Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate
Network Working Group V. Smyslov
Internet-Draft ELVIS-PLUS
Intended status: Standards Track 5 March 2022
Expires: 6 September 2022
Intermediate Exchange in the IKEv2 Protocol
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate-10
Abstract
This document defines a new exchange, called Intermediate Exchange,
for the Internet Key Exchange protocol Version 2 (IKEv2). This
exchange can be used for transferring large amounts of data in the
process of IKEv2 Security Association (SA) establishment. An example
of the need to do this is using Quantum Computer resistant key
exchange methods for IKE SA establishment. Introducing the
Intermediate Exchange allows re-using the existing IKE fragmentation
mechanism, that helps to avoid IP fragmentation of large IKE
messages, but cannot be used in the initial IKEv2 exchange.
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 6 September 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Intermediate Exchange Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Support for Intermediate Exchange Negotiation . . . . . . 4
3.2. Using Intermediate Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. The IKE_INTERMEDIATE Exchange Protection and
Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.1. Protection of the IKE_INTERMEDIATE Messages . . . . . 5
3.3.2. Authentication of the IKE_INTERMEDIATE Exchanges . . 6
3.4. Error Handling in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE Exchange . . . . . 10
4. Interaction with other IKEv2 Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Example of IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) defined in
[RFC7296] uses UDP as a transport for its messages. If the size of a
message is larger than the PMTU, IP fragmentation takes place, which
has been shown to cause operational challenge in certain network
configurations and devices. The problem is described in more detail
in [RFC7383], which also defines an extension to IKEv2 called IKE
fragmentation. This extension allows IKE messages to be fragmented
at the IKE level, eliminating possible issues caused by IP
fragmentation. However, IKE fragmentation cannot be used in the
initial IKEv2 exchange (IKE_SA_INIT). This limitation in most cases
is not a problem, since the IKE_SA_INIT messages are usually small
enough not to cause IP fragmentation.
However, the situation has been changing recently. One example of
the need to transfer large amount of data before an IKE SA is created
is using Quantum Computer resistant key exchange methods in IKEv2.
Recent progress in Quantum Computing has brought a concern that
classical Diffie-Hellman key exchange methods will become insecure in
a relatively near future and should be replaced with Quantum Computer
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
(QC) resistant ones. Currently, most QC-resistant key exchange
methods have large public keys. If these keys are exchanged in the
IKE_SA_INIT, then most probably IP fragmentation will take place,
therefore all the problems caused by it will become inevitable.
A possible solution to the problem would be to use TCP as a transport
for IKEv2, as defined in [RFC8229]. However, this approach has
significant drawbacks and is intended to be a "last resort" when UDP
transport is completely blocked by intermediate network devices.
This specification describes a way to transfer a large amount of data
in IKEv2 using UDP transport. For this purpose the document defines
a new exchange for the IKEv2 protocol, called Intermediate Exchange
or IKE_INTERMEDIATE. One or more these exchanges may take place
right after the IKE_SA_INIT exchange and prior to the IKE_AUTH
exchange. The IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange messages can be fragmented
using the IKE fragmentation mechanism, so these exchanges may be used
to transfer large amounts of data which don't fit into the
IKE_SA_INIT exchange without causing IP fragmentation.
The Intermediate Exchange can be used to transfer large public keys
of QC-resistant key exchange methods, but its application is not
limited to this use case. This exchange can also be used whenever
some data need to be transferred before the IKE_AUTH exchange and for
some reason the IKE_SA_INIT exchange is not suited for this purpose.
This document defines the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange without tying it
to any specific use case. It is expected that separate
specifications will define for which purposes and how the
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange is used in IKEv2. Some considerations must
be taken into account when designing such specifications:
* The IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange is not intended for bulk transfer.
This document doesn't set a hard cap on the amount of data that
can be safely transferred using this mechanism, as it depends on
its application. But it is anticipated that in most cases the
amount of data will be limited to tens of Kbytes (few hundred
Kbytes in extreme cases), which is believed to cause no network
problems (see [RFC6928] as an example of experiments with sending
similar amounts of data in the first TCP flight). See also
Section 5 for the discussion of possible DoS attack vectors when
amount of data sent in IKE_INTERMEDIATE is too large.
