Internet DRAFT - draft-nir-ipsecme-cafr
draft-nir-ipsecme-cafr
IPsecME Working Group Y. Nir
Internet-Draft Check Point
Intended status: Standards Track April 13, 2014
Expires: October 15, 2014
Handing Over Child SAs Following Re-Authentication in IKEv2
draft-nir-ipsecme-cafr-04
Abstract
This document describes an extension to the IKEv2 protocol whereby
Child SAs are moved to the new IKE SA following re-authentication.
This allows for a smoother transition with no loss of connectivity.
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 October 15, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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.
Nir Expires October 15, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft child adoption following reauth April 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Handing Over Child SAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. The HAND_OVER_CHILD_SAS Notification . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Verifying the HAND_OVER_CHILD_SAS Notification . . . . . . 5
3. The Illustrated Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Interaction with Other Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Changes from Previous Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Nir Expires October 15, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft child adoption following reauth April 2014
1. Introduction
The Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) protocol, as specified in
[RFC5996bis] associates Child SAs with the IKE SAs under which the
exchange that created them took place. With the deletion of the IKE
SA due to expiry, policy change, or an explicit message from the
peer, the child SAs associated with it are implicitly closed as
described in section 1.4.1 of the IKEv2 document. This behavior is
not desired when IKE SAs are replaced rather than deleted, because
those child SAs could still be valid and there is no security reason
to create new ones prematurely.
There are two cases where an IKE SA is replaced.
1. Rekeying, where new keys are generated. This is described in
section 2.18 of RFC 5996. This is done mainly for key freshness.
2. Re-Authentication, where both sides authenticate, and new keys
are generated. This is done as part of a risk management policy,
to limit the time that compromised IKE SA keys can be used to
provide the attacker access to the network. No reauthentication
exchange is specified in the RFC. Instead, it's simply the
Initial and Authentication exchanges done as if from scratch.
This is described in section 2.8.3 of RFC 5996.
For rekeying, RFC 5996 provides a way to avoid having to re-create
all child SAs. When an IKE SA is rekeyed, all the Child SAs under
the old IKE SA are inherited by the new IKE SA, so that the
subsequent deletion of the old IKE SA does not affect the Child SAs.
This behavior is described in section 2.8 paragraph 4 of RFC 5996.
For reauthentication, RFC 5996 does not provide a similar mechanism,
and section 2.8.3 explicitly says that Child SAs need to be created
from scratch. This is often inconvenient, as IPsec systems usually
create Child SAs only in response to traffic and multiple Child SAs
may exist for a single IKE SA. The protocol extension in this draft
closes this gap.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
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].
The terms IKE SA, Child SA, Rekeying, and Reauthentication are as
described in the RFC 5996.
Nir Expires October 15, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft child adoption following reauth April 2014
2. Handing Over Child SAs
This document defines a new notification that can be sent over an old
IKE SA, just after an IKE_AUTH exchange has been used to re-
authenticate. The notification tells the peer to transfer all Child
SAs that belong to the current (old) IKE SA to be owned by the new
IKE SA, so that when the old IKE SA is deleted, those Child SAs are
not. If both peers send this notification, all Child SAs belonging
to the old IKE SA are immediately inherited by the new IKE SA.
In addition to the Child SAs, any IP address assigned to either peer
through the use of the CFG payload (as described in section 2.19 of
RFC 5996), is also associated with the new IKE SA.
The new notification MAY be accompanied by a DELETE payload, so as to
transfer the Child SAs and delete the old IKE SA at the same time.
These payloads don't have to be in the same exchange, and it is
perfectly valid for the initiator to send the HAND_OVER_CHILE_SA
notification in one exchange, and only then send the DELETE payload
in a different exchange. A responder, however, MUST support
receiving both payloads in the same exchange, and MUST transfer the
child SAs and assigned IP address before acting on the DELETE
payload.
2.1. The HAND_OVER_CHILD_SAS Notification
The HAND_OVER_CHILD_SA notification is formatted as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Protocol ID ! SPI Size ! HAND_OVER_CHILD_SAS Type !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ New IKE Security Parameter Index (SPI) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
o Protocol ID (1 octet) MUST be zero, as specified in Section 3.10
of RFC 5996.
o SPI Size (1 octet) MUST be zero, in conformance with Section 3.10
of RFC 5996.
