Internet DRAFT - draft-ms-emu-eaptlscert
draft-ms-emu-eaptlscert
Network Working Group M. Sethi
Internet-Draft J. Mattsson
Intended status: Informational Ericsson
Expires: November 27, 2019 S. Turner
sn3rd
May 26, 2019
Handling Large Certificates and Long Certificate Chains
in TLS-based EAP Methods
draft-ms-emu-eaptlscert-03
Abstract
EAP-TLS and other TLS-based EAP methods are widely deployed and used
for network access authentication. Large certificates and long
certificate chains combined with authenticators that drop an EAP
session after only 40 - 50 round-trips is a major deployment problem.
This memo looks at the this problem in detail and describes the
potential solutions available.
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 November 27, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
Sethi, et al. Expires November 27, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods May 2019
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Experience with Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Handling of Large Certificates and Long Certificate Chains . 4
4.1. Updating Certificates and Certificate Chains . . . . . . 4
4.1.1. Guidelines for certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Updating TLS and EAP-TLS Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. Pre-distributing and Omitting CA Certificates . . . . 6
4.2.2. Caching Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.3. Compressing Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.4. Suppressing Intermediate Certificates . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Updating Authenticators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in [RFC3748],
provides a standard mechanism for support of multiple authentication
methods. EAP-Transport Layer Security (EAP-TLS) [RFC5216]
[I-D.ietf-emu-eap-tls13] relies on TLS [RFC8446] to provide strong
mutual authentication with certificates [RFC5280] and is widely
deployed and often used for network access authentication. There are
also many other TLS-based EAP methods, such as FAST [RFC4851], TTLS
[RFC5281], TEAP [RFC7170], and possibly many vendor specific EAP
methods.
TLS certificates are often relatively large, and the certificate
chains are often long. Unlike the use of TLS on the web, where
typically only the TLS server is authenticated; EAP-TLS deployments
typically authenticates both the EAP peer and the EAP server. Also,
from deployment experience, EAP peers typically have longer
certificate chains than servers. Therefore, EAP-TLS authentication
usually involve significantly more bytes than when TLS is used as
part of HTTPS.
Sethi, et al. Expires November 27, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods May 2019
As the EAP fragment size in typical deployments are just 1000 - 1500
bytes, the EAP-TLS authentication needs to be fragmented into many
smaller packets for transportation over the lower layers. Such
fragmentation can not only negatively affect the latency, but also
results in other challenges. For example, many EAP authenticator
(access point) implementations will drop an EAP session if it hasn't
finished after 40 - 50 round-trips. This is a major problem and
means that in many situations, the EAP peer cannot perform network
access authentication even though both the sides have valid
credentials for successful authentication and key derivation.
This memo looks at related work and potential tools available for
overcoming the deployment challenges induced by large certificates
and long certificate chains. It then discusses the solutions
available to overcome these challenges.
2. Terminology
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.
Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts used
in EAP-TLS [RFC5216] and TLS [RFC8446]. In particular, this document
frequently uses the following terms as they have been defined in
[RFC5216]:
Authenticator The entity initiating EAP authentication. Typically
implemented as part of a network switch or a wireless access
point.
EAP peer The entity that responds to the authenticator. In
[IEEE-802.1X], this entity is known as the supplicant. In EAP-
TLS, the EAP peer implements the TLS client role.
EAP server The entity that terminates the EAP authentication method
with the peer. In the case where no backend authentication
server is used, the EAP server is part of the authenticator.
In the case where the authenticator operates in pass-through
mode, the EAP server is located on the backend authentication
server. In EAP-TLS, the EAP server implements the TLS server
role.
Sethi, et al. Expires November 27, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods May 2019
3. Experience with Deployments
The EAP fragment size in typical deployments can be 1000 - 1500
bytes. Certificate sizes can be large for a number of reasons:
o Long Subject Alternative Name field.
o Long Public Key and Signature fields.
o Can contain multiple object identifiers (OID) that indicate the
permitted uses of the certificate. For example, Windows requires
certain OID's in the certificates for EAP-TLS to work.
o Multiple user groups in the certificate.
The certificate chain can typically include 2 - 6 certificates to the
root-of-trust.
Most common access point implementations drop EAP sessions that don't
complete within 50 round-trips. This means that if the chain is
larger than ~ 60 kB, EAP-TLS authentication cannot complete
successfully in most deployments.
4. Handling of Large Certificates and Long Certificate Chains
This section discusses some possible alternatives for overcoming the
challenge of large certificates and long certificate chains in EAP-
TLS authentication. In Section 4.1 we look at recommendations that
require an update of the certificates or certifcate chains that are
used for EAP-TLS authentication without requiring changes to the
existing EAP-TLS code base. We also provide some guidelines when
issuing certificates for use with EAP-TLS. In Section 4.2 we look at
recommendations that rely on updates to the EAP-TLS implementations
which can be deployed with existing certificates. In Section 4.3 we
shortly discuss the solution to update or reconfigure authenticator
which can be deployed without changes to existing certificates or
EAP-TLS code.