* It is expected that the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange will only be
used for transferring data that is needed to establish IKE SA and
not for data that can be send later when this SA is established.
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
2. Terminology and Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
It is expected that readers are familiar with the terms used in the
IKEv2 specification [RFC7296].
3. Intermediate Exchange Details
3.1. Support for Intermediate Exchange Negotiation
The initiator indicates its support for Intermediate Exchange by
including a notification of type INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED in
the IKE_SA_INIT request message. If the responder also supports this
exchange, it includes this notification in the response message.
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni,
[N(INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED)] -->
<-- HDR, SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ],
[N(INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED)]
The INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED is a Status Type IKEv2
notification. Its Notify Message Type is 16438, Protocol ID and SPI
Size are both set to 0. This specification doesn't define any data
that this notification may contain, so the Notification Data is left
empty. However, future enhancements to this specification may
override this. Implementations MUST ignore non-empty Notification
Data if they don't understand its purpose.
3.2. Using Intermediate Exchange
If both peers indicated their support for the Intermediate Exchange,
the initiator may use one or more these exchanges to transfer
additional data. Using the Intermediate Exchange is optional; the
initiator may find it unnecessary even when support for this
exchanged has been negotiated.
The Intermediate Exchange is denoted as IKE_INTERMEDIATE, its
Exchange Type is 43.
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR, ..., SK {...} -->
<-- HDR, ..., SK {...}
The initiator may use several IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges if
necessary. Since window size is initially set to one for both peers
(Section 2.3 of [RFC7296]), these exchanges MUST be sequential and
MUST all be completed before the IKE_AUTH exchange is initiated. The
IKE SA MUST NOT be considered as established until the IKE_AUTH
exchange is successfully completed.
The Message IDs for IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges MUST be chosen
according to the standard IKEv2 rule, described in the Section 2.2.
of [RFC7296], i.e. it is set to 1 for the first IKE_INTERMEDIATE
exchange, 2 for the next (if any) and so on. Implementations MUST
verify that Message IDs in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE messages they receive
actually follow this rule. The Message ID for the first pair of the
IKE_AUTH messages is one more than the value used in the last
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange.
If the presence of NAT is detected in the IKE_SA_INIT exchange via
NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP and NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP
notifications, then the peers switch to port 4500 in the first
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange and use this port for all subsequent
exchanges, as described in Section 2.23 of [RFC7296].
The content of the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange messages depends on the
data being transferred and will be defined by specifications
utilizing this exchange. However, since the main motivation for the
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange is to avoid IP fragmentation when large
amounts of data need to be transferred prior to IKE_AUTH, the
Encrypted payload MUST be present in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange
messages and payloads containing large data MUST be placed inside it.
This will allow IKE fragmentation [RFC7383] to take place, provided
it is supported by the peers and negotiated in the initial exchange.
Appendix A contains an example of using an IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange
in creating an IKE SA.
3.3. The IKE_INTERMEDIATE Exchange Protection and Authentication
3.3.1. Protection of the IKE_INTERMEDIATE Messages
The keys SK_e[i/r] and SK_a[i/r] for the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges
protection are computed in the standard fashion, as defined in the
Section 2.14 of [RFC7296].
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
Every subsequent IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange uses the most recently
calculated IKE SA keys before this exchange is started. So, the
first IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange always uses SK_e[i/r] and SK_a[i/r]
keys that were computed as a result of the IKE_SA_INIT exchange. If
additional key exchange is performed in the first IKE_INTERMEDIATE
exchange, resulting in the update of SK_e[i/r] and SK_a[i/r], then
these updated keys are used for protection of the second
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange. Otherwise, the original SK_e[i/r] and
SK_a[i/r] keys are used again, and so on.
Once all the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges are completed, the most
recently calculated SK_e[i/r] and SK_a[i/r] keys are used for
protection of the IKE_AUTH and all the subsequent exchanges.
3.3.2. Authentication of the IKE_INTERMEDIATE Exchanges
The IKE_INTERMEDIATE messages must be authenticated in the IKE_AUTH
exchange, which is performed by adding their content into the AUTH
payload calculation. It is anticipated that in many use cases
IKE_INTERMEDIATE messages will be fragmented using IKE fragmentation
[RFC7383] mechanism. According to [RFC7383], when IKE fragmentation
is negotiated, the initiator may first send a request message in
unfragmented form, but later turn on IKE fragmentation and re-send it
fragmented if no response is received after a few retransmissions.
