[Search] [txt|xml|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01                                                         
Network Working Group                                        M. Stroeder
Internet-Draft                                    Independent consultant
Updates: 2307 (if approved)                             January 28, 2013
Intended status: Informational
Expires: August 01, 2013


             Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP):
               Hashed Attribute values for 'userPassword'
              draft-stroeder-hashed-userpassword-values-00

Abstract

   This document describes the widely used syntax for storing hashed
   passwords in LDAP attribute 'userPassword' and extends its use for
   SHA-2 hash algorithms.  Furthermore it points out some of the
   deficiencies of that approach.

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 http://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 August 01, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.












Stroeder                Expires August 01, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      LDAP Hashed userPassword Values         January 2013


   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Syntax for attribute 'userPassword' . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Implementation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   Strictly speaking the 'userPassword' attribute type, intended to be
   used to support the LDAP [RFC4510] "simple" bind operation, was meant
   to only store clear text passwords [RFC4519].

   Although [RFC3112] defined a more versatile password attribute
   'authPassword' for storing hashed passwords this was not widely
   implemented in server and client implementations.  Instead current
   LDAP deployments still rely on the password hashing scheme for
   attribute 'userPassword' introduced in [RFC2307] especially since
   this attribute type is directly used in various object classes.

   The specification in [RFC2307] is missing some formal aspects and new
   hash algorithms are used today which were not mentioned in [RFC2307].

   Therefore this document updates [RFC2307] by fully specifying how to
   store hashed password values in attribute 'userPassword' optionally
   using the SHA-2 hash algorithms [FIPS-180-4].  For this it focuses on
   documenting already implemented server and client implementations.
   The password hashing scheme {crypt} was dropped from the formal
   specification which does not mean that implementations conforming to
   this document are not allowed to use it.  It is simply not part of
   this specification.




Stroeder                Expires August 01, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      LDAP Hashed userPassword Values         January 2013


   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 is being discussed on the ldapext@ietf.org mailing
   list.

2.  Syntax for attribute 'userPassword'

   userPassword values MUST be represented by following syntax:

       userpasswordvalue  = cleartext-password / prefix b64-hashandsalt

       prefix       = "{" scheme "}"
       scheme = %x30-39 / %x41-5A / %x61-7a / %x2D-2F / %x5F
            ;0-9, A-Z, a-z, "-", ".", "/", or "_"

       b64-hashandsalt = <base64 of hashandsalt>

       hashandsalt = password-hash salt

       password-hash = <digest of cleartext-password salt>

       cleartext-password = %x00-FF

       salt = %x00-FF


   Field salt SHALL be treated as a randomely chosen sequence of bytes.
   The length of the salt SHOULD be at least 64 bits but other salt
   length MAY be recommended for specific hash algorithms.
   Implementations MUST be prepared of handling field salt of arbitrary
   length.  salt MUST be empty for non-salted hashing schemes.

   The field hashandsalt is generated by concatening the field password-
   hash and the salt.  The field password-hash is generated by
   calculating the digest over the concatenation of password followed by
   salt.

   b64-hashandsalt is generated by encoding hashandsalt according to the
   base64 algorithm as specified in [RFC4648].

   The field scheme MUST be treated case-insensitive by all server and
   client implementations.  Applications SHALL handle prefix "x-" in
   scheme just like any other scheme value without this prefix
   [RFC6648].  Other specifications MAY update this document by defining
   other values for scheme.




Stroeder                Expires August 01, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      LDAP Hashed userPassword Values         January 2013


       +-----------+----------------------+---------------------+
       |   prefix  |     Description      | Algorithm reference |
       +-----------+----------------------+---------------------+
       |   {MD5}   |  MD-5 without salt   |      [RFC1321]      |
       |   {SMD5}  |     salted MD-5      |      [RFC1321]      |
       |   {SHA}   |  SHA-1 without salt  |     [FIPS-180-4]    |
       |   {SSHA}  |     salted SHA-1     |     [FIPS-180-4]    |
       |  {SHA256} | SHA-256 without salt |     [FIPS-180-4]    |
       | {SSHA256} |    salted SHA-256    |     [FIPS-180-4]    |
       |  {SHA384} | SHA-384 without salt |     [FIPS-180-4]    |
       | {SSHA384} |    salted SHA-384    |     [FIPS-180-4]    |
       |  {SHA512} | SHA-512 without salt |     [FIPS-180-4]    |
       | {SSHA512} |    salted SHA-512    |     [FIPS-180-4]    |
       +-----------+----------------------+---------------------+

                   Table 1: Currently used hash schemes

3.  Implementation Issues

   All implementations SHOULD prepare textual strings used as field
   password like described for clear-text storage in section 2.41 in
   [RFC4519] before deriving a hash value from them.  It is up to the
   implementation to determine what a textual password is.

   Hashed 'userPassword' values are only suitable for directly comparing
   it to a clear-text password.  They SHOULD NOT be used in challenge-
   response authentication schemes.

