[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06                                          
Network Working Group                                      Scott Bradner
                                                      Harvard University
                                                          Allison Mankin
                                                                 USC/ISI
                                                     Jeffrey I. Schiller
                                   Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                                                               Feb, 2001


                A Framework for Purpose Built Keys (PBK)

                    <draft-bradner-pbk-frame-00.txt>

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.


Abstract

   This memo defines a framework for the consideration of a particular
   class of the need to authenticate the source of a network
   communication.  The class consists of those cases where the actual
   identity of the source is not important but the knowledge that the
   source is the same one as started the communication and the assurance
   that the source cannot be spoofed are important.  This memo defines
   the use of specially generated public/private key pairs, known as



Bradner, Mankin & Schiller                                      [Page 1]


Purpose Built Keys Framework              Feb 2001


   Purpose Built Keys (PBKs), to provide this knowledge and assurance.


1.0 Introduction

   There are many cases in Internet protocols where cryptographic
   mechanisms can add significant security improvement. However most
   such mechanisms rely on associating keys to entities, ultimately
   requiring an enterprise wide or potentially globally deployed Public
   Key Infrastructure (PKI).

   In the absence of security mechanisms, many protocols are
   continuously vulnerable to attack.

   However there are many circumstances where we can improve overall
   security by narrowing the window of vulnerability, so that if we
   assume that some operation is performed securely, we can secure all
   future transactions.

   There are also cases where the actual identity of the initiator of a
   network communication is not an important piece of information, yet
   it is important to know that successive packets are from that same
   source.  One example of this is in mobile IPv6.  Mobile IPv6 contains
   a rebinding option that enables a mobile node to tell the other end
   of a communication that the IP address for the mobile node has
   changed.  It is clearly important to know that any such rebinding
   request actually came from the correct mobile node even if the
   identity of the user of that mobile node does not need to be known.

   Note that it is not that the identity of the user here is unimportant
   to the network (the node user may well authenticate to a AAA server
   at the start of network activity), but rather that it is unimportant
   to accomplish that level of authentication for the purpose of
   rebinding.  Another example of this class of authentication would be
   continuing a connection through local renumbering of its site.

   This memo describes the use of a temporary public/private key pair
   which is generated by a host for each case where the consistency of
   authentication needs to be assured.  For example, a new key pair
   would be generated before each mobile IP session and discarded when
   the session was complete.

   This use of these host-generated temporary keys is confined to the
   parties in a communication and does not require that the keys be
   registered with or known by any third party.  Thus this mechanism
   does not require that any support infrastructure exist outside of the
   protocol support in the corresponding hosts and can be deployed
   incrementally as host support becomes available.  It also scales well



Bradner, Mankin & Schiller                                      [Page 2]


Purpose Built Keys Framework              Feb 2001


   since the operations are confined to the end systems involved in the
   communication.

   By not using registered keys, this mechanism preserves user anonymity
   as long as the identity of the users are not obtained by some other
   process during the communication.

   This mechanism does not require the use of a reliable protocol and it
   is a mechanism that fits under transports or under applications, and
   differs from IPSec in that it is applied on demand by an application
   or transport.

   When this mechanism is used with applications it can be used in ways
   similar to the use of web cookies but the use is under the control of
   the node that initiates the connection rather than under the control
   of the server.  This mechanism gives the user control over the scope
   of the use of a particular identity.

2.0 Conceptual Overview

   Following is a conceptual step-by-step description of the PBK process
   when operating below the transport layer.

   First some definitions:
      initiating node:  the node initiating the conversation
      receiving node: the node at the other end of the conversation

   Before a initiating node initiates a connection during which it will
   need to prove  that it is the same node that started the connection
   it creates a public/private key pair for use during the connection.
   This is known as a purpose-built key (PBK) pair.

   The initiating node then creates an Endpoint ID (EID) by performing a
   cryptographic hash of the public part of the PBK.  This EID will be
   used as an identity token for the node.

   The initiating node then initiates the connection.  The EID is sent
   along with the initial packets in the connection.  In IPv6 this could
   be done in an end-to-end option header, in IPv4 as a header option.
   (These option ideas are for transport level use of the PBK - if the
   PBK was used from within HTTP or another application, its position
   would not be have to be in the IP header). The EID does not need to
   appear in all of the packets; it just has to be reliably conveyed to
   the receiving node.

   The receiving node stores the EID and the source IP address in the
   received packet in a table.




Bradner, Mankin & Schiller                                      [Page 3]


Purpose Built Keys Framework              Feb 2001


   At some time in the connection before the proof of identity is
   needed, the initiating node sends its public key to the receiving
   node.  This again could be done in IP-level options or in an
   application-level exchange. The receiving node verifies that the
   received public key hashes to the previously provided EID.

   When the initiating node wants to perform some operation, such as a
   mobile IPv6 address rebinding, it sends the operation request along
   with the EID.  The message is signed using the private part of the
   PBK. If replay protection is necessary, a nonce value (a
   monotonically increasing value) or timestamp may be included with the
   operation request.

   When the receiving node gets such an operation request, it fetches
   the previously sent public key from session state. This key is then
   used to verify the digital signature on the operation request. If the
   protocol calls for a nonce value, it verifies that the nonce value is
   larger then any previously received nonce. The protocol may use a
   timestamp, in which case the receiving node determines if the
   timestamp is timely for the operation request.