In addition, peers may re-send fragmented message using different
fragment sizes to perform simple PMTU discovery.
The requirement to support this behavior makes authentication
challenging: it is not appropriate to add on-the-wire content of the
IKE_INTERMEDIATE messages into the AUTH payload calculation, because
implementations are generally unaware in which form these messages
are received by peers. Instead, a more complex scheme is used --
authentication is performed by adding content of these messages
before their encryption and possible fragmentation, so that data to
be authenticated doesn't depend on the form the messages are
delivered in.
If any IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange took place, the definition of the
blob to be signed (or MAC'ed) from the Section 2.15 of [RFC7296] is
modified as follows:
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
InitiatorSignedOctets = RealMsg1 | NonceRData | MACedIDForI | IntAuth
ResponderSignedOctets = RealMsg2 | NonceIData | MACedIDForR | IntAuth
IntAuth = IntAuth_iN | IntAuth_rN | IKE_AUTH_MID
IntAuth_i1 = prf(SK_pi1, IntAuth_i1A [| IntAuth_i1P])
IntAuth_i2 = prf(SK_pi2, IntAuth_i1 | IntAuth_i2A [| IntAuth_i2P])
IntAuth_i3 = prf(SK_pi3, IntAuth_i2 | IntAuth_i3A [| IntAuth_i3P])
...
IntAuth_iN = prf(SK_piN, IntAuth_iN-1 | IntAuth_iNA [| IntAuth_iNP])
IntAuth_r1 = prf(SK_pr1, IntAuth_r1A [| IntAuth_r1P])
IntAuth_r2 = prf(SK_pr2, IntAuth_r1 | IntAuth_r2A [| IntAuth_r2P])
IntAuth_r3 = prf(SK_pr3, IntAuth_r2 | IntAuth_r3A [| IntAuth_r3P])
...
IntAuth_rN = prf(SK_prN, IntAuth_rN-1 | IntAuth_rNA [| IntAuth_rNP])
The essence of this modification is that a new chunk called IntAuth
is appended to the string of octets that is signed (or MAC'ed) by the
peers. IntAuth consists of three parts: IntAuth_iN, IntAuth_rN, and
IKE_AUTH_MID.
The IKE_AUTH_MID chunk is a value of the Message ID field from the
IKE Header of the first round of the IKE_AUTH exchange. It is
represented as a four octet integer in network byte order (in other
words, exactly as it appears on the wire).
The IntAuth_iN and IntAuth_rN chunks each represent the cumulative
result of applying the negotiated prf to all IKE_INTERMEDIATE
exchange messages sent during IKE SA establishment by the initiator
and the responder respectively. After the first IKE_INTERMEDIATE
exchange is completed peers calculate the IntAuth_i1 value by
applying the negotiated prf to the content of the request message
from this exchange and calculate the IntAuth_r1 value by applying the
negotiated prf to the content of the response message. For every
following IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange (if any) peers re-calculate these
values as follows. After the n-th exchange is completed they compute
IntAuth_[i/r]n by applying the negotiated prf to the concatenation of
IntAuth_[i/r](n-1) (computed for the previous IKE_INTERMEDIATE
exchange) and the content of the request (for IntAuth_in) or response
(for IntAuth_rn) messages from this exchange. After all
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges are over the resulted IntAuth_[i/r]N
values (assuming N exchanges took place) are used in the computing
the AUTH payload.
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
For the purpose of calculating the IntAuth_[i/r]* values the content
of the IKE_INTERMEDIATE messages is represented as two chunks of
data: mandatory IntAuth_[i/r]*A optionally followed by IntAuth_[i/
r]*P.
The IntAuth_[i/r]*A chunk consists of the sequence of octets from the
first octet of the IKE Header (not including prepended four octets of
zeros, if UDP encapsulation or TCP encapsulation of ESP packets is
used) to the last octet of the generic header of the Encrypted
payload. The scope of IntAuth_[i/r]*A is identical to the scope of
Associated Data defined for use of AEAD algorithms in IKEv2 (see
Section 5.1 of [RFC5282]), which is stressed by using "A" suffix in
its name. Note, that calculation of IntAuth_[i/r]*A doesn't depend
on whether an AEAD algorithm or a plain cipher is used in IKE SA.
