Internet DRAFT - draft-mglt-lurk-tls-use-cases
draft-mglt-lurk-tls-use-cases
Network Working Group D. Migault
Internet-Draft K. Ma
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: November 28, 2016 R. Rich
Akamai
S. Mishra
Verizon Communications
O. Gonzales de Dios
Telefonica
May 27, 2016
LURK TLS/DTLS Use Cases
draft-mglt-lurk-tls-use-cases-01
Abstract
TLS as been designed to setup and authenticate transport layer
between a TLS Client and a TLS Server. In most cases, the TLS Server
both terminates the TLS Connection and owns the authentication
credentials necessary to authenticate the TLS Connection.
This document provides use cases where these two functions are split
into different entities, i.e. the TLS Connection is terminated on an
Edge Server, while authentication credentials are generated by a Key
Server, that owns the Private Key.
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 November 28, 2016.
Migault, et al. Expires November 28, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LURK/TLS Use Cases May 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Architecture Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Containers and Virtual Machines Use Cases . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Content Provider Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Content Owner / Content Provider Use Case . . . . . . . . 7
5.4. Content Distribution Network Interconnection Use Case . 8
6. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. LURK Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Key Server Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Edge Server Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. 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].
Migault, et al. Expires November 28, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LURK/TLS Use Cases May 2016
2. Introduction
TLS has been designed for end-to-end security between a TLS Server
and a TLS Client. As TLS is widely used to provide an authenticated
channel between applications, the following models assumes that
applications end points and connectivity end point are combined. In
that case, authentication of the connection end point and
authentication of the application end point could be combined and
assimilated as a single authentication.
Such assumption for the TLS model may not be true especially in the
current web architecture where application content is not anymore
associated with the connection end point. For example, Content
Delivery Network are in charge of delivering content they are not
necessarily owning.
This document provides use case where authentication of of the TLS
Server involves multiple parties or entities as opposed to a single
entity in the standard TLS model.
3. Terminology
TLS Client: The TLS Client designates the initiator of the TLS
session. The terminology is the one of [RFC5246]. The current
document considers that the TLS Client and the application
initiating the session are hosted on the same host. If not
they are hosted on the same administrative domain with a trust
relation between the TLS Client and the application. In other
words, the client endpoint is considered to be a single entity
as described initially in [RFC5246].
TLS Server: The TLS Server designates the endpoint of a TLS session
initiated by the TLS Client. In the standard TLS, the TLS
Server, is both the terminating point of the TLS Connection and
the entity authenticated by the TLS Client. This document
considers that the TLS Server be split into the Edge Server
terminating the TLS Connection and the Key Server providing the
necessary capabilities so the TLS Client proceed to the
authentication.
Private Key : is the cryptographic credential used to authenticate
the TLS Server by the TLS Client. The purpose of the document
is to enable the Private Key to be hosted in the Key Server
outside the TLS Connection terminating point.
TLS Connection : The authenticated TLS Connection between the TSL
Client and the TLS Server. In this document, the TLS
Migault, et al. Expires November 28, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LURK/TLS Use Cases May 2016
Connection terminates on the Edge Server and authenticates the
Private Key hosted on the Key Server.
Key Server: The server hosting the Private Key. The Key Server
provides an interface that enable cryptographic operations to
be performed remotely by the Edge Servers.
Edge Server: The Edge Server designates a node that handles traffic
for a Content Provider. A TLS Client initiates a TLS session
to authenticate a Content provider, but may be in fact served
by a Edge Server that may belong to a different administrative
domain.
Content Owner: The owner of the content. This is the entity
requested by the application of the TLS Client.
Content Provider: The entity responsible to deliver the content.
In some cases, the Content Provider is the managing the Content
Delivery Network.
Content Delivery Network (CDN): designates a organization in charge
of managing delivery of a content on behalf of a Content
Provider. In most cases, the CDN is a different organization
than the Content Provider.
