Presentation on theme: "Doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 1 EAP Update Bernard Aboba Microsoft."— Presentation transcript:
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 1 EAP Update Bernard Aboba Microsoft
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 2 Original Goals for RFC 2284bis Advancing EAP to IETF Draft Standard –EAP Implementation Survey Documenting features of EAP implementations –Interoperability testing Documenting interoperation of each feature by at least 2 independent implementations Clarifying interoperability issues within the specification Recognizing support for multiple media –PPP, IEEE 802, PIC (EAP over UDP)
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 3 Non-Goals Re-writing EAP from scratch –This is not EAPng! Making non-backward compatible changes to EAP Revising RADIUS –RFC2869bis is needed, but not part of this effort Revising IEEE 802.1X –IEEE 802.1X revision PAR (aa) in progress
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 4 Interoperability Testing Opportunities CIUG –Results of past EAP interoperability tests? –Plans for additional tests? Interop Las Vegas, May 2002 –Will be testing IEEE 802.1X on the Interop net
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 5 EAP Survey Results Survey requests sent out to PPPEXT, IEEE 802.1X mailing lists in early June 2001 Implementations covered in responses: –2 PPP –2 IEEE 802.3 –1 IEEE 802.11 Many implementations in progress not ready to fill out survey yet –IEEE 802: 802.3, 802.11 implementations –Other: PIC –Other potential uses of EAP: Hiperlan2, Bluetooth Will resend survey request Features not implemented: –EAP OTP, Generic Token card –Default retransmission timer of 6 seconds –Allowing for loss of EAP Success and Failure packets via alternative indications –Display of Notification to user and use to indicate invalid authentication attempt
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 6 Implications for RFC 2284bis Generic token card, OTP EAP methods now documented in separate draft –Draft-ietf-pppext-otp-01.txt –Given no implementations, will remain at proposed standard, while RFC2284bis advances RFC 2284bis may need to cut additional features –Well cross that bridge once we come to it
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 7 Areas for Clarification IANA considerations Lower layer assumptions Method negotiation Transport assumptions Duplicate detection Identifier clarifications Novel uses of EAP messages Security issues Cryptographic protection of EAP
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 8 Allocated EAP Type#s Type Description Reference Implemented? Spec Available? ---- ----------- --------- ------------ --------------- 1 Identity [RFC2284] Yes RFC 2284 2 Notification [RFC2284] Yes RFC 2284 3 NAK (Response only) [RFC2284] Yes RFC 2284 4 MD5-Challenge [RFC2284] Yes RFC 2284 5 One Time Password (OTP) [RFC2284] No RFC 2284 6 Generic Token Card [RFC2284] No RFC 2284 7 No No 8 No No 9 RSA Public Key Authentication [Whelan] No Expired 10 DSS Unilateral [Nace] Yes I-D? 11 KEA [Nace] Yes I-D? 12 KEA-Validate [Nace] Yes I-D? 13 EAP-TLS [Aboba] Yes RFC 2716 14 Defender Token (AXENT) [Roselli] Yes No 15 Windows 2000 EAP [Asnes] ? No 16 Arcot Systems EAP [Jerdonek] ? No 17 EAP-Cisco Wireless [Norman] Yes No 18 Nokia IP smart card auth [Haverinen] ? No 19 SRP-SHA1 Part 1 [Carlson] Yes I-D 20 SRP-SHA1 Part 2 [Carlson] No I-D 21 EAP-TTLS [Funk] Yes I-D 22 Remote Access Service [Fields] ? No 23 UMTS Auth and Key agreement [Haverinen] ? ? 24 EAP-3Com Wireless [Young] Yes No 25 PEAP [Palekar] Yes I-D 26 MS-EAP-Authentication [Palekar] Yes No 27 Mutual auth w/key exchange (MAKE) [Berrendonner] ? No 28 CRYPTOCard [Webb] Yes No 29 EAP-MSCHAP-V2 [Potter] ? I-D 30 DynamID [Merlin] ? No 31 Rob EAP [Ullah] ? No
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 9 Some Observations Rate of Method Type allocation is increasing –31 Type values allocated since March 1998 –4 Type values allocated in the last month Two Method Type values allocated to the same Method –EAP SRP-SHA1 Parts 1 and 2 Most allocations are for vendor-specific use with no specification Not all allocated Method Types are used –At least 5 of the allocated types have not been implemented (~15 percent!) Conclusion –At present rate of allocation, EAP Type space could be exhausted within a few years –EAP Method Type space is a finite resource (255) - could probably be managed more effectively –IANA considerations needed!
