap-of-Faith (LoF) for BTNS

"Leap of faith" is the term generally used when a user accepts the assertion that a given key identifies a peer on the first communication, despite a lack of strong evidence for that assertion, and then remembers this association for future communications. Specifically this is a common mode of operation for Secure Shell [RFC4251] (Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, “The Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Architecture,” January 2006.) client. When a server is encountered for the first time the Secure Shell client may ask the user whether to accept the server's public key. If so, records the server's name (as given by the user) and public key in a database.

Leap of faith can work in a similar way for BTNS nodes, but it is currently still being designed and specified by the IETF BTNS WG.



 TOC 

5.  IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA considerations, neither seeking to create new registrations nor new registries. (The new ID type is not used on the wire, therefore it need not be assigned a number from the IANA IKEv2 Identification Payload ID Types registry.)



 TOC 

6.  Acknowledgements

Thanks for the following reviewers: Stephen Kent



 TOC 

7.  References



 TOC 

7.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol,” RFC 4301, December 2005 (TXT).


 TOC 

7.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-btns-connection-latching] Williams, N., “IPsec Channels: Connection Latching,” draft-ietf-btns-connection-latching-11 (work in progress), August 2009 (TXT).
[I-D.ietf-btns-prob-and-applic] Touch, J., Black, D., and Y. Wang, “Problem and Applicability Statement for Better Than Nothing Security (BTNS),” draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic-07 (work in progress), July 2008 (TXT).
[RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol,” RFC 2401, November 1998 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC2408] Maughan, D., Schneider, M., and M. Schertler, “Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP),” RFC 2408, November 1998 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC2409] Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, “The Internet Key Exchange (IKE),” RFC 2409, November 1998 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC2743] Linn, J., “Generic Security Service Application Program Interface Version 2, Update 1,” RFC 2743, January 2000 (TXT).
[RFC4251] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, “The Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Architecture,” RFC 4251, January 2006 (TXT).
[RFC4306] Kaufman, C., “Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol,” RFC 4306, December 2005 (TXT).
[RFC5056] Williams, N., “On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure Channels,” RFC 5056, November 2007 (TXT).


 TOC 

Authors' Addresses

  Nicolas Williams
  Sun Microsystems
  5300 Riata Trace Ct
  Austin, TX 78727
  US
Email:  Nicolas.Williams@sun.com
  
  Michael C. Richardson
  Sandelman Software Works
  470 Dawson Avenue
  Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7
  CA
Email:  mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca
URI:  http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/


 TOC 

Full Copyright Statement

Intellectual Property