Nir Expires October 15, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft child adoption following reauth April 2014
o HAND_OVER_CHILD_SAS Notify Message Type (2 octets) - MUST be
xxxxx, the value assigned for HAND_OVER_CHILD_SAS. TBA by IANA.
o Notification Data, or New IKE Security Parameter Index (16 or zero
octets) - In the request, this field contains the concatenated
SPIs of the new IKE SA. The Initiator SPI comes first, similar to
the first 16 bytes of the IKE header. Note that this is not the
SPI field of the notification payload, but the data field. In the
response, this field is omitted (zero-length).
2.2. Verifying the HAND_OVER_CHILD_SAS Notification
To go through with the new IKE SA inheriting the SAs of the old IKE
SA, all of the following MUST apply:
o Both sides have to be successfully authenticated, and the new IKE
SA has to be established.
o The authenticated identities of both sides under the new IKE SA
are the same as those under the old IKE SA. If the authenticated
identity of one peer differs from the authenticated identity that
it had in the previous IKE SA, the Responder MUST NOT return the
HAND_OVER_CHILD_SAS notification. Such an error indicates either
an attack or a bug in the peer, so this should be logged and
reported.
o The New IKE SPIs in the notifications from both peers MUST match
bit for bit.
If the new IKE SA is not fully authenticated, or if the peer
authenticated identity in the new IKE SA is not the same as in the
current IKE SA, a conformant Responder MUST NOT send the
HAND_OVER_CHILD_SAS Notification, and MUST not move the Child SAs.
If the Initiator has not sent the HAND_OVER_CHILD_SAS notification,
but has received it in a response, it MUST ignore it and MUST NOT
move the Child SAs.
If the Initiator has sent the notification, but the Responder has not
sent it, then the Initiator MUST NOT move the Child SAs.
If the Initiator has sent the notification, but the notification from
the Responder contains IKE SPIs (whether correct or not), then the
Initiator MUST send a SYNTAX_ERROR notification and MUST NOT transfer
the Child SAs.
3. The Illustrated Protocol
The Informational exchange after creating a new IKE SA:
Nir Expires October 15, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft child adoption following reauth April 2014
Initiator Responder
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HDR, SK {
N(HAND_OVER_IKE_SAS, new IKE SA SPIs),
DELETE
} -->
HDR, SK {
N(HAND_OVER_IKE_SAS, new IKE SA SPIs)
<-- }
Figure 2
Note that in the above figure, the HDR has the IKE SPIs of the old
IKE SAs, and the SK payload uses the keys of the old IKE SA, because
this message is sent over the old IKE SA.
4. Interaction with Other Standards
This document changes things so that there is often no need to create
new Child SAs along with the new IKE SA when reauthenticating. This
makes the full IKE_AUTH exchange with the piggy-backed Child SA
exchange (as described in RFC 5996) superfluous. Implementations
should consider implementing the childless extension of IKEv2
([RFC6023]) in addition to this specification.
5. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Valery Smyslov for the suggestion of
moving the hand-over from the IKE_AUTH to an Informational under the
old IKE SA and other suggestions. This changed (in version -01)
simplified the protocol significantly. Tero Kivinen provided
valuable input about the security considerations and error handling.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign a notify message type from the status
types range (16418-40959) of the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types"
registry with name "HAND_OVER_CHILD_SAS"
7. Security Considerations
The HAND_OVER_CHILD_SAS notification is sent protected by the old IKE
SA. This protects against stealing child SAs. The requirement for
Nir Expires October 15, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft child adoption following reauth April 2014
sameness of authenticated identity protects against errors by one
peer transferring child SAs to some other peer. It also protects
against an attempt by one endpoint to transfer ownership of SAs to
another endpoint, so as to assume the authorization assigned by the
peer to the other endpoint.
8. Changes from Previous Versions
[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION]
Version -01 moved the sending of the notification from the IKE_AUTH
exchange that is part of reauthentication to the Informational
exchange that is part of closing the old IKE SA. This made
cryptographic binding to the old IKE SA unnecessary.
Version -02 changed the notification payload so that the IKE SPI of
the other IKE SA is now in the data field of the notification
payload, rather than the SPI field. This makes it more in line with
how the notification payload is defined in RFC 5996.
Version -03 tightened the security considerations, the format of the
notification in the response, and error handling.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5996bis]
Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-rfc5996bis-00 (work
in progress), August 2013.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC6023] Nir, Y., Tschofenig, H., Deng, H., and R. Singh, "A
Childless Initiation of the Internet Key Exchange Version
2 (IKEv2) Security Association (SA)", RFC 6023,
October 2010.
Nir Expires October 15, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft child adoption following reauth April 2014
Author's Address
Yoav Nir
Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
5 Hasolelim st.
Tel Aviv 6789735
Israel
Email: ynir.ietf@gmail.com
Nir Expires October 15, 2014 [Page 8]