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 10 Proposed IANA Considerations draft-aboba-pppext-eap-iana-01.txt Packet Codes –Codes 1-4 described in RFC 2284 –Codes 5-255 allocated by Standards Action Method Types –Method Types 1-31 already allocated by IANA –Method Types 32-191 allocated via Expert Review with specification required –Method Types 192-254 reserved; allocation requires Standards Action
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 11 Vendor-Specific Support Draft-aboba-pppext-vendor-01.txt Method Type 255 reserved for (optional) Vendor- Specific use and Type expansion Goal is to push exhaustion of EAP Type space out several years Expanded Type space (256+) allocated after Types 32-191 are exhausted May require inclusion in a separate document, so RFC 2284bis can advance to Draft Standard
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 12 Method Negotiation NAK allows only one alternate method to be returned –If client supports several methods (some of which server doesnt support), can result in a long negotiation –Example Client supports MD5, SRP, AKA, TTLS Server supports MD5, SIM, LEAP S: SIM; C: NAK-SRP; S: LEAP, C: NAK-AKA; S: MD5 Can we allow multiple methods to be included in a NAK? –Would this break existing implementations? Initial investigation: probably backward compatible
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 13 EAP Lower Layer Assumptions One to one conversation –PPP (only two parties) –IEEE 802 (not supported on shared media w/o cryptographic protection) Non-forwardable multicast destination can be used to locate endpoints, after which unicast is used Known MTU –EAP does not support fragmentation, but individual methods do –Framed-MTU attribute provided by NAS to AAA server to prevent fragmentation Unreliable lower layer –EAP handles retransmission –Default retransmission timer of 6 seconds (typically set lower) –No retransmission strategy specified (RTO not a function of RTT) Unordered delivery –EAP is a lockstep protocol – only one packet in flight at a given time –Identifier field often incremented –Misordering can occur, but is detectable Limited non-duplication of packets –EAP-Responses are not retransmitted –Duplicate EAP-Responses are possible –Implies that peers, authenticators must be capable of duplicate detection –Implies that lower layer should provide a non-duplicated stream of packets (e.g. EAP over PIC)
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 14 Alternate Indications The most infamous lower layer assumption of RFC 2284 –Success and Failure messages are not ACKd: Implementation Note: Because the Success and Failure packets are not acknowledged, they may be potentially lost. A peer MUST allow for this circumstance. The peer can use a Network Protocol packet as an alternative indication of Success. Likewise, the receipt of a LCP Terminate-Request can be taken as a Failure. Problems –PPP specific – but not supported in existing PPP implementations! Will have to be deleted unless two interoperable implementations can be found (seems unlikely) –Other lower layers do not have alternate indications IEEE 802 –Carrier sense an alternate indication of Failure? –No alternate indication of Success IEEE 802.11 –Disassociate an alternate indication of Failure? –No alternate indication of Success Result: If Success or Failure are lost: Timeout or worse!
