tech-invite   World Map     

IETF     RFCs     Groups     SIP     ABNFs    |    3GPP     Specs     Glossaries     Architecture     IMS     UICC    |    search     info

RFC 6113

Proposed STD
Pages: 48
Top     in Index     Prev     Next
in Group Index     Prev in Group     Next in Group     Group: KRB-WG

A Generalized Framework for Kerberos Pre-Authentication

Part 1 of 3, p. 1 to 17
None       Next RFC Part

Updates:    4120


Top       ToC       Page 1 
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        S. Hartman
Request for Comments: 6113                             Painless Security
Updates: 4120                                                     L. Zhu
Category: Standards Track                          Microsoft Corporation
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               April 2011


        A Generalized Framework for Kerberos Pre-Authentication

Abstract

   Kerberos is a protocol for verifying the identity of principals
   (e.g., a workstation user or a network server) on an open network.
   The Kerberos protocol provides a facility called pre-authentication.
   Pre-authentication mechanisms can use this facility to extend the
   Kerberos protocol and prove the identity of a principal.

   This document describes a more formal model for this facility.  The
   model describes what state in the Kerberos request a pre-
   authentication mechanism is likely to change.  It also describes how
   multiple pre-authentication mechanisms used in the same request will
   interact.

   This document also provides common tools needed by multiple pre-
   authentication mechanisms.  One of these tools is a secure channel
   between the client and the key distribution center with a reply key
   strengthening mechanism; this secure channel can be used to protect
   the authentication exchange and thus eliminate offline dictionary
   attacks.  With these tools, it is relatively straightforward to chain
   multiple authentication mechanisms, utilize a different key
   management system, or support a new key agreement algorithm.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6113.

Page 2 
Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   (http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Top       Page 3 
Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................4
      1.1. Conventions and Terminology Used in This Document ..........5
      1.2. Conformance Requirements ...................................5
   2. Model for Pre-Authentication ....................................6
      2.1. Information Managed by the Pre-Authentication Model ........7
      2.2. Initial Pre-Authentication Required Error ..................9
      2.3. Client to KDC .............................................10
      2.4. KDC to Client .............................................11
   3. Pre-Authentication Facilities ..................................12
      3.1. Client Authentication Facility ............................13
      3.2. Strengthening Reply Key Facility ..........................13
      3.3. Replace Reply Key Facility ................................14
      3.4. KDC Authentication Facility ...............................15
   4. Requirements for Pre-Authentication Mechanisms .................15
      4.1. Protecting Requests/Responses .............................16
   5. Tools for Use in Pre-Authentication Mechanisms .................17
      5.1. Combining Keys ............................................17
      5.2. Managing States for the KDC ...............................19
      5.3. Pre-Authentication Set ....................................20
      5.4. Definition of Kerberos FAST Padata ........................23
           5.4.1. FAST Armors ........................................24
           5.4.2. FAST Request .......................................26
           5.4.3. FAST Response ......................................30
           5.4.4. Authenticated Kerberos Error Messages Using
                  Kerberos FAST ......................................33
           5.4.5. Outer and Inner Requests ...........................34
           5.4.6. The Encrypted Challenge FAST Factor ................34
      5.5. Authentication Strength Indication ........................36
   6. Assigned Constants .............................................37
      6.1. New Errors ................................................37
      6.2. Key Usage Numbers .........................................37
      6.3. Authorization Data Elements ...............................37
      6.4. New PA-DATA Types .........................................37
   7. IANA Considerations ............................................38
      7.1. Pre-Authentication and Typed Data .........................38
      7.2. Fast Armor Types ..........................................40
      7.3. FAST Options ..............................................40
   8. Security Considerations ........................................41
   9. Acknowledgements ...............................................42
   10. References ....................................................43
      10.1. Normative References .....................................43
      10.2. Informative References ...................................43
   Appendix A. Test Vectors for KRB-FX-CF2 ...........................45
   Appendix B. ASN.1 Module ..........................................46