4.1. Updating Certificates and Certificate Chains
Many IETF protocols now use elliptic curve cryptography (ECC)
[RFC6090] for the underlying cryptographic operations. The use of
ECC can reduce the size of certificates and signatures. For example,
at a 128-bit security level, the size of public keys with traditional
RSA is about 384 bytes, while the size of public keys with ECC is
only 32-64 bytes. Similarly, the size of digital signatures with
traditional RSA is 384 bytes, while the size is only 64 bytes with
elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (ECDSA) and Edwards-curve
Sethi, et al. Expires November 27, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods May 2019
digital signature algorithm (EdDSA) [RFC8032]. Using certificates
that use ECC can reduce the number of messages in EAP-TLS
authentication which can alleviate the problem of authenticators
dropping an EAP session because of too many round-trips. TLS 1.3
[RFC8446] requires implementations to support ECC. New cipher suites
that use ECC are also specified for TLS 1.2 [RFC5289]. Using ECC
based cipher suites with existing code can significantly reduce the
number of messages in a single EAP session.
4.1.1. Guidelines for certificates
This section provides some recommendations for certificates used for
EAP-TLS authentication:
o Object Identifiers (OIDs) is ASN.1 data type that defines unique
identifiers for objects. The OID's ASN.1 value, which is a string
of integers, is then used to name objects to which they relate.
The DER length for the 1st two integers is always one byte and
subsequent integers are base 128-encoded in the fewest possible
bytes. OIDs are used lavishly in X.509 certificates and while not
all can be avoided, e.g., OIDs for extensions or algorithms and
their associate parameters, some are well within the certificate
issuer's control:
* Each naming attribute in a DN (Directory Name) has one. DNs
used in the issuer and subject fields as well as numerous
extensions. A shallower naming will be smaller, e.g., C=FI,
O=Example, SN=B0A123499EFC vs C=FI, O=Example, OU=Division 1,
SOPN=Southern Finland, CN=Coolest IoT Gadget Ever,
SN=B0A123499EFC.
* Every certificate policy (and qualifier) and any mappings to
another policy uses identifiers. Consider carefully what
policies apply.
o DirectoryString and GeneralName types are used extensively to name
things, e.g., the DN naming attribute O= (the organizational
naming attribute) DirectoryString includes "Example" for the
Example organization and uniformResourceIdentifier can be used to
indicate the location of the CRL, e.g., "http://crl.example.com/
sfig2s1-128.crl", in the CRL Distribution Point extension. For
these particular examples, each character is a byte. For some
non-ASCII character strings in the DN, characters can be multi-
byte. Obviously, the names need to be unique, but there is more
than one way to accomplish this without long strings. This is
especially true if the names are not meant to be meaningful to
users.
Sethi, et al. Expires November 27, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods May 2019
o Extensions are necessary to comply with [RFC5280], but the vast
majority are optional. Include only those that are necessary to
operate.
4.2. Updating TLS and EAP-TLS Code
4.2.1. Pre-distributing and Omitting CA Certificates
The TLS Certificate message conveys the sending endpoint's
certificate chain. TLS allows endpoints to reduce the sizes of the
Certificate messages by omitting certificates that the other endpoint
is known to possess. When using TLS 1.3, all certificates that
specify a trust anchor known by the other endpoint may be omitted
(see Section 4.4.2 of [RFC8446]). When using TLS 1.2 or earlier,
only the self-signed certificate that specifies the root certificate
authority may be omitted (see Section 7.4.2 of [RFC5246] Therefore,
updating TLS implementations to version 1.3 can help to significantly
reduce the number of messages exchanged for EAP-TLS authentication.
The omitted certificates need to be pre-distributed independently of
TLS and the TLS implementation need to be configured to omit the pre-
distributed certificates.
4.2.2. Caching Certificates
The TLS Cached Information Extension [RFC7924] specifies an extension
where a server can exclude transmission of certificate information
cached in an earlier TLS handshake. The client and the server would
first execute the full TLS handshake. The client would then cache
the certificate provided by the server. When the TLS client later
connects to the same TLS server without using session resumption, it
can attach the "cached_info" extension to the ClientHello message.
This would allow the client to indicate that it has cached the
certificate. The client would also include a fingerprint of the
server certificate chain. If the server's certificate has not
changed, then the server does not need to send its certificate and
the corresponding certificate chain again. In case information has
changed, which can be seen from the fingerprint provided by the
client, the certificate payload is transmitted to the client to allow
the client to update the cache. The extension however necessitates a
successful full handshake before any caching. This extension can be
useful when, for example, when a successful authentication between an
EAP peer and EAP server has occurred in the home network. If
authenticators in a roaming network are more strict at dropping long
EAP sessions, an EAP peer can use the Cached Information Extension to
reduce the total number of messages.