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 15 Possible Approaches Dont worry, be happy –Assume EAP always implemented over highly reliable media, can live with occasional timeout IEEE 802: wired media with very low packet loss IP: TCP or UDP w/retransmission –Document alternate indications such as they exist for various media Remove –Alternate indications is not a useful concept for many media –It isnt implemented anyway, so it needs to be removed from RFC 2284bis –Not necessary to ACK Success or Failure messages, so dont need fix
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 16 Possible Approaches (contd) Remove and Fix –UnACKd Success and Failure messages will eventually bite us Wireless networks w/fading Cryptographic protection of EAP –Remove alternate indications text –Add support for ACKd Success and Failure messages Can be implemented as new EAP Types –EAP-Request/Success, EAP-Response/Success –EAP-Request/Failure, EAP-Response/Failiure Used where support is likely –Within EAP types known to support it –Within media known to support it Can be NAKd by implementations that dont support it –Would require documentation in separate draft if RFC 2284bis goes to Draft standard
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 17 Transport Assumptions EAP is an ACK/NAK protocol –Only one packet in flight at a time –But some methods assume that additional Requests can be sent without a Response EAP is driven by the authenticator –Responses cannot be retransmitted, only Requests –Success/Failure not ACKd nor retransmitted –RADIUS server does not retransmit (NAS responsibility) –But some methods assume RADIUS server retransmission, ACKing of Success/Failure EAP transport characteristics not defined in RFC 2284 –RTO default = 6 seconds (for human interaction) –No exponential backoff –No defined retransmission strategy –When running over IP, EAP retransmission can conflict with transport retransmissions
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 18 Duplicate Detection EAP retransmission behavior –NAS retransmits EAP-Requests –Client never re-transmits EAP-Responses on its own –NAS retransmission doesnt take RTT into account –Result NAS can retransmit before it is assured that EAP-Request has been lost Client can send duplicate EAP-Responses Interactions with AAA –In RADIUS, NAS is responsible for retransmissions No AAA server-initiated messages AAA server does not retransmit –If NAS doesnt detect and discard duplicates, can send duplicate Access- Requests to AAA server –If done in the middle of EAP conversation, can cause problems on AAA server
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 19 Identifier Clarifications Identifier is unique per port, not per NAS –Ongoing authentications per NAS not limited to 256 Guidelines for Identifier selection –Start from 1 or random selection? –Can identifier wrap within a session? –Is Identifier monotonically increasing or just unique within the maximum time to live? Example issue –AAA server sends Accept with Reply-Message and EAP-Message attributes –If Reply-Message translated to EAP-Notification, EAP authenticator needs to create an Identifier for it Assumption is that EAP-Request/EAP-Notification is sent, followed by receipt of EAP-Response/EAP-Notification, then EAP-Message attribute is decapsulated and sent –But EAP-Message attribute already contains an Identifier!
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 20 Novel Uses of EAP Messages Proposed EAP methods use NAK and Notification in novel ways –NAK used for version negotiation within the EAP method –Notification used for Nonce exchange Some proposed methods have placed data in EAP Success/Failure –Success/Failure are not ACKd, so data may never arrive –802.1X manufactures success/failure, so data, if present will be thrown away Not explicitly prohibited by RFC 2284, but unlikely to interoperate either –Might work in a monolithic EAP implementation, but not in a layered one No description of EAP type multiplexing in RFC 2284
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 21 EAP Type Multiplexing EAPLayer MethodLayer MediaLayer DriverAPIs EAPAPIs PPP802.3802.5802.11 Type= Identity, Notification Code =Success, Failure Type=Foo FooFoo Type=Bar Type=NAK
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 22 Security Issues Should mutual authentication be mandatory in some situations? –Wireless –Use over the Internet –Mandatory to implement method (EAP-MD5) is one-way –What happens if EAP Success is sent prior to completion of server authentication? In RFC 2716 client terminates the conversation if server fails authentication Client MUST NOT accept this message! Should IEEE 802.1X change the state machine to not always accept the Success? Denial of service attacks –EAPOL-Logoff: needed in 802.11? –EAPOL-Start: needed in 802.11? –Identifier exhaustion: Identifier is per port, not per NAS –Spoofing of EAP Failure or Success: solution is cryptographic protection Modification attacks –EAP header modification: solution is cryptographic protection –Modification of NAK or Notification: solution is cryptographic protection
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 23 Cryptographic Protection EAP originally created for use with wired link layers –But now being applied to wireless, use over the Internet EAP vulnerable to attackers with media access –Individual methods protect their exchanges, but… –Some methods vulnerable to dictionary attack –Basic EAP messages sent unprotected and in the clear: Identity exchange (Identity) Method negotiation (NAK) Error messages (Notification) Success/Failure indication Should cryptographic protection of EAP be mandated in some (many) situations?