Top      ToC       Page 4 
1.  Introduction

   The core Kerberos specification [RFC4120] treats pre-authentication
   data (padata) as an opaque typed hole in the messages to the key
   distribution center (KDC) that may influence the reply key used to
   encrypt the KDC reply.  This generality has been useful: pre-
   authentication data is used for a variety of extensions to the
   protocol, many outside the expectations of the initial designers.
   However, this generality makes designing more common types of pre-
   authentication mechanisms difficult.  Each mechanism needs to specify
   how it interacts with other mechanisms.  Also, tasks such as
   combining a key with the long-term secrets or proving the identity of
   the user are common to multiple mechanisms.  Where there are
   generally well-accepted solutions to these problems, it is desirable
   to standardize one of these solutions so mechanisms can avoid
   duplication of work.  In other cases, a modular approach to these
   problems is appropriate.  The modular approach will allow new and
   better solutions to common pre-authentication problems to be used by
   existing mechanisms as they are developed.

   This document specifies a framework for Kerberos pre-authentication
   mechanisms.  It defines the common set of functions that pre-
   authentication mechanisms perform as well as how these functions
   affect the state of the request and reply.  In addition, several
   common tools needed by pre-authentication mechanisms are provided.
   Unlike [RFC3961], this framework is not complete -- it does not
   describe all the inputs and outputs for the pre-authentication
   mechanisms.  Pre-authentication mechanism designers should try to be
   consistent with this framework because doing so will make their
   mechanisms easier to implement.  Kerberos implementations are likely
   to have plug-in architectures for pre-authentication; such
   architectures are likely to support mechanisms that follow this
   framework plus commonly used extensions.  This framework also
   facilitates combining multiple pre-authentication mechanisms, each of
   which may represent an authentication factor, into a single multi-
   factor pre-authentication mechanism.

   One of these common tools is the flexible authentication secure
   tunneling (FAST) padata type.  FAST provides a protected channel
   between the client and the key distribution center (KDC), and it can
   optionally deliver key material used to strengthen the reply key
   within the protected channel.  Based on FAST, pre-authentication
   mechanisms can extend Kerberos with ease, to support, for example,
   password-authenticated key exchange (PAKE) protocols with zero-
   knowledge password proof (ZKPP) [EKE] [IEEE1363.2].  Any pre-
   authentication mechanism can be encapsulated in the FAST messages as
   defined in Section 5.4.  A pre-authentication type carried within
   FAST is called a "FAST factor".  Creating a FAST factor is the

Top      ToC       Page 5 
   easiest path to create a new pre-authentication mechanism.  FAST
   factors are significantly easier to analyze from a security
   standpoint than other pre-authentication mechanisms.

   Mechanism designers should design FAST factors, instead of new pre-
   authentication mechanisms outside of FAST.

1.1.  Conventions and Terminology 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].

   This document should be read only after reading the documents
   describing the Kerberos cryptography framework [RFC3961] and the core
   Kerberos protocol [RFC4120].  This document may freely use
   terminology and notation from these documents without reference or
   further explanation.

   The word padata is used as a shorthand for pre-authentication data.

   A conversation is the set of all authentication messages exchanged
   between the client and the client's Authentication Service (AS) in
   order to authenticate the client principal.  A conversation as
   defined here consists of all messages that are necessary to complete
   the authentication between the client and the client's AS.  In the
   Ticket Granting Service (TGS) exchange, a conversation consists of
   the request message and the reply message.  The term conversation is
   defined here for both AS and TGS for convenience of discussion.  See
   Section 5.2 for specific rules on the extent of a conversation in the
   AS-REQ case.  Prior to this framework, implementations needed to use
   implementation-specific heuristics to determine the extent of a
   conversation.

   If the KDC reply in an AS exchange is verified, the KDC is
   authenticated by the client.  In this document, verification of the
   KDC reply is used as a synonym of authentication of the KDC.

1.2.  Conformance Requirements

   This section summarizes the mandatory-to-implement subset of this
   specification as a convenience to implementors.  The actual
   requirements and their context are stated in the body of the
   document.

   Clients conforming to this specification MUST support the padata
   defined in Section 5.2.

Top      ToC       Page 6 
   Conforming implementations MUST support Kerberos FAST padata
   (Section 5.4).  Conforming implementations MUST implement the
   FX_FAST_ARMOR_AP_REQUEST armor type.