   It is clear from the syntax specification that distinguishing clear-
   text passwords and hashed passwords is somewhat ambigous which is a
   well-known deficiency of this approach.  Therefore implementing
   [RFC3112] is RECOMMENDED if a better solution is strictly required.

   Implementations SHALL first check whether a value stored in attribute
   'userPassword' adheres to the syntax specified above.  Syntax
   checking SHALL be implemented by checking hash and optional salt
   following the algorithm-specific rules.  Any value which do not
   adhere to this syntax MAY be treated as clear-text password by the
   DSA when processing a LDAP simple bind request or LDAP compare
   request.

   Servers MAY provide local configuration items to limit the set of
   hash schemes to be processed and for completely disabling use of
   clear-text passwords in attribute 'userPassword'.

4.  Acknowledgements





Stroeder                Expires August 01, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      LDAP Hashed userPassword Values         January 2013


   The syntax definition for 'userPassword' values in this document is
   based on and supersedes the specification in section 5.3 of [RFC2307]
   by L. Howard.

   Some basics of the formal specification and security considerations
   are based on text in [RFC3112] by K. Zeilenga.

5.  IANA Considerations

   There are no identifiers defined herein to be reserved by IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   Applications SHOULD NOT use the non-salted password hash schemes and
   SHOULD use a sufficiently long salt value.

   This document describes how authentication information may be stored
   in a directory.  Authentication information MUST be adequately
   protected as unintended disclosure will allow attackers to gain
   immediate access to the directory as described by [RFC2829].

   As flaws may be discovered in the hashing algorithm or with a
   particular implementation of the algorithm or values could be subject
   to various attacks if exposed, values in attribute 'userPassword'
   SHOULD be protected as if they were clear text passwords.  Especially
   it is RECOMMENDED to avoid using hashing schemes based on MD-5
   because of known weaknesses of this digest algorithm [RFC6151].

   When values are transferred, privacy protections, such as IPSEC or
   TLS, SHOULD be in place.

   Clients SHOULD use stronger authentication mechanisms like defined in
   [RFC5802].

   Servers SHOULD use stronger credential storage mechanisms like
   defined in [RFC5803].

   Some password schemes may require CPU intensive operations.  Servers
   SHOULD take appropriate measures to protect against Denial of Service
   attacks.

   Using 'userPassword' does not restrict an authentication identity to
   a single password.  An attacker who gains write access to this
   attribute may store additional values without disabling the user's
   true password(s).  Use of policy aware clients and servers is
   RECOMMENDED (see example in [I-D.behera-ldap-password-policy]).





Stroeder                Expires August 01, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      LDAP Hashed userPassword Values         January 2013


   The level of protection offered against various attacks differ from
   scheme to scheme.  It is RECOMMENDED that servers support scheme
   selection as a configuration item.  This allows for a scheme to be
   easily disabled if a significant security flaw is discovered.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [FIPS-180-4]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ,
              "Secure Hash Standard (SHS)", FIPS PUB 180-4, March 2012,
              <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/
              fips-180-4.pdf>.

   [RFC1321]  Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
              April 1992.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4510]  Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): Technical Specification Road Map", RFC 4510, June
              2006.

   [RFC4519]  Sciberras, A., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): Schema for User Applications", RFC 4519, June
              2006.

   [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.behera-ldap-password-policy]
              Sermersheim, J., Poitou, L., and H. Chu, "Password Policy
              for LDAP Directories", draft-behera-ldap-password-
              policy-10 (work in progress), August 2009.

   [RFC2307]  Howard, L., "An Approach for Using LDAP as a Network
              Information Service", RFC 2307, March 1998.

   [RFC2829]  Wahl, M., Alvestrand, H., Hodges, J., and R. Morgan,
              "Authentication Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000.

   [RFC3112]  Zeilenga, K., "LDAP Authentication Password Schema", RFC
              3112, May 2001.




Stroeder                Expires August 01, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      LDAP Hashed userPassword Values         January 2013


   [RFC5802]  Newman, C., Menon-Sen, A., Melnikov, A., and N. Williams,
              "Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism
              (SCRAM) SASL and GSS-API Mechanisms", RFC 5802, July 2010.

   [RFC5803]  Melnikov, A., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP) Schema for Storing Salted Challenge Response
              Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) Secrets", RFC 5803, July
              2010.

   [RFC6151]  Turner, S. and L. Chen, "Updated Security Considerations
              for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms",
              RFC 6151, March 2011.

   [RFC6648]  Saint-Andre, P., Crocker, D., and M. Nottingham,
              "Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in
              Application Protocols", BCP 178, RFC 6648, June 2012.

Author's Address

   Michael Stroeder
   Independent consultant
   Klauprechtstr. 11
   Karlsruhe  76137
   DE

   Email: michael@stroeder.com
   URI:   http://www.stroeder.com























Stroeder                Expires August 01, 2013                 [Page 7]