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 24 Key Management Issues Draft-aboba-pppext-key-problem-01.txt Questionable key management in proposed EAP methods –Unproven techniques proposed for key management –No description of key hierarchy –Insufficient entropy for key generation –Ciphersuite-specific key handling specified within EAP methods Lesson: Secure key management is hard to do correctly Solutions: –Guidelines for key generation in EAP methods –Just say no: EAP methods should not generate their own keys, should reuse well reviewed key generation techniques instead
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 25 Cryptographic Protection Approach Create a secure channel within which EAP conversation can be transported –Provides encryption, integrity protection of EAP messages –Makes it harder to spoof or modify EAP conversation –Lessens dictionary attack vulnerability Support for identity protection Provide a single, well reviewed method for key management –Allows EAP methods to focus on authentication Support for fast reconnect –Ability to re-authenticate without public key operations (no PFS) Support for fragmentation and reassembly –No need for EAP method to handle this itself Can be backward compatible with 802.1X and EAP –Implemented as a new EAP method –Client can NAK if not supported Examples –PIC (EAP protected in ISAKMP) –EAP TTLS (EAP protected in TLS) –PEAP (EAP protected in TLS)
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 26 Cryptographic Protection Issues Goal of cryptographic protection is to protect the entire EAP exchange –Identity, method negotiation (NAK), Notification, Success/Failure messages –Messages within the individual EAP Methods, too Last message sent by AAA server is typically encrypted EAP Success encapsulated in Access Accept 802.1X Authenticators implementing manufactured Success will replace encrypted Success with cleartext Success Possible solutions –Add ACKd Success/Failure messages as new Types Send EAP-Request/Success within the encrypted channel Receive EAP-Response/Success Send cleartext EAP-Success as last message Adds a round-trip on every authentication (even fast reconnect!) Enables removal of requirement for alternative indications –Require Authenticator to pass through final message Would save a round-trip per authentication, but would not allow removal of alternative indications Would require changes in 802.1X
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 27 Questions to Ponder How do these cryptographic protection methods differ? What problems do they solve? Should the IETF standardize: –None of them? –One of them? –More than one? Should some (many?) EAP methods be required to run over a protection layer? –If so, which ones? –When is this required?
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 29 Next Steps Solicit additional implementation surveys Document bakeoff results Revisit goals for RFC 2284bis –Still aimed at Draft Standard? If so, no room for feature addition Interoperability verification likely to take 18-24 months Clarifications may be needed sooner –Candidates for separate draft (or inclusion in a recycled Proposed Standard) Vendor-Specific, Type Expansion ACKd Success/Failure Method negotiation EAP State Machine
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 30 Proposed EAP WG Charter The EAP working group will restrict itself to the following short-term work items in order to fully document and improve the interoperability of the existing EAP protocol: –1. IANA considerations. –2. Threat model and security considerations. –3. EAP state machine. –4. Clarification and documentation of EAP keying issues –5. Documentation of interaction between EAP and other layers. –6. Resolution of interoperability issues. –7. Interaction of EAP and AAA –8. Type space extension to support an expanded Type space. –9. EAP applicability statement
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 31 Goals and Milestones Jun 02 IANA considerations draft to RFC Editor. Jun 02 EAP type extension section for RFC 2284bis. Jun 02 EAP Security considerations section for RFC 2284bis. Jun 02 EAP state machine section for RFC 2284bis. Sep 02 RFC 2869bis published as Proposed Standard RFC. Sep 02 RFC 2284bis published as Proposed Standard RFC. Sep 02 EAP applicability statement published as Informational RFC. Sep 02 EAP keying issues doc published as Informational RFC.
doc.: IEEE 802.1aa-02/XXX Submission March 2002 Bernard Aboba, MicrosoftSlide 32 Feedback?