   Conforming implementations MUST support the encrypted challenge FAST
   factor (Section 5.4.6).

2.  Model for Pre-Authentication

   When a Kerberos client wishes to obtain a ticket, it sends an initial
   Authentication Service (AS) request to the KDC.  If pre-
   authentication is required but not being used, then the KDC will
   respond with a KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED error [RFC4120].
   Alternatively, if the client knows what pre-authentication to use, it
   MAY optimize away a round trip and send an initial request with
   padata included in the initial request.  If the client includes the
   padata computed using the wrong pre-authentication mechanism or
   incorrect keys, the KDC MAY return KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_FAILED with no
   indication of what padata should have been included.  In that case,
   the client MUST retry with no padata and examine the error data of
   the KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED error.  If the KDC includes pre-
   authentication information in the accompanying error data of
   KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_FAILED, the client SHOULD process the error data and
   then retry.

   The conventional KDC maintains no state between two requests;
   subsequent requests may even be processed by a different KDC.  On the
   other hand, the client treats a series of exchanges with KDCs as a
   single conversation.  Each exchange accumulates state and hopefully
   brings the client closer to a successful authentication.

   These models for state management are in apparent conflict.  For many
   of the simpler pre-authentication scenarios, the client uses one
   round trip to find out what mechanisms the KDC supports.  Then, the
   next request contains sufficient pre-authentication for the KDC to be
   able to return a successful reply.  For these simple scenarios, the
   client only sends one request with pre-authentication data and so the
   conversation is trivial.  For more complex conversations, the KDC
   needs to provide the client with a cookie to include in future
   requests to capture the current state of the authentication session.
   Handling of multiple round-trip mechanisms is discussed in
   Section 5.2.

   This framework specifies the behavior of Kerberos pre-authentication
   mechanisms used to identify users or to modify the reply key used to
   encrypt the KDC reply.  The PA-DATA typed hole may be used to carry
   extensions to Kerberos that have nothing to do with proving the

Top      ToC       Page 7 
   identity of the user or establishing a reply key.  Such extensions
   are outside the scope of this framework.  However, mechanisms that do
   accomplish these goals should follow this framework.

   This framework specifies the minimum state that a Kerberos
   implementation needs to maintain while handling a request in order to
   process pre-authentication.  It also specifies how Kerberos
   implementations process the padata at each step of the AS request
   process.

2.1.  Information Managed by the Pre-Authentication Model

   The following information is maintained by the client and KDC as each
   request is being processed:

   o  The reply key used to encrypt the KDC reply

   o  How strongly the identity of the client has been authenticated

   o  Whether the reply key has been used in this conversation

   o  Whether the reply key has been replaced in this conversation

   o  Whether the origin of the KDC reply can be verified by the client
      (i.e., whether the KDC is authenticated to the client)

   Conceptually, the reply key is initially the long-term key of the
   principal.  However, principals can have multiple long-term keys
   because of support for multiple encryption types, salts, and
   string2key parameters.  As described in Section 5.2.7.5 of the
   Kerberos protocol [RFC4120], the KDC sends PA-ETYPE-INFO2 to notify
   the client what types of keys are available.  Thus, in full
   generality, the reply key in the pre-authentication model is actually
   a set of keys.  At the beginning of a request, it is initialized to
   the set of long-term keys advertised in the PA-ETYPE-INFO2 element on
   the KDC.  If multiple reply keys are available, the client chooses
   which one to use.  Thus, the client does not need to treat the reply
   key as a set.  At the beginning of a request, the client picks a key
   to use.

   KDC implementations MAY choose to offer only one key in the PA-ETYPE-
   INFO2 element.  Since the KDC already knows the client's list of
   supported enctypes from the request, no interoperability problems are

Top      ToC       Page 8 
   created by choosing a single possible reply key.  This way, the KDC
   implementation avoids the complexity of treating the reply key as a
   set.

   When the padata in the request are verified by the KDC, then the
   client is known to have that key; therefore, the KDC SHOULD pick the
   same key as the reply key.

