Name Attributes for the GSS-API EAP mechanism
draft-ietf-abfab-gss-eap-naming-01

Abstract

The naming extensions to the Generic Security Services Application Programming interface provide a mechanism for applications to discover authorization and personalization information associated with GSS-API names. The Extensible Authentication Protocol GSS-API mechanism allows an Authentication/Authorization/Accounting peer to provide authorization attributes along side an authentication response. It also provides mechanisms to process Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) messages provided in the AAA response. This document describes the necessary information to use the naming extensions API to access that information.

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 April 23, 2012.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2011 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 (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. Requirements notation
• 3. Naming Extensions and SAML
• 4. Federated Context
• 5. Name Attributes for GSS-EAP
• 6. Names of SAML Attributes in the Federated Context
• 6.1. Assertions
• 6.2. SAML Attributes
• 7. Security Considerations
• 8. IANA Considerations
• 9. References
• 9.1. Normative References
• 9.2. Informative References
• Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

The naming extensions [I-D.ietf-kitten-gssapi-naming-exts]to the Generic Security Services Application Programming interface (GSS-API) [RFC2743] provide a mechanism for applications to discover authorization and personalization information associated with GSS-API names. The Extensible Authentication Protocol GSS-API mechanism [I-D.ietf-abfab-gss-eap] allows an Authentication/Authorization/Accounting peer to provide authorization attributes along side an authentication response. It also provides mechanisms to process Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) messages provided in the AAA response. Other mechanisms such as SAML EC [I-D.ietf-kitten-sasl-saml-ec] also support SAML assertions and attributes carried in the GSS-API. This document describes the necessary information to use the naming extensions API to access SAML assertions in the federated context and AAA attributes.

2. Requirements notation

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].

3. Naming Extensions and SAML

SAML assertions can carry attributes describing properties of the subject of the assertion. For example, an assertion might carry an attribute describing the organizational affiliation or e-mail address of a subject. According to Section 8.2 and 2.7.3.1 of [SAMLCORE], the name of an attribute has two parts. The first is a URI describing the format of the name. The second part, whose form depends on the format URI, is the actual name. GSS-API name attributes may take a form starting with a URI describing the form of the name; the rest of the name is specified by that URI.

SAML attributes carried in GSS-API names are named with three parts. The first is a URN indicating that the name is a SAML attribute and describing the context (Section 4). This URI is followed by a space, the URI indicating the format of the SAML name, a space and the SAML attribute name. The URI indicating the format of the SAML attribute name is not optional and MUST be present.

SAML attribute names may not be globally unique. Many names that are named by URNs or URIs are likely to have semantics independent of the issuer. However for other name formats, including unspecified name formats, make it easy for two issuers to choose the same name for attributes with different semantics. Attributes using the federated context Section 4 are issued by the same party performing the authentication. So, based on who is named by the name, the semantics of the attribute can be determined.

4. Federated Context

GSS-API naming extensions have the concept of an authenticated name attribute. The mechanism guarantees that the contents of an authenticated name attribute are an authenticated statement from the trusted source of the peer credential. The fact that an attribute is authenticated does not imply that the trusted source of the peer credential is authorized to assert the attribute.

In the federated context, the trusted source of the peer credential is typically some identity provider. In the GSS EAP mechanism, information is combined from AAA and SAML sources. The SAML IDP and home AAA server are assumed to be in the same trust domain. However, this trust domain is not typically the same as the trust domain of the service. With other SAML mechanisms using this specification, the SAML assertion also comes from the party performing authentication. Typically, the IDP is run by another organization in the same federation. The IDP is trusted to make some statements, particularly related to the context of a federation. For example, an academic federation's participants would typically trust an IDP's assertions about whether someone was a student or a professor. However that same IDP would not typically be trusted to make assertions about local entitlements such as group membership. Thus, a service MUST make a policy decision about whether the IDP is permitted to assert a particular attribute and about whether the asserted value is acceptable.

In contrast, attributes in an enterprise context are often verified by a central authentication infrastructure that is trusted to assert most or all attributes. For example, in a Kerberos infrastructure, the KDC typically indicates group membership information for clients to a server using KDC-authenticated authorization data.

The context of an attribute is an important property of that attribute; trust context is an important part of the context. In order for applications to distinguish the context of attributes, attributes with different context need different names. This specification defines attribute names for SAML and AA attributes in the federated context.

These names MUST not be used for attributes issued by a party other than one closely associated with the source of credentials unless the source of credentials is re-asserting the attributes. For example, a source of credentials can consult whatever sources of attributes it chooses, but acceptors can assume attributes in the federated context are from the source of credentials.

5. Name Attributes for GSS-EAP

This section describes how RADIUS attributes received with the GSS-EAP mechanism are named.

The first portion of the name is TBD1 (a URN indicating that this is a GSS-EAP RADIUS AVP). This is followed by a space and a numeric RADIUS name as described by section 2.6 of [I-D.ietf-radext-radius-extensions]. For example the name of the User-Name attribute is "TBD 1". The name of extended type 1 within type 241 would be "TBD 241.1".

The value of RADIUS attributes is the raw octets of the packet. Integers are in network byte order. The display value SHOULD be a human readable string; an implementation can only produce this string if it knows the type of a given RADIUS attribute.

6. Names of SAML Attributes in the Federated Context

6.1. Assertions

An assertion generated by the credential source is named by "urn:ietf:params:gss-eap:saml-aaa-assertion". The value of this attribute is the assertion carried in the AAA protocol or used for authentication in a SAML mechanism. This attribute is absent from a given acceptor name if no such assertion is present or if the assertion fails local policy checks. This attribute is always authentic when present: authentication only succeeds if the AAA exchange is successfully authenticated. However, users of the GSS-API MUST confirm that the attribute is authenticated because some mechanisms MAY permit an initiator to assert an unauthenticated version of this attribute.

6.2. SAML Attributes

Each attribute carried in the assertion SHOULD also be a GSS name attribute. The name of this attribute has three parts, all separated by an ASCII space character. The first part is urn:ietf:params:gss-eap:saml-attr. The second part is the URI for the SAML attribute name format. The final part is the name of the SAML attribute.

These attributes SHOULD be marked authenticated if they are contained in SAML assertions that have been successfully validated back to the trusted source of the peer credential. In the GSS-EAP mechanism, a SAML assertion carried in an integrity-protected and authenticated AAA protocol SHALL be sufficiently validated. An implementation MAY apply local policy checks to this assertion and discard it if it is unacceptable according to these checks.

7. Security Considerations

This document describes how to access RADIUS attributes, SAML attributes and SAML assertions from some GSS-API mechanisms. These attributes are typically used for one of two purposes. The least sensitive is personalization: a central service MAY provide information about an authenticated user so they need not enter it with each acceptor they access. A more sensitive use is authorization.

The mechanism is responsible for authentication and integrity protection of the attributes. However, the acceptor application is responsible for making a decision about whether the credential source is trusted to assert the attribute and validating the asserted value.

8. IANA Considerations

This section needs to include URN registrations within the IETF namespace for URNs that are used.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

9.2. Informative References

Authors' Addresses