However, if all authenticators drop the EAP session for a given EAP
peer and EAP server combination, a successful full handshake is not
Sethi, et al. Expires November 27, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods May 2019
possible. An option in such a scenario would be to cache validated
certificate chains even if the EAP-TLS exchange fails, but this is
currently not allowed according to [RFC7924].
4.2.3. Compressing Certificates
The TLS working group is also working on an extension for TLS 1.3
[I-D.ietf-tls-certificate-compression] that allows compression of
certificates and certificate chains during full handshakes. The
client can indicate support for compressed server certificates by
including this extension in the ClientHello message. Similarly, the
server can indicate support for compression of client certificates by
including this extension in the CertificateRequest message. While
such an extension can alleviate the problem of excessive
fragmentation in EAP-TLS, it can only be used with TLS version 1.3
and higher. Deployments that rely on older versions of TLS cannot
benefit from this extension.
4.2.4. Suppressing Intermediate Certificates
For a client that has all intermediates, having the server send
intermediates in the TLS handshake increases the size of the
handshake unnecessarily. The TLS working group is working on an
extension for TLS 1.3 [I-D.thomson-tls-sic] that allows a TLS client
that has access to the complete set of published intermediate
certificates to inform servers of this fact so that the server can
avoid sending intermediates, reducing the size of the TLS handshake.
The mechanism is intended to be complementary with certificate
compression.
4.3. Updating Authenticators
There are several legitimate reasons that Authenticators may want to
limit the number of round-trips/packets/bytes that can be sent. The
main reason has been to work around issues where the EAP peer and EAP
server end up in an infinite loop ACKing their messages. Another
second reason is that unlimited communication from an unauthenticated
device as EAP could otherwise be use for bulk data transfer. A third
reason is to prevent denial-of-service attacks.
Updating the millions of already deployed access points and switches
is in many cases not realistic. Vendors may be out of business or do
no longer support the products and admins may have lost the login
information to the devices. For practical purposes the EAP
infrastructure is ossified for the time being.
Sethi, et al. Expires November 27, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods May 2019
Vendors making new authenticators should consider increasing the
number of round-trips allowed before denying the EAP authentication
to complete.
5. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
6. Security Considerations
TBD
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-emu-eap-tls13]
Mattsson, J. and M. Sethi, "Using EAP-TLS with TLS 1.3",
draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-04 (work in progress), March
2019.
[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>.
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP)", RFC 3748, DOI 10.17487/RFC3748, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748>.
[RFC4851] Cam-Winget, N., McGrew, D., Salowey, J., and H. Zhou, "The
Flexible Authentication via Secure Tunneling Extensible
Authentication Protocol Method (EAP-FAST)", RFC 4851,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4851, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4851>.
[RFC5216] Simon, D., Aboba, B., and R. Hurst, "The EAP-TLS
Authentication Protocol", RFC 5216, DOI 10.17487/RFC5216,
March 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5216>.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
Sethi, et al. Expires November 27, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods May 2019
[RFC5281] Funk, P. and S. Blake-Wilson, "Extensible Authentication
Protocol Tunneled Transport Layer Security Authenticated
Protocol Version 0 (EAP-TTLSv0)", RFC 5281,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5281, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5281>.
[RFC7170] Zhou, H., Cam-Winget, N., Salowey, J., and S. Hanna,
"Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version
1", RFC 7170, DOI 10.17487/RFC7170, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7170>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-tls-certificate-compression]
Ghedini, A. and V. Vasiliev, "TLS Certificate
Compression", draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression-05
(work in progress), April 2019.
[I-D.thomson-tls-sic]
Thomson, M., "Suppressing Intermediate Certificates in
TLS", draft-thomson-tls-sic-00 (work in progress), March
2019.
[IEEE-802.1X]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE
Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks -- Port-
Based Network Access Control", IEEE Standard 802.1X-2010 ,
February 2010.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5289] Rescorla, E., "TLS Elliptic Curve Cipher Suites with SHA-
256/384 and AES Galois Counter Mode (GCM)", RFC 5289,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5289, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5289>.
[RFC6090] McGrew, D., Igoe, K., and M. Salter, "Fundamental Elliptic
Curve Cryptography Algorithms", RFC 6090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6090, February 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6090>.
Sethi, et al. Expires November 27, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods May 2019
[RFC7924] Santesson, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Cached Information Extension", RFC 7924,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7924, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7924>.
[RFC8032] Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
Acknowledgements
This draft is a result of several useful discussions with Alan DeKok,
Bernard Aboba, Jari Arkko, Darshak Thakore, and Hannes Tschofening.
Authors' Addresses
Mohit Sethi
Ericsson
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: mohit@piuha.net
John Mattsson
Ericsson
Kista
Sweden
Email: john.mattsson@ericsson.com
Sean Turner
sn3rd
Email: sean@sn3rd.com
Sethi, et al. Expires November 27, 2019 [Page 10]