   At the beginning of handling a message on both the client and the
   KDC, the client's identity is not authenticated.  A mechanism may
   indicate that it has successfully authenticated the client's
   identity.  It is useful to keep track of this information on the
   client in order to know what pre-authentication mechanisms should be
   used.  The KDC needs to keep track of whether the client is
   authenticated because the primary purpose of pre-authentication is to
   authenticate the client identity before issuing a ticket.  The
   handling of authentication strength using various authentication
   mechanisms is discussed in Section 5.5.

   Initially, the reply key is not used.  A pre-authentication mechanism
   that uses the reply key to encrypt or checksum some data in the
   generation of new keys MUST indicate that the reply key is used.
   This state is maintained by the client and the KDC to enforce the
   security requirement stated in Section 3.3 that the reply key SHOULD
   NOT be replaced after it is used.

   Initially, the reply key is not replaced.  If a mechanism implements
   the Replace Reply Key facility discussed in Section 3.3, then the
   state MUST be updated to indicate that the reply key has been
   replaced.  Once the reply key has been replaced, knowledge of the
   reply key is insufficient to authenticate the client.  The reply key
   is marked as replaced in exactly the same situations as the KDC reply
   is marked as not being verified to the client principal.  However,
   while mechanisms can verify the KDC reply to the client, once the
   reply key is replaced, then the reply key remains replaced for the
   remainder of the conversation.

   Without pre-authentication, the client knows that the KDC reply is
   authentic and has not been modified because it is encrypted in a
   long-term key of the client.  Only the KDC and the client know that
   key.  So, at the start of a conversation, the KDC reply is presumed
   to be verified using the client's long-term key.  It should be noted
   that in this document, verifying the KDC reply means authenticating
   the KDC, and these phrases are used interchangeably.  Any pre-
   authentication mechanism that sets a new reply key not based on the
   principal's long-term secret MUST either verify the KDC reply some
   other way or indicate that the reply is not verified.  If a mechanism
   indicates that the reply is not verified, then the client

Top      ToC       Page 9 
   implementation MUST return an error unless a subsequent mechanism
   verifies the reply.  The KDC needs to track this state so it can
   avoid generating a reply that is not verified.

   In this specification, KDC verification/authentication refers to the
   level of authentication of the KDC to the client provided by RFC
   4120.  There is a stronger form of KDC verification that, while
   sometimes important in Kerberos deployments, is not addressed in this
   specification: the typical Kerberos request does not provide a way
   for the client machine to know that it is talking to the correct KDC.
   Someone who can inject packets into the network between the client
   machine and the KDC and who knows the password that the user will
   give to the client machine can generate a KDC reply that will decrypt
   properly.  So, if the client machine needs to authenticate that the
   user is in fact the named principal, then the client machine needs to
   do a TGS request for itself as a service.  Some pre-authentication
   mechanisms may provide a way for the client machine to authenticate
   the KDC.  Examples of this include signing the reply that can be
   verified using a well-known public key or providing a ticket for the
   client machine as a service.

2.2.  Initial Pre-Authentication Required Error

   Typically, a client starts a conversation by sending an initial
   request with no pre-authentication.  If the KDC requires pre-
   authentication, then it returns a KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED message.
   After the first reply with the KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED error code,
   the KDC returns the error code KDC_ERR_MORE_PREAUTH_DATA_REQUIRED
   (defined in Section 5.2) for pre-authentication configurations that
   use multi-round-trip mechanisms; see Section 2.4 for details of that
   case.

   The KDC needs to choose which mechanisms to offer the client.  The
   client needs to be able to choose what mechanisms to use from the
   first message.  For example, consider the KDC that will accept
   mechanism A followed by mechanism B or alternatively the single
   mechanism C.  A client that supports A and C needs to know that it
   should not bother trying A.