The IntAuth_[i/r]*P chunk is present if the Encrypted payload is not
empty. It consists of the content of the Encrypted payload that is
fully formed, but not yet encrypted. The Initialization Vector, the
Padding, the Pad Length and the Integrity Checksum Data fields (see
Section 3.14 of [RFC7296]) are not included into the calculation. In
other words, the IntAuth_[i/r]*P chunk is the inner payloads of the
Encrypted payload in plaintext form, which is stressed by using "P"
suffix in its name.
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ^ ^
| IKE SA Initiator's SPI | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I |
| IKE SA Responder's SPI | K |
| | E |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Next Payload | MjVer | MnVer | Exchange Type | Flags | H |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ d |
| Message ID | r A
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Adjusted Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ v |
| | |
~ Unencrypted payloads (if any) ~ |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ^ |
| Next Payload |C| RESERVED | Adjusted Payload Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | v
| | |
~ Initialization Vector ~ E
| | E
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ c ^
| | r |
~ Inner payloads (not yet encrypted) ~ P
| | P |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ l v
| Padding (0-255 octets) | Pad Length | d
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | |
~ Integrity Checksum Data ~ |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ v
Figure 1: Data to Authenticate in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE Exchange
Messages
Figure 1 illustrates the layout of the IntAuth_[i/r]*A (denoted as A)
and the IntAuth_[i/r]*P (denoted as P) chunks in case the Encrypted
payload is not empty.
For the purpose of prf calculation the Length field in the IKE Header
and the Payload Length field in the Encrypted payload header are
adjusted so that they don't count the lengths of Initialization
Vector, Integrity Checksum Data, Padding and Pad Length fields. In
other words, the Length field in the IKE Header (denoted as Adjusted
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
Length in Figure 1) is set to the sum of the lengths of IntAuth_[i/
r]*A and IntAuth_[i/r]*P, and the Payload Length field in the
Encrypted payload header (denoted as Adjusted Payload Length in
Figure 1) is set to the length of IntAuth_[i/r]*P plus the size of
the Encrypted payload header (four octets).
The prf calculations MUST be applied to whole messages only, before
possible IKE fragmentation. This ensures that the IntAuth will be
the same regardless of whether IKE fragmentation takes place or not.
If the message was received in fragmented form, it MUST be
reconstructed before calculating the prf as if it were received
unfragmented. While reconstructing, the RESERVED field in the
reconstructed Encrypted payload header MUST be set to the value of
the RESERVED field in the Encrypted Fragment payload header from the
first fragment (with Fragment Number field set to 1).
Note that it is possible to avoid actual reconstruction of the
message by incrementally calculating prf on decrypted (or ready to be
encrypted) fragments. However, care must be taken to properly
replace the content of the Next Header and the Length fields so that
the result of computing the prf is the same as if it were computed on
the reconstructed message.
Each calculation of IntAuth_[i/r]* uses its own keys SK_p[i/r]*,
which are the most recently updated SK_p[i/r] keys available before
the corresponded IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange is started. The first
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange always uses the SK_p[i/r] keys that were
computed in the IKE_SA_INIT as SK_p[i/r]1. If the first
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange performs additional key exchange resulting
in SK_p[i/r] update, then this updated SK_p[i/r] are used as SK_p[i/
r]2, otherwise the original SK_p[i/r] are used, and so on. Note that
if keys are updated, then for any given IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange the
keys SK_e[i/r] and SK_a[i/r] used for protection of its messages (see
Section 3.3.1) and the keys SK_p[i/r] for its authentication are
always from the same generation.
3.4. Error Handling in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE Exchange
Since messages of the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange are not authenticated
until the IKE_AUTH exchange successfully completes, possible errors
need to be handled with care. There is a trade-off between providing
better diagnostics of the problem and risk of becoming part of DoS
attack. Section 2.21.1 and 2.21.2 of [RFC7296] describe how errors
are handled in initial IKEv2 exchanges; these considerations are also
applied to the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange with a qualification, that
not all error notifications may appear in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE
exchange (for example, errors concerning authentication are generally
only applicable to the IKE_AUTH exchange).