4. Architecture Overview
Figure 1 provides an overview of the architecture considered by the
different uses cases exposed in this document.
The TLS Client initiates a TLS connection with the Edge Server (1)
which is expected to be authenticated by its Private Key. The Edge
Server terminates the TLS connection of the TLS Client, but does not
own the Private Key. Instead, the Private Key is owned by the Key
Server, which performed all cryptographic operations on behalf of the
Edge Server. Upon request from the Edge Server, the Key Server
provides the authentication credentials to the Edge Server (2).
These authentication credentials depends on the authentication
methods agreed between the TLS Client and the Edge Server as well as
the capabilities of the Key Server. The Authentication Credentials
returned by the Key Server enables the Edge Server to complete the
TLS Handshake and the TLS Client to authenticate the Edge Server as a
key owner of the Private Key (3).
Such architecture consists in splitting the standard TLS Server into
two functions: the Edge Server that terminates the TLS Connection and
the Key Server that is hosting the Private Key and performs all
necessary cryptographic operations for the authentication.
Migault, et al. Expires November 28, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LURK/TLS Use Cases May 2016
<----------- TLS Server ------------>
+------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| TLS Client | <---------> | Edge Server | <-------> | Key Server |
+------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| Private Key |
+-------------+
1. TLS Connection Initialization
--------------------------->
2. Authentication Credentials
(Private Key based
cryptographic operations)
<-------------------------->
3. Finalization of the TLS
Connection Handshake
<-------------------------->
TLS Connection Established
<==========================>
Figure 1: TLS Session Key Interface Architecture
5. Use cases
5.1. Containers and Virtual Machines Use Cases
In virtual environment application servers may run within virtual
machines or containers. When TLS is used to provide an authenticated
and encrypted communication channel to the application, it is
currently common that the container or the virtual machine hosts the
Private Key used for the authentication. Hosting multiple copies of
the Private Key through the cloud increases the risk of leaking the
Private Key.
For example, virtualization and persistent storage of virtual
machines or containers image over different places in the cloud may
result in multiple copies of the Private Key through the cloud. In
addition, operating system level virtualization is a virtualization
method with a very low overhead. On the other hand, isolation is
performed at the process and kernel level, which may provide a
smaller isolation compared to the one provided by the traditional
hypervisors. With lighter isolation, containers avoid storing
private and highly sensitive data such as a Private Key.
As a result, in order to prevent the leak of the Private Key used for
the TLS authentication, cloud provider may prefer storing the Private
Key in a centralized Key Server that is remotely access by the
different instances of the virtual machines or containers.
Migault, et al. Expires November 28, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LURK/TLS Use Cases May 2016
In this scenario, the Key Server as well as the containers or virtual
machine are expected to be hosted on the same Cloud. As a result,
the latency between the Key Server and the containers or the virtual
machine and the Key Server remains limited and acceptable for the TLS
Client. In addition, the containers or virtual machines
communicating with the Key Server may be different applications
running on different operating systems.
5.2. Content Provider Use Case
A Content Provider may use multiple Edge Servers, that are directly
exposed on the Internet. Edge Servers presents a high risk of
exposure as they are subject for example to misconfiguratons as well
as all vulnerabilities running on the Edge Server. This includes, os
vulnerabilities to web applications vulnerabilities. as illustrated
for example by the Heartbleed attack [HEART]. More specifically, the
Heartbleed attack uses a weakness of a software implementation to
retrieve the private key used by the TLS server. Such attack would
not for example has been so successful if the private key was not
stored on the Edge Server. In addition, a Cloud Provider may run
different implementations of web servers, or OS in order to make its
infrastructure or service less vulnerable to a single vulnerability.
On the other hand, the diversity of implementations increases the
risk of a leakage of the Private Key.
Note that if the Private Key is shared between multiple Edge Servers,
a leakage occurring at one Edge Server affect the service.