   Mechanisms can either be sufficient on their own or can be part of an
   authentication set -- a group of mechanisms that all need to
   successfully complete in order to authenticate a client.  Some
   mechanisms may only be useful in authentication sets; others may be
   useful alone or in authentication sets.  For the second group of
   mechanisms, KDC policy dictates whether the mechanism will be part of
   an authentication set, offered alone, or both.  For each mechanism
   that is offered alone (even if it is also offered in an
   authentication set), the KDC includes the pre-authentication type ID

Top      ToC       Page 10 
   of the mechanism in the padata sequence returned in the
   KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED error.  Mechanisms that are only offered as
   part of an authentication set are not directly represented in the
   padata sequence returned in the KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED error,
   although they are represented in the PA-AUTHENTICATION-SET sequence.

   The KDC SHOULD NOT send data that is encrypted in the long-term
   password-based key of the principal.  Doing so has the same security
   exposures as the Kerberos protocol without pre-authentication.  There
   are few situations where the KDC needs to expose cipher text
   encrypted in a weak key before the client has proven knowledge of
   that key, and where pre-authentication is desirable.

2.3.  Client to KDC

   This description assumes that a client has already received a
   KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED from the KDC.  If the client performs
   optimistic pre-authentication, then the client needs to guess values
   for the information it would normally receive from that error
   response or use cached information obtained in prior interactions
   with the KDC.

   The client starts by initializing the pre-authentication state as
   specified.  It then processes the padata in the
   KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED.

   When processing the response to the KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED, the
   client MAY ignore any padata it chooses unless doing so violates a
   specification to which the client conforms.  Clients conforming to
   this specification MUST NOT ignore the padata defined in Section 5.2.
   Clients SHOULD choose one authentication set or mechanism that could
   lead to authenticating the user and ignore other such mechanisms.
   However, this rule does not affect the processing of padata unrelated
   to this framework; clients SHOULD process such padata normally.
   Since the list of mechanisms offered by the KDC is in the decreasing
   preference order, clients typically choose the first mechanism or
   authentication set that the client can usefully perform.  If a client
   chooses to ignore padata, it MUST NOT process the padata, allow the
   padata to affect the pre-authentication state, or respond to the
   padata.

   For each instance of padata the client chooses to process, the client
   processes the padata and modifies the pre-authentication state as
   required by that mechanism.

Top      ToC       Page 11 
   After processing the padata in the KDC error, the client generates a
   new request.  It processes the pre-authentication mechanisms in the
   order in which they will appear in the next request, updating the
   state as appropriate.  The request is sent when it is complete.

2.4.  KDC to Client

   When a KDC receives an AS request from a client, it needs to
   determine whether it will respond with an error or an AS reply.
   There are many causes for an error to be generated that have nothing
   to do with pre-authentication; they are discussed in the core
   Kerberos specification.

   From the standpoint of evaluating the pre-authentication, the KDC
   first starts by initializing the pre-authentication state.  If a PA-
   FX-COOKIE pre-authentication data item is present, it is processed
   first; see Section 5.2 for a definition.  It then processes the
   padata in the request.  As mentioned in Section 2.3, the KDC MAY
   ignore padata that are inappropriate for the configuration and MUST
   ignore padata of an unknown type.  The KDC MUST NOT ignore padata of
   types used in previous messages.  For example, if a KDC issues a
   KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED error including padata of type x, then the
   KDC cannot ignore padata of type x received in an AS-REQ message from
   the client.

   At this point, the KDC decides whether it will issue an error or a
   reply.  Typically, a KDC will issue a reply if the client's identity
   has been authenticated to a sufficient degree.

   In the case of a KDC_ERR_MORE_PREAUTH_DATA_REQUIRED error, the KDC
   first starts by initializing the pre-authentication state.  Then, it
   processes any padata in the client's request in the order provided by
   the client.  Mechanisms that are not understood by the KDC are
   ignored.  Next, it generates padata for the error response, modifying
   the pre-authentication state appropriately as each mechanism is
   processed.  The KDC chooses the order in which it will generate
   padata (and thus the order of padata in the response), but it needs
   to modify the pre-authentication state consistently with the choice
   of order.  For example, if some mechanism establishes an
   authenticated client identity, then the subsequent mechanisms in the
   generated response receive this state as input.  After the padata are
   generated, the error response is sent.  Typically, the errors with
   the code KDC_ERR_MORE_PREAUTH_DATA_REQUIRED in a conversation will
   include KDC state, as discussed in Section 5.2.