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
4. Interaction with other IKEv2 Extensions
The IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges MAY be used during the IKEv2 Session
Resumption [RFC5723] between the IKE_SESSION_RESUME and the IKE_AUTH
exchanges. To be able to use it peers MUST negotiate support for
intermediate exchange by including INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED
notifications in the IKE_SESSION_RESUME messages. Note, that a flag
whether peers supported the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange is not stored
in the resumption ticket and is determined each time from the
IKE_SESSION_RESUME exchange.
5. Security Considerations
The data that is transferred by means of the IKE_INTERMEDIATE
exchanges is not authenticated until the subsequent IKE_AUTH exchange
is completed. However, if the data is placed inside the Encrypted
payload, then it is protected from passive eavesdroppers. In
addition, the peers can be certain that they receive messages from
the party they performed the IKE_SA_INIT with if they can
successfully verify the Integrity Checksum Data of the Encrypted
payload.
The main application for the Intermediate Exchange is to transfer
large amounts of data before an IKE SA is set up, without causing IP
fragmentation. For that reason it is expected that in most cases IKE
fragmentation will be employed in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges.
Section 5 of [RFC7383] contains security considerations for IKE
fragmentation.
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
Since authentication of the peers occurs only in the IKE_AUTH
exchange, malicious initiator may use the Intermediate Exchange to
mount Denial of Service attack on responder. In this case it starts
creating IKE SA, negotiates using the Intermediate Exchanges and
transfers a lot of data to the responder that may also require some
computationally expensive processing. Then it aborts the SA
establishment before the IKE_AUTH exchange. Specifications utilizing
the Intermediate Exchange MUST NOT allow unlimited number of these
exchanges to take place on initiator's discretion. It is recommended
that these specifications are defined in such a way, that the
responder would know (possibly via negotiation with the initiator)
the exact number of these exchanges that need to take place. In
other words: it is preferred that both the initiator and the
responder know after the IKE_SA_INIT is completed the exact number of
the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges they have to perform; it is allowed
that some IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges are optional and are performed
on the initiator's discretion, but in this case the maximum number of
optional exchanges must be hard capped by the corresponding
specification. In addition, [RFC8019] provides guidelines for the
responder of how to deal with DoS attacks during IKE SA
establishment.
Note that if an attacker was able to break the key exchange in real
time (e.g. by means of a Quantum Computer), then the security of the
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange would degrade. In particular, such an
attacker would be able both to read data contained in the Encrypted
payload and to forge it. The forgery would become evident in the
IKE_AUTH exchange (provided the attacker cannot break the employed
authentication mechanism), but the ability to inject forged
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange messages with valid ICV would allow the
attacker to mount a Denial-of-Service attack. Moreover, if in this
situation the negotiated prf was not secure against second preimage
attack with known key, then the attacker could forge the
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange messages without later being detected in
the IKE_AUTH exchange. To do this the attacker would find the same
IntAuth_[i/r]* value for the forged message as for original.
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new Exchange Type in the "IKEv2 Exchange
Types" registry:
43 IKE_INTERMEDIATE
This document also defines a new Notify Message Type in the "IKEv2
Notify Message Types - Status Types" registry:
16438 INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
7. Implementation Status
[Note to RFC Editor: please, remove this section before publishing
RFC.]
At the time of writing the -05 version of the draft there were at
least three independent interoperable implementations of this
specification from the following vendors:
* ELVIS-PLUS
* strongSwan
* libreswan (only one IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange is supported)
8. Acknowledgements
The idea to use an intermediate exchange between IKE_SA_INIT and
IKE_AUTH was first suggested by Tero Kivinen. He also helped with
writing an example of using IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange (shown in
Appendix A). Scott Fluhrer and Daniel Van Geest identified a
possible problem with authentication of the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange
and helped to resolve it. Author is grateful to Tobias Brunner who
raised good questions concerning authentication of the
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange and proposed how to make the size of
authentication chunk constant regardless of the number of exchanges.
Author is also grateful to Paul Wouters and to Benjamin Kaduk who
suggested a lot of text improvements for the document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
[RFC7383] Smyslov, V., "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2) Message Fragmentation", RFC 7383,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7383, November 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7383>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC5282] Black, D. and D. McGrew, "Using Authenticated Encryption
Algorithms with the Encrypted Payload of the Internet Key
Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) Protocol", RFC 5282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5282, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5282>.