A Content Provider, may prefer to store the critical information in a
more contained place the Key Server, accessed only by all the
authenticated Edge Servers.
In this scenario, the Key Server is accessed by a limited number of
Edge Servers which are authenticated. An Edge Server may present a
vulnerability, it will not have access to the Private Key. It
eventually may use the identity of the Edge Server to perform
cryptographic operations with that Private Key, and means should be
provided to limit the usability of such use.
In this scenario, the latency between the Edge Server and the Key
Server depends on the distribution of the Edge Servers. When Edge
Servers are far away from the Key Server, the time to set TLS
Connection may be impacted by this architecture. In case, such
overhead impact the quality of service of the TLS Client, the Content
Provider may use multiple Key Servers in order to reduce the latency
of the communication between the Edge Server and the Key Server.
This scenario assumes that we are within a single administrative
domain, so the Private Key remains inside the boundaries of such
Migault, et al. Expires November 28, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LURK/TLS Use Cases May 2016
domain. In addition, the use of the Key Server prevents a direct
access to the Private Key.
5.3. Content Owner / Content Provider Use Case
It is common that applications - like a web browser for example - use
TLS to authenticate a Content Owner designated by a web URL and build
a secure channel with that Content Owner.
When the Content Owner is not able to support all the TLS Client
requests or would like to optimize the delivery of its content, it
may decide to take advantage of a third party delivery service
designated a Content Delivery Network (CDN) also designated as the
Content Provider. This third party is able to locate the Edge
Servers closer to the TLS Clients in various different geographical
locations.
The Content Owner may still want to be authenticated by TLS Client
while not terminating the TLS Connection of the TLS Client. In
addition, while the Content Owner is provides the Content Provider
the content to deliver it may not accept to provide its Private Key
to the Content Provider. In fact, the Private Key used to
authenticate the Content Provider may present more value than the
content itself. For example, the content may be accessed by devices
or clients configured with the public authentication credential. In
such cases, the leak of the Private Key and the renewal of the
Private Key would require to configure all these devices. Such
additional configuration are likely to affect the image of the
Content Provider as well as result in some interruption of the
service. The content, on the other hand may have only an ephemeral
value and the Content Owner, may accept the risks of leakage and
provide the Content Provider the content in cleartext.
Alternatively, the content may also be encrypted with DRM, so its
access remains restricted to authorized users only.
In this scenario, the Content Provider and the Content Owner are
different administrative entities. As a result, the Key Server and
the Edge Servers may be located in different networks and the
communication between the Edge Server and the Key Server may
introduce some delays. Such delay may be acceptable for the TLS
Client, especially for long term TLS connections. Otherwise, the
Content Owner, may provide the Key Server to the Content Provider.
This use case is then very similar to the one described in
Section 5.2. Note that providing the Key Server to the Content
Provider in a hardware security module for example, still prevent the
Content Provider to access the Private Key while providing its usage.
Migault, et al. Expires November 28, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LURK/TLS Use Cases May 2016
In this scenario, the Content Owner is likely to involve multiple
Content Providers. In addition, the agreement between the Content
Provider and the Content Owner may take various forms. The Content
provider may provide for example, an infrastructure, or a delivery
service. As a result, the Content Owner may not control the
application or TLS library interacting with the Key Server.
5.4. Content Distribution Network Interconnection Use Case
In the case of Content Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI)
[RFC6707], it may also that the company with which the Content Owner
has contracted may further delegate delivery to another CDN with
which the Content Owner has no official business relationship. Even
if the Content Provider trusts the upstream CDN, and perhaps has
strong legal contracts in place, it has no control over, and possibly
no legal recourse against, the further downstream CDNs.
In this case, similarly to Section 5.3 the delegating CDN may provide
the content but not the Private Key. If the delegating CDN hosts the
Key Server it needs to to provide an access to the Key Server. On
the other hand, the delegating CDN may not even host the Key Server,
in which case, it may proxy the communications to the upstream CDN or
the Content Owner. Other architecture may also enable a direct
access to the Key Server by the delegated CDN.