   To generate a final reply, the KDC generates the padata modifying the
   pre-authentication state as necessary.  Then, it generates the final
   response, encrypting it in the current pre-authentication reply key.

Top      ToC       Page 12 
3.  Pre-Authentication Facilities

   Pre-authentication mechanisms can be thought of as providing various
   conceptual facilities.  This serves two useful purposes.  First,
   mechanism authors can choose only to solve one specific small
   problem.  It is often useful for a mechanism designed to offer key
   management not to directly provide client authentication but instead
   to allow one or more other mechanisms to handle this need.  Secondly,
   thinking about the abstract services that a mechanism provides yields
   a minimum set of security requirements that all mechanisms providing
   that facility must meet.  These security requirements are not
   complete; mechanisms will have additional security requirements based
   on the specific protocol they employ.

   A mechanism is not constrained to only offering one of these
   facilities.  While such mechanisms can be designed and are sometimes
   useful, many pre-authentication mechanisms implement several
   facilities.  It is often easier to construct a secure, simple
   solution by combining multiple facilities in a single mechanism than
   by solving the problem in full generality.  Even when mechanisms
   provide multiple facilities, they need to meet the security
   requirements for all the facilities they provide.  If the FAST factor
   approach is used, it is likely that one or a small number of
   facilities can be provided by a single mechanism without complicating
   the security analysis.

   According to Kerberos extensibility rules (Section 1.5 of the
   Kerberos specification [RFC4120]), an extension MUST NOT change the
   semantics of a message unless a recipient is known to understand that
   extension.  Because a client does not know that the KDC supports a
   particular pre-authentication mechanism when it sends an initial
   request, a pre-authentication mechanism MUST NOT change the semantics
   of the request in a way that will break a KDC that does not
   understand that mechanism.  Similarly, KDCs MUST NOT send messages to
   clients that affect the core semantics unless the client has
   indicated support for the message.

   The only state in this model that would break the interpretation of a
   message is changing the expected reply key.  If one mechanism changed
   the reply key and a later mechanism used that reply key, then a KDC
   that interpreted the second mechanism but not the first would fail to
   interpret the request correctly.  In order to avoid this problem,
   extensions that change core semantics are typically divided into two
   parts.  The first part proposes a change to the core semantic -- for
   example, proposes a new reply key.  The second part acknowledges that
   the extension is understood and that the change takes effect.
   Section 3.2 discusses how to design mechanisms that modify the reply
   key to be split into a proposal and acceptance without requiring

Top      ToC       Page 13 
   additional round trips to use the new reply key in subsequent pre-
   authentication.  Other changes in the state described in Section 2.1
   can safely be ignored by a KDC that does not understand a mechanism.
   Mechanisms that modify the behavior of the request outside the scope
   of this framework need to carefully consider the Kerberos
   extensibility rules to avoid similar problems.

3.1.  Client Authentication Facility

   The Client Authentication facility proves the identity of a user to
   the KDC before a ticket is issued.  Examples of mechanisms
   implementing this facility include the encrypted timestamp facility,
   defined in Section 5.2.7.2 of the Kerberos specification [RFC4120].
   Mechanisms that provide this facility are expected to mark the client
   as authenticated.

   Mechanisms implementing this facility SHOULD require the client to
   prove knowledge of the reply key before transmitting a successful KDC
   reply.  Otherwise, an attacker can intercept the pre-authentication
   exchange and get a reply to attack.  One way of proving the client
   knows the reply key is to implement the Replace Reply Key facility
   along with this facility.  The Public Key Cryptography for Initial
   Authentication in Kerberos (PKINIT) mechanism [RFC4556] implements
   Client Authentication alongside Replace Reply Key.

   If the reply key has been replaced, then mechanisms such as
   encrypted-timestamp that rely on knowledge of the reply key to
   authenticate the client MUST NOT be used.

3.2.  Strengthening Reply Key Facility

   Particularly when dealing with keys based on passwords, it is
   desirable to increase the strength of the key by adding additional
   secrets to it.  Examples of sources of additional secrets include the
   results of a Diffie-Hellman key exchange or key bits from the output
   of a smart card [KRB-WG.SAM].  Typically, these additional secrets
   can be first combined with the existing reply key and then converted
   to a protocol key using tools defined in Section 5.1.