   The PBKs would normally be discarded at the end of the communication
   but in those cases where a continuity of identity is needed over
   multiple sessions the PBKs could be retained until the requirement
   was over.

3.0 Notes on the design

   The hash of the public key is used as the EID so that the
   relationship between an offered EID and public key can be
   established.  If a receiving node is in possession of the private key
   and the hash of the corresponding public key matches an offered EID,
   it can be sure that it has the correct EID for that public key.

   Retransmission algorithms, where they are needed, must be conformant
   with RFC 2914 [RFC2914].

   In the cases where commands could be issued by both ends of a
   communication, as would be the case in mobile IPv6 if both ends were
   mobile, separate PBKs would be created by each end and the mechanism
   would be run independently by each end.

3.0 Security Considerations

   This whole document is about how to perform authenticated operations
   in an environment where there is no security infrastructure and one
   where network addresses might change during the communication.




Bradner, Mankin & Schiller                                      [Page 4]


Purpose Built Keys Framework              Feb 2001


   In the absence of infrastructure, it is not always possible to
   authenticate one party to another.  In the absence of any
   cryptographic security mechanism, internet transactions are
   continuously at risk of compromise.  With PBKs it is possible to
   leverage an initial "leap of faith" so that presuming an initial
   transaction has not been tampered with (say the exchange of EID's at
   the beginning of an association between two parties), future
   transactions can be secured.

6.0 Author's Addresses

   Scott Bradner
   Harvard University
   Cambridge MA 02138

   Phone +1 617 495 3864
   email sob@harvard.edu


   Allison Mankin
   University of Southern California, Information Sciences Institute
   4350 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 620
   Arlington, VA 22203
   Phone: +1 703 812 3706
   email: mankin@isi.edu


   Jeffrey I. Schiller
   Massachusetts Institute of Technology
   MIT Room W92-190
   77 Massachusetts Avenue
   Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
   Phone: +1 617 253 0161
   email: jis@mit.edu

















Bradner, Mankin & Schiller                                      [Page 5]


Purpose Built Keys Framework              Feb 2001


Appendix A - Mobile IPv6 Example

   Let's start by discussing briefly how Mobile IPv6 works. Note: This
   is not intended to be a comprehensive description of the protocol,
   and important details are left out for brevity. Full information can
   be obtained from [MobileIPv6].

   In a Mobile IPv6 world, a node may move from location to location. As
   it does, the best IP address to reach it may change, as IP addresses
   are integral to the operation of routing. As a node changes its
   topological location on the Internet, it needs to be reached at a
   different IP address.

   Yet, TCP and other transport protocols expect an IP address to remain
   stable for the duration of a session. Mobile IP deals with this by
   having a router close to a node's "home" address be in a position to
   intercept and forward any traffic for the mobile node to the IP
   address that it is currently reachable at. A mobile node's normal IP
   address is called its "home" address and the IP address where it is
   currently reachable is its "in care of" address.

   When a mobile IP node sends a packet, it labels its return address
   with that of its normal home address (via the Home Address Option),
   knowing that the home router, called the "home agent" will forward
   packets to it at its current "in care of" address. However this
   results in a routing triangle with the home agent as the third
   vertex. This is obviously inefficient from a router perspective, and
   if the difference, topologically, between a node's home address and
   current care of address is large, it can be very inefficient.

   To deal with this, mobile IPv6 introduces the notion of a "Binding
   Update" (BU) message. This message informs the mobile node's
   correspondent that it is now really located at a different IP
   address, the "in care of" address, and that packets destined for it
   should be instead routed to the care of address. This eliminates the
   triangle, resulting in efficient routing.

   However it introduces a security problem. An attacker can source a
   bogus BU message to cause a sender to route traffic for a particular
   recipient via the attacker's infrastructure. This can be used for
   denial of service (the attacker discards packets). Or it can be used
   to eavesdrop on traffic (the attacker peruses the packets and then
   forwards them on to their intended recipient).

   This attack can be thwarted by using PBK. Specifically when a session
   is initiated, the mobile node provides its EID in the first several
   packets of the session. This can be done via an IPv6 option header.
   This EID is noted and stored by the mobile node's correspondent. Now



Bradner, Mankin & Schiller                                      [Page 6]


Purpose Built Keys Framework              Feb 2001


   when the mobile node moves, it can provide its public key and send a
   BU signed with the corresponding private key. Note: Doing this will
   require changes to the BU message as currently defined in
   [MobileIPv6].

   The correspondent can verify that the EID and public key go together
   by hashing the public key and verifying that the resultant hash
   matches the EID. It can then verify the signature on the BU using the
   public key.

   Once a destination learns a mobile node's (or any node for that
   matter) EID, it is impossible for a third party attacker to forge
   signed messages.  If correspondents refused unsigned BUs, then it is
   not possible to divert traffic.





































Bradner, Mankin & Schiller                                      [Page 7]


Purpose Built Keys Framework              Feb 2001


References

   [RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", RFC 2914,
   September 2000.

   [MobileIPv6] Johson, David B., and Charles Perkins, "Mobility Support
   in IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-13.txt, November 2000.

   Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Payload Architecture", "Host Identity
   Payload Protocol", http://homebase.htt-consult.com/~hip, 2001.

Full Copyright statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.
   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on An
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF INFORMATION HEREIN
   WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.














Bradner, Mankin & Schiller                                      [Page 8]