Internet DRAFT - draft-palombini-ace-oscore-profile-id
draft-palombini-ace-oscore-profile-id
ACE Working Group F. Palombini
Internet-Draft Ericsson AB
Intended status: Standards Track September 21, 2020
Expires: March 25, 2021
Identifier Negotiation for the OSCORE Profile of ACE
draft-palombini-ace-oscore-profile-id-00
Abstract
This document defines a mechanism to negotiate OSCORE security
material identifiers for the OSCORE profile of ACE.
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 March 25, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 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.
Palombini Expires March 25, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Id Negotiation for OSCORE Profile September 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Identifiers Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. C-to-AS: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. C-to-RS: POST to authz-info endpoint . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. RS-to-C: 2.01 (Created) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Not Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. OAuth Parameters Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registry . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
In the OSCORE profile, the client and resource server receive the
OSCORE Sender and Recipient Identifiers from the AS. This has some
limitations, especially if the OSCORE profile is used in conjuction
with other mechamisms that also derive identifiers, in which case
either collisions would happen, or longer identifiers need to be used
as a result. This document describes a way to negotiate the
identifiers so that collisions does not happen even if other
authentication mechanisms are used.
1.1. 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
described in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]
[I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile], such as Authorization Server (AS) and
Resource Server (RS).
Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts
described in [RFC8613], especially on the use of Sender, Recipient
and Context Identifiers.
Palombini Expires March 25, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Id Negotiation for OSCORE Profile September 2020
2. Background
TODO: introduce OSCORE Sender and Recipient Identifiers and how they
are used in OSCORE.
The OSCORE profile specifies that the AS assigns and sends the OSCORE
Sender and Recipient Identifiers to both Client and RS, together with
the rest of the input material to derive the complete OSCORE Security
Context. That is done by including these identifiers in the Access
Token and Access Information response to the Client. The access
token containing these identifiers is also forwarded to the RS by the
Client.
C RS AS
| | |
| ----- POST /token ----------------------------> |
| | |
| <---------------------------- Access Token ----- |
| + Access Information |
| ---- POST /authz-info ---> | |
| (access_token, N1) | |
| | |
| <--- 2.01 Created (N2) --- | |
| | |
/Sec Context /Sec Context |
Derivation/ Derivation/ |
| | |
| ---- OSCORE Request -----> | |
| | |
| /proof-of-possession |
| Sec Context storage/ |
| | |
| <--- OSCORE Response ----- | |
| | |
/proof-of-possession | |
Sec Context storage/ | |
| | |
| ---- OSCORE Request -----> | |
| ... | |
Figure 1: OSCORE Profile Overview
This works with a number of requirements: the OSCORE profile states
that if other authentication mechanisms are used to set up OSCORE
between the same client and RS, that do not rely on an AS assigning
identifiers, collisions may happen and need to be mitigated. Such
mitigation mechanism also need to be used if a different AS (not
sinchronized with the first AS) or authentication protocol is used to
Palombini Expires March 25, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Id Negotiation for OSCORE Profile September 2020
set up OSCORE between the same RS and other clients. A mitigation
example would be to use distinct namespaces of context identifiers
for different authentication mechanisms or authentication servers.
Another solution would be to use longer random identifiers. A third
possible solution, acceptable if collisions are not expected to be
numerous, would be to rely on trial and error of security contexts
when receiving a message.
These solutions have the drawback of requiring longer identifiers to
be used in general, which leads to larger message sizes, or
additional processing on the RS.
This document specifies a different mechanism to assign identifiers
that works on top of the current OSCORE profile, and that allows to
set up identifiers without collisions, even when other authentication
mechanisms or non-syncrhonized AS are used.
3. Identifiers Negotiation
This section details the message exchange.
3.1. C-to-AS:
3.2. C-to-RS: POST to authz-info endpoint
The client generates its own Recipient Id for the OSCORE Security
Context that it is establishing with the RS. By generating its own
Recipient Id, the client makes sure that it does not collide with any
other Recipient Identifiers stored in memory. The client posts it
together with what is described in Section 4.1 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile]. The Client includes the Recipient Id
in the POST to authz-info request, as a ace_client_recipientid
parameter, as registered in Section 5.1 and Section 5.2.
When receiving the POST to authz-info request including the
ace_client_recipientid parameter, the RS MUST set its own Sender
Identifier to the value of the ace_client_recipientid and discard any
ServerId present in the access token.
3.3. RS-to-C: 2.01 (Created)
The RS generates its own Recipient Id for the OSCORE Security Context
that it is establishing with the client. The Recipient Id MUST be
different than the ace_client_recipientid received from the client.
By generating its own Recipient Id, the RS makes sure that it does
not collide with any other Recipient Identifiers stored in memory.
The RS sends it to the Client together with what is described in
Section 4.2 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile]. The RS includes the
Palombini Expires March 25, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Id Negotiation for OSCORE Profile September 2020
Recipient Id in the 2.01 (Created) response, as a
ace_server_recipientid parameeter, as registered in Section 5.1 and
Section 5.2.
When receiving the response including the ace_server_recipientid
parameter, the Client MUST set its own Sender Identifier to the value
of the ace_server_recipientid and discard any ClientId present in the
access token.
3.4. Not Supported
If the RS does not support this specification, and the client sends
its Recipient Id in the ace_client_recipientid, the server will not
recognize the parameter and either respond with an error response or
discard the parameter.
If the RS replies with an error response or if the RS replies with a
2.01 (Created) not including the ace_server_recipientid parameter the
Client MUST assume the server uses the identifiers in the token and
do the same.
TODO: so it is possible for anybody in the middle to revert back to
OSCORE profile, without this addition, and therefore create
collisions without identifiers.
4. Security Considerations
TODO
5. IANA Considerations
This document has the following actions for IANA.
5.1. OAuth Parameters Registry
The following registrations are done for the OAuth ParametersRegistry
following the procedure specified in section 11.2 of [RFC6749]:
o Parameter name: ace_client_recipientid o Parameter usage location:
client-rs request o Change Controller: IESG o Specification
Document(s): [[This specification]]
o Parameter name: ace_server_recipientid o Parameter usage location:
rs-client response o Change Controller: IESG o Specification
Document(s): [[This specification]]
Palombini Expires March 25, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Id Negotiation for OSCORE Profile September 2020
5.2. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registry
The following registrations are done for the OAuth Parameters CBOR
Mappings Registry following the procedure specified in section 8.9 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]:
* Name: ace_client_recipientid
* CBOR Key: TBD (range -256 to 255)
* Value Type: byte string
* Reference: \[\[This specification\]\]
* Name: ace_server_recipientid
* CBOR Key: TBD (range -256 to 255)
* Value Type: byte string
* Reference: \[\[This specification\]\]
Acknowledgments
This document was started from comments and discussion with the
following individuals: John Mattsson, Jim Schaad, Goeran Selander.
7. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]
Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and
H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments (ACE) using the OAuth 2.0
Framework (ACE-OAuth)", draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-35
(work in progress), June 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile]
Palombini, F., Seitz, L., Selander, G., and M. Gunnarsson,
"OSCORE profile of the Authentication and Authorization
for Constrained Environments Framework", draft-ietf-ace-
oscore-profile-11 (work in progress), June 2020.
[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>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
[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>.
Palombini Expires March 25, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Id Negotiation for OSCORE Profile September 2020
[RFC8613] Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
"Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8613>.
Author's Address
Francesca Palombini
Ericsson AB
Torshamnsgatan 23
Kista SE-16440 Stockholm
Sweden
Email: francesca.palombini@ericsson.com
Palombini Expires March 25, 2021 [Page 7]
