Secure Shell Working Group J. Galbraith
Internet-Draft VanDyke Software
Expires: January 16, 2006 P. Remaker
Cisco Systems, Inc
July 15, 2005
Secure Shell (SSH) Session Channel Break Extension
draft-ietf-secsh-break-04
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
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
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
The Session Channel Break Extension provides a means to send a BREAK
signal over a Secure Shell (SSH) terminal session.
Galbraith & Remaker Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SSH Break Extension July 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The Break Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 11
Galbraith & Remaker Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SSH Break Extension July 2005
1. Introduction
The Secure Shell (SSH) session channel provides a mechanism for the
client-user to interactively enter commands and receive output from a
remote host while taking advantage of the SSH transport's privacy and
integrity features. SSH is increasingly being used to replace Telnet
for terminal access applications.
A common application of the Telnet protocol is the "Console Server"
[7] whereby a Telnet Network Virtual Terminal (NVT) can be connected
to a physical RS-232/V.24 asynchronous port, making the Telnet NVT
appear as a locally attached terminal to that port, and making that
physical port appear as a network addressable device. A number of
major computer equipment vendors provide high level administrative
functions through an asynchronous serial port and generally expect
the attached terminal to be capable of sending a BREAK signal.
A BREAK signal is defined as the TxD signal being held in a SPACE
("0") state for a time greater than a whole character time. In
practice, a BREAK signal is typically 250 to 500 ms in length.
The Telnet protocol furnishes a means to send a "BREAK" signal, which
RFC0854 [1] defines as a "a signal outside the USASCII set which is
currently given local meaning within many systems." [1] Console
Server vendors interpret the TELNET BREAK signal as a physical BREAK
signal, which can then allow access to the full range of
administrative functions available on an asynchronous serial console
port.
The lack of a similar facility in the SSH session channel has forced
users to continue the use of Telnet for the "Console Server"
function.
Galbraith & Remaker Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SSH Break Extension July 2005
2. Conventions 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 [2].
The "byte", "boolean", "uint32", and "string" data types are defined
in [3].
Galbraith & Remaker Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SSH Break Extension July 2005
3. The Break Request
The following channel specific request can be sent over a session
channel to request that the remote host perform a BREAK operation.
byte SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_REQUEST
uint32 recipient channel
string "break"
boolean want_reply
uint32 break-length in milliseconds
If the BREAK length cannot be controlled by the application receiving
this request, the BREAK length parameter SHOULD be ignored and the
default BREAK signal length of the chipset or underlying chipset
driver SHOULD be sent. If no default exists, 500ms can be used as
the BREAK length.
If the application receiving this request can control the BREAK-
length, the following suggestions are made regarding BREAK duration.
If a BREAK duration request of greater than 3000ms is received, it
SHOULD be intepreted as a request for a 3000ms BREAK. This safeguard
prevents an unreasonably long BREAK request from causing a port to
become unavailable for as long as 49.7 days while executing the
BREAK. Applications that require a longer BREAK may choose to ignore
this suggestion. If BREAK duration request of less than 500ms is
received, it SHOULD be interpreted as a 500ms BREAK since most
devices will recognize a BREAK of that length. Applications that
require a shorter BREAK may choose to ignore this suggestion. If the
BREAK-length parameter is 0 or not present, the BREAK SHOULD be
interpreted as the default BREAK signal length of the chipset or
underlying chipset driver. If no default exists, 500ms can be used
as the BREAK length.
If the SSH connection does not terminate on a physical serial port,
the BREAK indication SHOULD be handled in a manner consistent with
the general use of BREAK as an attention/interrupt signal; for
instance, a service processor which requires an out-of-band facility
to get the attention of a system it manages.
In a case where an SSH connection cascades to another connection, the
BREAK SHOULD be passed along the cascaded connection. For example, a
Telnet session from an SSH shell should carry along an SSH initiated
BREAK and an SSH client initiated from a Telnet connection SHOULD
pass a BREAK indication from the Telnet connection.
If the 'want_reply' boolean is set, the server MUST reply using an
SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_SUCCESS or SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_FAILURE [5] message. If a
BREAK of any kind was preformed, SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_SUCCESS MUST be
Galbraith & Remaker Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SSH Break Extension July 2005
sent. If no BREAK was preformed, SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_FAILURE MUST be
sent.
This operation SHOULD be supported by any general purpose SSH client.
Galbraith & Remaker Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SSH Break Extension July 2005
4. Security Considerations
Many computer systems treat serial consoles as local and secured, and
interpret a BREAK signal as an instruction to halt execution of the
operating system or to enter privileged configuration modes. Because
of this, extra care should be taken to ensure that SSH access to
BREAK-enabled ports are limited to users with appropriate privileges
to execute such functions. Alternatively, support for the BREAK
facility MAY be implemented as configurable on a per-port or per-
server basis.
Implementations that literally interpret the BREAK length parameter
without imposing the suggested BREAK time limit may cause a denial of
service to or unexpected results from attached devices receiving the
very long BREAK signal.
Galbraith & Remaker Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SSH Break Extension July 2005
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign the Connection Protocol Channel Request
Name "break" in accordance with [6].
Galbraith & Remaker Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SSH Break Extension July 2005
6. References
6.1 Normative References
[1] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Protocol Specification",
STD 8, RFC 854, May 1983.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[3] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "SSH Protocol Architecture",
draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-22 (work in progress), March 2005.
[4] Lonvick, C., "SSH Transport Layer Protocol",
draft-ietf-secsh-transport-24 (work in progress), March 2005.
[5] Lonvick, C. and T. Ylonen, "SSH Connection Protocol",
draft-ietf-secsh-connect-25 (work in progress), March 2005.
[6] Lehtinen, S. and C. Lonvick, "SSH Protocol Assigned Numbers",
draft-ietf-secsh-assignednumbers-12 (work in progress),
March 2005.
6.2 Informative References
[7] Harris, D., "Greater Scroll of Console Knowledge", March 2004,
<http://www.conserver.com/consoles/>.
Authors' Addresses
Joseph Galbraith
VanDyke Software
4848 Tramway Ridge Blvd
Suite 101
Albuquerque, NM 87111
US
Phone: +1 505 332 5700
Email: galb-list@vandyke.com
Galbraith & Remaker Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SSH Break Extension July 2005
Phillip Remaker
Cisco Systems, Inc
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95120
US
Phone: +1 408 526 8614
Email: remaker@cisco.com
Galbraith & Remaker Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SSH Break Extension July 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Galbraith & Remaker Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 11]