[RFC5723] Sheffer, Y. and H. Tschofenig, "Internet Key Exchange
Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Session Resumption", RFC 5723,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5723, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5723>.
[RFC6928] Chu, J., Dukkipati, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis,
"Increasing TCP's Initial Window", RFC 6928,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6928, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6928>.
[RFC8019] Nir, Y. and V. Smyslov, "Protecting Internet Key Exchange
Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Implementations from
Distributed Denial-of-Service Attacks", RFC 8019,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8019, November 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8019>.
[RFC8229] Pauly, T., Touati, S., and R. Mantha, "TCP Encapsulation
of IKE and IPsec Packets", RFC 8229, DOI 10.17487/RFC8229,
August 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8229>.
Appendix A. Example of IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange
This appendix contains an example of the messages using
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges. This appendix is purely informative; if
it disagrees with the body of this document, the other text is
considered correct.
In this example there is one IKE_SA_INIT exchange and two
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges, followed by the IKE_AUTH exchange to
authenticate all initial exchanges. The xxx in the HDR(xxx,MID=yyy)
indicates the exchange type, and yyy tells the message id used for
that exchange. The keys used for each SK {} payload are indicated in
the parenthesis after the SK. Otherwise, the payload notation is the
same as is used in [RFC7296].
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR(IKE_SA_INIT,MID=0),
SAi1, KEi, Ni,
N(INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED) -->
<-- HDR(IKE_SA_INIT,MID=0),
SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ],
N(INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED)
At this point peers calculate SK_* and store them as SK_*1. SK_e[i/
r]1 and SK_a[i/r]1 will be used to protect the first IKE_INTERMEDIATE
exchange and SK_p[i/r]1 will be used for its authentication.
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR(IKE_INTERMEDIATE,MID=1),
SK(SK_ei1,SK_ai1) {...} -->
<Calculate IntAuth_i1 = prf(SK_pi1, ...)>
<-- HDR(IKE_INTERMEDIATE,MID=1),
SK(SK_er1,SK_ar1) {...}
<Calculate IntAuth_r1 = prf(SK_pr1, ...)>
If after completing this IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange the SK_*1 keys are
updated (e.g., as a result of a new key exchange), then the peers
store the updated keys as SK_*2, otherwise they use SK_*1 as SK_*2.
SK_e[i/r]2 and SK_a[i/r]2 will be used to protect the second
IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange and SK_p[i/r]2 will be used for its
authentication.
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR(IKE_INTERMEDIATE,MID=2),
SK(SK_ei2,SK_ai2) {...} -->
<Calculate IntAuth_i2 = prf(SK_pi2, ...)>
<-- HDR(IKE_INTERMEDIATE,MID=2),
SK(SK_er2,SK_ar2) {...}
<Calculate IntAuth_r2 = prf(SK_pr2, ...)>
If after completing the second IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange the SK_*2
keys are updated (e.g., as a result of a new key exchange), then the
peers store the updated keys as SK_*3, otherwise they use SK_*2 as
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange March 2022
SK_*3. SK_e[i/r]3 and SK_a[i/r]3 will be used to protect the
IKE_AUTH exchange, SK_p[i/r]3 will be used for authentication, and
SK_d3 will be used for derivation of other keys (e.g. for Child SAs).
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR(IKE_AUTH,MID=3),
SK(SK_ei3,SK_ai3)
{IDi, [CERT,] [CERTREQ,]
[IDr,] AUTH, SAi2, TSi, TSr} -->
<-- HDR(IKE_AUTH,MID=3),
SK(SK_er3,SK_ar3)
{IDr, [CERT,] AUTH, SAr2, TSi, TSr}
In this example two IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges took place, therefore
SK_*3 keys would be used as SK_* keys for further cryptographic
operations in the context of the created IKE SA, as defined in
[RFC7296].
Author's Address
Valery Smyslov
ELVIS-PLUS
PO Box 81
Moscow (Zelenograd)
124460
Russian Federation
Phone: +7 495 276 0211
Email: svan@elvis.ru
Smyslov Expires 6 September 2022 [Page 16]