In this scenario, different CDN are interacting, and the access to
teh Key Server may result in substantial additional latencies. This
additional latency should not affect the quality of service of the
delivery service. In addition, the motivations for providing content
to the delegated CDN without providing the Private Key are similar to
those of Section 5.3.
6. Requirements
The requirements listed in this section are limited to the LURK
protocol, that is the exchanges between the Edge Server and the Key
Server.
6.1. LURK Requirements
This section provides the requirements associated to the protocol
used by the Edge Server and the Key Server. In the remaining
section, this protocol is designated as LURK.
Multiple implementations of Edge Server, located in different
administrative domains must be able to interact with multiple
implementations of Key Servers also located in multiple
Migault, et al. Expires November 28, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LURK/TLS Use Cases May 2016
administrative domains. In addition, the scope of LURK is closely
related to TLS standardized at the IETF.
R1: LURK MUST be standardized at the IETF
LURK is limited to the Edge Server and the Key Server, so it is
expected to be transparent to the TLS Client. In addition, in order
to be deployed in the short term, any modification on the TLS Client
should be avoided.
R2: LURK MUST NOT impact the TLS Client.
LURK is associated to TLS related operations performed by the Key
Server on behalf of the Edge Server. On the other hand, interactions
between the Edge Server and the Key Server also consists enable
control-plan like operations such as reachability, capabilities
discovery.
R3: LURK MUST provide control plane-like facilities such as
reachability, keep-alive, and capability discovery.
6.2. Key Server Requirements
The Key Server holds the Private Key, and interacts with the Edge
Servers.
R4: The Key Server MUST be able to provide the necessary
authentication credential so the TLS Client and the Edge Server
set an authenticate TLS Connection with the Private Key.
R5: The Key Server MUST NOT leak any information associated to the
Private Key. In particular the Key Server MUST NOT provide a
generic singing/encryption oracle.
R6: The Key Server SHOULD NOT perform any operation outside the
authentication of a TLS Connection.
R7: The Key Server MUST provide confidential information to the Edge
Sever over an authenticated and encrypted channel.
6.3. Edge Server Requirements
R8: The Edge Server SHOULD be provisioned with the public
authentication credentials, and so public certificate
provisioning is outside of LURK.
Migault, et al. Expires November 28, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LURK/TLS Use Cases May 2016
7. Security Considerations
8. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations in this document.
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks are due for insightful feedback on this document to Robert
Skog, Hans Spaak, Salvatore Loreto, John Mattsson, Alexei Tumarkin,
Yaron Sheffer, Eric Burger, Stephen Farrell, Richard Brunner,
Stephane Dault, Dan Kahn Gillmor, Joe Hildebrand, Thomas Fossati,
Kelsey Cairns.
10. References
10.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
10.2. Informative References
[HEART] Codenomicon, "The Heartbleed Bug",
<http://heartbleed.com/>.
[RFC6707] Niven-Jenkins, B., Le Faucheur, F., and N. Bitar, "Content
Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Problem
Statement", RFC 6707, DOI 10.17487/RFC6707, September
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6707>.
Authors' Addresses
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
8400 boulevard Decarie
Montreal, QC H4P 2N2
Canada
Phone: +1 514-452-2160
Email: daniel.migault@ericsson.com
Migault, et al. Expires November 28, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LURK/TLS Use Cases May 2016
Kevin Ma J
Ericsson
43 Nagog Park
Acton, MA 01720
USA
Phone: +1 978-844-5100
Email: kevin.j.ma@ericsson.com
Rich Salz
Akamai
Email: rsalz@akamai.com
Sanjay Mishra
Verizon Communications
Email: sanjay.mishra@verizon.com
Oscar Gonzales de Dios
Telefonica
Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Migault, et al. Expires November 28, 2016 [Page 11]
