EMU Working Group E. Ingles
Internet-Draft University of Murcia
Intended status: Experimental D. Garcia-Carrillo
Expires: May 6, 2021 University of Oviedo
R. Marin-Lopez
University of Murcia
November 2, 2020
EAP method based on EDHOC Authentication
draft-ingles-eap-edhoc-01
Abstract
This document describes a proposal of an EAP method based on the
EDHOC authentication protocol.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://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.
Ingles, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ingles-eap-edhoc-01 November 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. The EAP-EDHOC Conversation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.1. Transport and Message Correlation . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Identity Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Key Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
EDHOC [I-D.selander-lake-edhoc] is a new protocol for autentication
and key derivation that has been proposed as an alternative in IoT to
provide a secure exchange in an end-to-end fashion. This key
material can be futher used to run other protocols such as OSCORE, as
well as providing key material to any other protocol that needs pre-
shared key material to secure the communications. Provides
authentication and key material generation, which are basic pillars
to the design of an EAP method. And indeed the most important thing
is that it is lightweight and designed for IoT. In addition, the
EDHOC implementation that exists on the device can be reused to
establish OSCORE Security Associations (SAs) for the authentication
process. EAP is a protocol that allows to implement different
authentication mechanims, provides a framework for key management and
has integration with AAA infrastructures. For these reasons, this
new EAP method will allow the different applications and use cases to
take advantage of EAP.
1.1. Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Protocol Overview
2.1. The EAP-EDHOC Conversation
The exchange of messages befalls between two entities that EDHOC
identifies as Initiator (I) and Responder (R). In this EAP method,
Ingles, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ingles-eap-edhoc-01 November 2020
we establish equivalence with those terms. On the one hand, EAP peer
acts as Initiator while EAP Server takes on the role of Responder.
The EAP-EDHOC conversation typically starts with the negotiation of
EAP by the EAP authenticator and the EAP peer. The EAP authenticator
sends an EAP-Request/Identity packet to the EAP peer, to which the
EAP peer answers with an EAP-Response/Identity. This last messages
contains the peer's user-Id.
From this point on, the authenticator MAY act as a forwarder of the
EAP messages between the EAP peer and the server, if the pass-through
mode is used, receiving the EAP packets from the peer, encapsulating
them for transmission to the EAP server that will act as
Authentication Server (AS).
Once the EAP server receives the peer's Identity, it MUST respond
with an empty EAP-EDHOC/Start message, which is an EAP-Request packet
with EAP-Type=EAP-EDHOC and no data. Initiator must initiate the
EDHOC conversation. Hence, EAP Server sends this message to indicate
that it can start the authentication process. The EAP-EDHOC
conversation will then begin, with the peer sending an EAP-Response
packet with EAP-Type=EAP-EDHOC. The data field of that packet will
encapsulate the "EDHOC Message 1".
The EAP server will then respond with an EAP-Request packet with EAP-
Type=EAP-EDHOC. The data field of this packet will encapsulate
"EDHOC Message 2" message. To this message, the EAP peer will send
the and EAP-Response message containing the "EDHOC Message 3"
message.
In the case where the EDHOC mutual authentication is successful, the
conversation will appear as follows:
Ingles, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ingles-eap-edhoc-01 November 2020
+--------+ +-------+
| EAP | | EAP |
| Peer | | AuthN |
+--------+ +-------+
| EAP-Request/Identity |
| <---------------------------------------------------+ |
| |
| EAP-Response/Identity (ID) |
| +---------------------------------------------------> |
| EAP-Request/ |
| EAP-Type=EAP-EDHOC |
| (EDHOC Start) |
| <---------------------------------------------------+ |
| EAP-Response/ |
| EAP-Type=EAP-EDHOC |
| (EDHOC message 1) |
| +---------------------------------------------------> |
| EAP-Request/ |
| EAP-Type=EAP-EDHOC |
| (EDHOC message 2) |
| <---------------------------------------------------+ |
| EAP-Response/ |
| EAP-Type=EAP-EDHOC |
| (EDHOC message 3) |
| +---------------------------------------------------> |
| |
| EAP-Success |
| <---------------------------------------------------+ |
+ +
Figure 1: Overview EDHOC exchange
2.1.1. Transport and Message Correlation
One of the defining characteristics of EAP is its lock-step
procedure. The EAP protocol manages the exchange of messages
guaranteeing the order of transmission. In the same way, it manages
retransmissions and the detection of duplicate messages. Therefore,
EAP ensures the message correlation mechanism in the different EAP
layers.
