Skip to main content

EAP Mutual Cryptographic Binding

Document Type Replaced Internet-Draft (individual)
Expired & archived
Authors Sam Hartman , Margaret Cullen , Dacheng Zhang
Last updated 2012-07-31 (Latest revision 2012-03-05)
Replaced by draft-ietf-emu-crypto-bind, RFC 7029
RFC stream (None)
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Replaced by draft-ietf-emu-crypto-bind, draft-ietf-emu-crypto-bind
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:


As the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) evolves, EAP peers rely increasingly on information received from the EAP server. EAP extensions such as channel binding or network posture information are often carried in tunnel methods; peers are likely to rely on this information. [RFC 3748] is a facility that protects tunnel methods against man-in-the-middle attacks. However, cryptographic binding focuses on protecting the server rather than the peer. This memo explores attacks possible when the peer is not protected from man-in- the-middle attacks and recommends mutual cryptographic binding, a new form of cryptographic binding that protects both peer and server.


Sam Hartman
Margaret Cullen
Dacheng Zhang

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)