   Typically, a mechanism implementing this facility will know that the
   other side of the exchange supports the facility before the reply key
   is changed.  For example, a mechanism might need to learn the
   certificate for a KDC before encrypting a new key in the public key
   belonging to that certificate.  However, if a mechanism implementing
   this facility wishes to modify the reply key before knowing that the
   other party in the exchange supports the mechanism, it proposes
   modifying the reply key.  The other party then includes a message
   indicating that the proposal is accepted if it is understood and

Top      ToC       Page 14 
   meets policy.  In many cases, it is desirable to use the new reply
   key for client authentication and for other facilities.  Waiting for
   the other party to accept the proposal and actually modify the reply
   key state would add an additional round trip to the exchange.
   Instead, mechanism designers are encouraged to include a typed hole
   for additional padata in the message that proposes the reply key
   change.  The padata included in the typed hole are generated assuming
   the new reply key.  If the other party accepts the proposal, then
   these padata are considered as an inner level.  As with the outer
   level, one authentication set or mechanism is typically chosen for
   client authentication, along with auxiliary mechanisms such as KDC
   cookies, and other mechanisms are ignored.  When mechanisms include
   such a container, the hint provided for use in authentication sets
   (as defined in Section 5.3) MUST contain a sequence of inner
   mechanisms along with hints for those mechanisms.  The party
   generating the proposal can determine whether the padata were
   processed based on whether the proposal for the reply key is
   accepted.

   The specific formats of the proposal message, including where padata
   are included, is a matter for the mechanism specification.
   Similarly, the format of the message accepting the proposal is
   mechanism specific.

   Mechanisms implementing this facility and including a typed hole for
   additional padata MUST checksum that padata using a keyed checksum or
   encrypt the padata.  This requirement protects against modification
   of the contents of the typed hole.  By modifying these contents, an
   attacker might be able to choose which mechanism is used to
   authenticate the client, or to convince a party to provide text
   encrypted in a key that the attacker had manipulated.  It is
   important that mechanisms strengthen the reply key enough that using
   it to checksum padata is appropriate.

3.3.  Replace Reply Key Facility

   The Replace Reply Key facility replaces the key in which a successful
   AS reply will be encrypted.  This facility can only be used in cases
   where knowledge of the reply key is not used to authenticate the
   client.  The new reply key MUST be communicated to the client and the
   KDC in a secure manner.  This facility MUST NOT be used if there can
   be a man-in-the-middle between the client and the KDC.  Mechanisms
   implementing this facility MUST mark the reply key as replaced in the
   pre-authentication state.  Mechanisms implementing this facility MUST
   either provide a mechanism to verify the KDC reply to the client or
   mark the reply as unverified in the pre-authentication state.
   Mechanisms implementing this facility SHOULD NOT be used if a
   previous mechanism has used the reply key.

Top      ToC       Page 15 
   As with the Strengthening Reply Key facility, Kerberos extensibility
   rules require that the reply key not be changed unless both sides of
   the exchange understand the extension.  In the case of this facility,
   it will likely be the case for both sides to know that the facility
   is available by the time that the new key is available to be used.
   However, mechanism designers can use a container for padata in a
   proposal message, as discussed in Section 3.2, if appropriate.

3.4.  KDC Authentication Facility

   This facility verifies that the reply comes from the expected KDC.
   In traditional Kerberos, the KDC and the client share a key, so if
   the KDC reply can be decrypted, then the client knows that a trusted
   KDC responded.  Note that the client machine cannot trust the client
   unless the machine is presented with a service ticket for it
   (typically, the machine can retrieve this ticket by itself).
   However, if the reply key is replaced, some mechanism is required to
   verify the KDC.  Pre-authentication mechanisms providing this
   facility allow a client to determine that the expected KDC has
   responded even after the reply key is replaced.  They mark the pre-
   authentication state as having been verified.

4.  Requirements for Pre-Authentication Mechanisms

   This section lists requirements for specifications of pre-
   authentication mechanisms.