Given the above, EDHOC does not need to use its internal mechanism
for correlating messages. Then, the value for METHOD_CORR variable
must satisfy the formula:
METHOD_CORR = 4 * method + corr
Ingles, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ingles-eap-edhoc-01 November 2020
Where:
method = EDHOC Method Type defined in Section 8.2 of EDHOC
[I-D.selander-lake-edhoc]
corr =
2.1.2. Identity
It is RECOMMENDED to use NAIs in the Identity Response as identities.
3. Identity Verification
The identity provided in the EAP-Response/Identity is not
authenticated by EAP-EDHOC, hence SHALL NOT be used for authorization
or accounting purposes. The authenticator and the EAP server MAY
examine the identity presented in EAP-Response/Identity for routing
and EAP method selection.
4. Key Hierarchy
EDHOC uses HKDF RFC 5869 [RFC5869] to derive keys. HKDF-Extract is
used for deriving fixed-length uniformly pseudorandom keys (PRK) from
ECDH shared secrets. HKDF-Expand is used for deriving additional
output keying material (OKM) from the PRKs.
The derivation proceeds as follows:
PRK = HKDF-Extract( salt, IKM )
Where:
HKDF-Extract = RFC5869 HKDF function
salt = The empty byte string
IKM (input keying material) = The ECDH shared secret
Figure 2 illustrates the EDHOC Key Hierarchy.
In EAP-EDHOC, the MSK, EMSK, and Initialization Vector (IV) are
derived from the PRK via a hash function. This ensures that the
EDHOC PRK cannot be derived from the MSK, EMSK, or IV unless the hash
function is defeated. Since the MSK and EMSK are derived from the
EDHOC PRK, if the EDHOC PRK is compromised then the MSK and EMSK are
also compromised.
EAP-EDHOC derives exported keying material and parameters as follows:
Ingles, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ingles-eap-edhoc-01 November 2020
Type-Code = 0XFF
Key_Material = HKDF-Expand(EDHOC PRK, "EAP-EDHOC encryption", 128)
MSK = Key_Material(0,63)
EMSK = Key_Material(64,127)
IV = HKDF-Expand(EDHOC PRK, "EAP-EDHOC IV", 64)
Session-Id = Type-Code || Method-Id
Method-Id = HKDF-Expand(EDHOC PRK, "EAP_EDHOC_Method-Id", 64)
Where:
Key_Material(S,F) = Octets S through F inclusive of the key material.
| PRK
V
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSK, EMSK |
| label == "EAP-EDHOC encryption" |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
| MSK(0,63) | EMSK(0,63) | IV (0,63)
| | |
| | |
V V V
Figure 2: EAP-EDHOC Key derivation
5. IANA considerations
TBD.
6. Security Considerations
TBD.
7. Acknowledgements
This work is possible due the EU Project IoTCrawlwer under grant
agreement n.779852 and the EU Project INSPIRE-5Gplus under grant
agreement n.871808
Ingles, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ingles-eap-edhoc-01 November 2020
8. Normative References
[I-D.selander-lake-edhoc]
Selander, G., Mattsson, J., and F. Palombini, "Ephemeral
Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", draft-selander-lake-
edhoc-01 (work in progress), March 2020.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2548] Zorn, G., "Microsoft Vendor-specific RADIUS Attributes",
RFC 2548, DOI 10.17487/RFC2548, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2548>.
[RFC5869] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand
Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869>.
Authors' Addresses
Eduardo Ingles-Sanchez
University of Murcia
Campus de Espinardo S/N, Faculty of Computer Science
Murcia 30100
Spain
Email: eduardo.ingles@um.es
Dan Garcia-Carrillo
University of Oviedo
Campus de Gijon, S/N, Escuela Politecnica de Ingenieria de Gijon
Gijon, Asturias 33203
Spain
Email: garciadan@uniovi.es
Ingles, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ingles-eap-edhoc-01 November 2020
Rafael Marin-Lopez
University of Murcia
Campus de Espinardo S/N, Faculty of Computer Science
Murcia 30100
Spain
Phone: +34 868 88 85 01
Email: rafa@um.es
Ingles, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 8]