| < draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt-08.txt | draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt-09.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group R. Housley | Network Working Group R. Housley | |||
| Internet Draft Vigil Security | Internet Draft Vigil Security | |||
| February 2007 B. Aboba | February 2007 B. Aboba | |||
| Expires in six months Microsoft | Expires in six months Microsoft | |||
| Guidance for AAA Key Management | Guidance for AAA Key Management | |||
| <draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt-08.txt> | <draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt-09.txt> | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any | By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any | |||
| applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware | 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 | 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. | aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 21 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 21 ¶ | |||
| authorization checking prevents an elevation of privilege | authorization checking prevents an elevation of privilege | |||
| attack, and it ensures that an unauthorized authenticator is | attack, and it ensures that an unauthorized authenticator is | |||
| detected. | detected. | |||
| Authorizations SHOULD be synchronized between the peer, NAS, | Authorizations SHOULD be synchronized between the peer, NAS, | |||
| and backend authentication server. Once the AAA key management | and backend authentication server. Once the AAA key management | |||
| protocol exchanges are complete, all of these parties should | protocol exchanges are complete, all of these parties should | |||
| hold a common view of the authorizations associated the other | hold a common view of the authorizations associated the other | |||
| parties. | parties. | |||
| In addition to authenticating all parties, key management | ||||
| protocols need to demonstrate that the parties are authorized | ||||
| to possess keying material. Note that proof of possession of | ||||
| keying material does not necessarily prove authorization to | ||||
| hold that keying material. For example, within an IEEE | ||||
| 802.11i, the 4-way handshake demonstrates that both the peer | ||||
| and authenticator possess the same EAP keying material. | ||||
| However, by itself, this possession proof does not demonstrate | ||||
| that the authenticator was authorized by the backend | ||||
| authentication server to possess that keying material. As | ||||
| noted in RFC 3579 in section 4.3.7, where AAA proxies are | ||||
| present, it is possible for one authenticator to impersonate | ||||
| another, unless each link in the AAA chain implements checks | ||||
| against impersonation. Even with these checks in place, an | ||||
| authenticator may still claim different identities to the peer | ||||
| and the backend authentication server. As described in RFC | ||||
| 3748 in section 7.15, channel binding is required to enable the | ||||
| peer to verify that the authenticator claim of identity is both | ||||
| consistent and correct. | ||||
| Keying material confidentiality and integrity | Keying material confidentiality and integrity | |||
| While preserving algorithm independence, confidentiality and | While preserving algorithm independence, confidentiality and | |||
| integrity of all keying material MUST be maintained. | integrity of all keying material MUST be maintained. | |||
| Confirm ciphersuite selection | Confirm ciphersuite selection | |||
| The selection of the "best" ciphersuite SHOULD be securely | The selection of the "best" ciphersuite SHOULD be securely | |||
| confirmed. The mechanism SHOULD detect attempted roll back | confirmed. The mechanism SHOULD detect attempted roll back | |||
| attacks. | attacks. | |||
| End of changes. 2 change blocks. | ||||
| 1 lines changed or deleted | 21 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||