   For each message in the pre-authentication mechanism, the
   specification describes the pa-type value to be used and the contents
   of the message.  The processing of the message by the sender and
   recipient is also specified.  This specification needs to include all
   modifications to the pre-authentication state.

   Generally, mechanisms have a message that can be sent in the error
   data of the KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED error message or in an
   authentication set.  If the client needs information, such as trusted
   certificate authorities, in order to determine if it can use the
   mechanism, then this information should be in that message.  In
   addition, such mechanisms should also define a pa-hint to be included
   in authentication sets.  Often, the same information included in the
   padata-value is appropriate to include in the pa-hint (as defined in
   Section 5.3).

   In order to ease security analysis, the mechanism specification
   should describe what facilities from this document are offered by the
   mechanism.  For each facility, the security considerations section of
   the mechanism specification should show that the security

Top      ToC       Page 16 
   requirements of that facility are met.  This requirement is
   applicable to any FAST factor that provides authentication
   information.

   Significant problems have resulted in the specification of Kerberos
   protocols because much of the KDC exchange is not protected against
   alteration.  The security considerations section should discuss
   unauthenticated plaintext attacks.  It should either show that
   plaintext is protected or discuss what harm an attacker could do by
   modifying the plaintext.  It is generally acceptable for an attacker
   to be able to cause the protocol negotiation to fail by modifying
   plaintext.  More significant attacks should be evaluated carefully.

   As discussed in Section 5.2, there is no guarantee that a client will
   use the same KDCs for all messages in a conversation.  The mechanism
   specification needs to show why the mechanism is secure in this
   situation.  The hardest problem to deal with, especially for
   challenge/response mechanisms is to make sure that the same response
   cannot be replayed against two KDCs while allowing the client to talk
   to any KDC.

4.1.  Protecting Requests/Responses

   Mechanism designers SHOULD protect cleartext portions of pre-
   authentication data.  Various denial-of-service attacks and downgrade
   attacks against Kerberos are possible unless plaintexts are somehow
   protected against modification.  An early design goal of Kerberos
   Version 5 [RFC4120] was to avoid encrypting more of the
   authentication exchange than was required.  (Version 4 doubly-
   encrypted the encrypted part of a ticket in a KDC reply, for
   example).  This minimization of encryption reduces the load on the
   KDC and busy servers.  Also, during the initial design of Version 5,
   the existence of legal restrictions on the export of cryptography
   made it desirable to minimize of the number of uses of encryption in
   the protocol.  Unfortunately, performing this minimization created
   numerous instances of unauthenticated security-relevant plaintext
   fields.

   Mechanisms MUST guarantee that by the end of a successful
   authentication exchange, both the client and the KDC have verified
   all the plaintext sent by the other party.  If there is more than one
   round trip in the exchange, mechanisms MUST additionally guarantee
   that no individual messages were reordered or replayed from a
   previous exchange.  Strategies for accomplishing this include using
   message authentication codes (MACs) to protect the plaintext as it is
   sent including some form of nonce or cookie to allow for the chaining
   of state from one message to the next or exchanging a MAC of the
   entire conversation after a key is established.

Top      ToC       Page 17 
   Mechanism designers need to provide a strategy for updating
   cryptographic algorithms, such as defining a new pre-authentication
   type for each algorithm or taking advantage of the client's list of
   supported RFC 3961 encryption types to indicate the client's support
   for cryptographic algorithms.

   Primitives defined in [RFC3961] are RECOMMENDED for integrity
   protection and confidentiality.  Mechanisms based on these primitives
   are crypto-agile as the result of using [RFC3961] along with
   [RFC4120].  The advantage afforded by crypto-agility is the ability
   to incrementally deploy a fix specific to a particular algorithm thus
   avoid a multi-year standardization and deployment cycle, when real
   attacks do arise against that algorithm.

   Note that data used by FAST factors (defined in Section 5.4) is
   encrypted in a protected channel; thus, they do not share the un-
   authenticated-text issues with mechanisms designed as full-blown pre-
   authentication mechanisms.



(page 17 continued on part 2)

Next RFC Part