Internet DRAFT - draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-aux
draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-aux
Network Working Group V. Smyslov
Internet-Draft ELVIS-PLUS
Intended status: Standards Track December 3, 2018
Expires: June 6, 2019
Intermediate Exchange in the IKEv2 Protocol
draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-aux-02
Abstract
This documents defines a new exchange, called Intermediate Exchange,
for the Internet Key Exchange protocol Version 2 (IKEv2). This
exchange can be used for transferring large amount of data in the
process of IKEv2 Security Association (SA) establishment.
Introducing Intermediate Exchange allows re-using 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 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 June 6, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
Smyslov Expires June 6, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange December 2018
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Intermediate Exchange Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Support for Intermediate Exchange Negotiation . . . . . . 3
3.2. Using Intermediate Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. The INTERMEDIATE Exchange Protection and Authentication . 5
3.3.1. Protection of the INTERMEDIATE Messages . . . . . . . 5
3.3.2. Authentication of the INTERMEDIATE Exchanges . . . . 5
3.4. Error Handling in the INTERMEDIATE Exchange . . . . . . . 8
4. Interaction with other IKEv2 Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) defined in
[RFC7296] uses UDP as a transport for its messages. If size of the
messages is large enough, IP fragmentation takes place, that may
interfere badly with some network devices. The problem is described
in more detail in [RFC7383], which also defines an extension to the
IKEv2 called IKE Fragmentation. This extension allows IKE messages
to be fragmented at IKE level, eliminating possible issues caused by
IP fragmentation. However, the 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 used to be
small enough not to cause IP fragmentation.
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
(QC) resistant ones. Currently most of 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
Smyslov Expires June 6, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange December 2018
significant drawbacks and is intended to be a "last resort" when UDP
transport is completely blocked by intermediate network devices.
This document defines a new exchange for the IKEv2 protocol, called
Intermediate Exchange or INTERMEDIATE. One or more these exchanges
may take place right after the IKE_SA_INIT exchange and prior to the
IKE_AUTH exchange. The INTERMEDIATE exchange messages can be
fragmented using 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.
While ability to transfer large public keys of QC-resistant key
exchange methods is a primary motivation for introducing of the
Intermediate Exchange, its application is not limited to this use
case. This exchange may 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 INTERMEDIATE exchange without tying it to any specific
use case. It is expected that separate specifications will define
for which purposes and how the INTERMEDIATE exchange is used in the
IKEv2.
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.
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 <TBA by IANA>. Protocol ID
Smyslov Expires June 6, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange December 2018
and SPI Size are both set to 0. This specification doesn't define
any data this notification may contain, so the Notification Data is
left empty. However, future enhancements of this specification may
override this. Implementations MUST ignore the 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 after completing the IKE_SA_INIT
exchange.
The Intermediate Exchange is denoted as INTERMEDIATE, its Exchange
Type is <TBA by IANA>.
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR, ..., SK {...} -->
<-- HDR, ..., SK {...}
The initiator may use several INTERMEDIATE exchanges if necessary.
Since initiator's Window Size is initially set to one (Section 2.3 of
[RFC7296]), these exchanges MUST follow each other 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 the 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 INTERMEDIATE
exchange, 2 for the next (if any) and so on. The message ID for the
first pair of the IKE_AUTH messages is one more than the one that was
used in the last 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 MUST switch to port 4500 immediately
once this exchange is completed, i.e. in the first INTERMEDIATE
exchange.
The content of the 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
INTERMEDIATE exchange is to avoid IP fragmentation when large amount
of data need to be transferred prior to IKE_AUTH, the Encrypted
payload MUST be present in the INTERMEDIATE exchange messages and
Smyslov Expires June 6, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange December 2018
payloads containing large data MUST be placed inside. This will
allow IKE Fragmentation [RFC7383] to take place, provided it is
supported by the peers and negotiated in the initial exchange.
3.3. The INTERMEDIATE Exchange Protection and Authentication
3.3.1. Protection of the INTERMEDIATE Messages
The keys SK_e[i/r] and SK_a[i/r] for the Encrypted payload in the
INTERMEDIATE exchanges are computed in a standard fashion, as defined
in the Section 2.14 of [RFC7296]. Every subsequent INTERMEDIATE
exchange uses the most recently calculated keys before this exchange
is started. The first INTERMEDIATE exchange always uses SK_e[i/r]
and SK_a[i/r] keys that were computed as result the IKE_SA_INIT
exchange. If this INTERMEDIATE exchange performs additional key
exchange resulting in the update of SK_e[i/r] and SK_a[i/r], then
these updated keys are used for encryption and authentication of next
INTERMEDIATE exchange, otherwise the current keys are used, and so
on.
3.3.2. Authentication of the INTERMEDIATE Exchanges
The data transferred in the INTERMEDIATE exchanges must be
authenticated in the IKE_AUTH exchange. For this purpose the
definition of the blob to be signed (or MAC'ed) from the Section 2.15
of [RFC7296] is modified as follows:
InitiatorSignedOctets = RealMsg1 | NonceRData | MACedIDForI [| IntAuth]
ResponderSignedOctets = RealMsg2 | NonceIData | MACedIDForR [| IntAuth]
IntAuth = IntAuth_1 | [| IntAuth_2 [| IntAuth_3]] ...
IntAuth_1 = IntAuth_1_I | IntAuth_1_R
IntAuth_2 = IntAuth_2_I | IntAuth_2_R
IntAuth_3 = IntAuth_3_I | IntAuth_3_R
...
IntAuth_1_I = prf(SK_pi_1, [IntAuth_1_I_P |] IntAuth_1_I_A)
IntAuth_2_I = prf(SK_pi_2, [IntAuth_2_I_P |] IntAuth_2_I_A)
IntAuth_3_I = prf(SK_pi_3, [IntAuth_3_I_P |] IntAuth_3_I_A)
...
IntAuth_1_R = prf(SK_pr_1, [IntAuth_1_R_P |] IntAuth_1_R_A)
IntAuth_2_R = prf(SK_pr_2, [IntAuth_2_R_P |] IntAuth_2_R_A)
IntAuth_3_R = prf(SK_pr_3, [IntAuth_3_R_P |] IntAuth_3_R_A)
...
Smyslov Expires June 6, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange December 2018
IntAuth_1_I/IntAuth_1_R, IntAuth_2_I/IntAuth_2_R, IntAuth_3_I/
IntAuth_3_R, etc. represent the results of applying the negotiated
prf to the content of the INTERMEDIATE messages sent by the initiator
(IntAuth_*_I) and by the responder (IntAuth_*_R) in an order of
increasing Message IDs (i.e. in an order the INTERMEDIATE exchanges
took place). The prf is applied to the two chunks of data: optional
IntAuth_*_[I/R]_P and mandatory IntAuth_*_[I/R]_A. The IntAuth_*_[I/
R]_A chunk lasts from the first octet of the IKE Header (not
including prepended four octets of zeros, if port 4500 is used) to
the last octet of the Encrypted Payload header. The IntAuth_*_[I/
R]_P chunk is present if the Encrypted payload is not empty. It
consists of the not yet encrypted content of the Encrypted payload,
excluding Initialization Vector, Padding, Pad Length and Integrity
Checksum Data fields (see 3.14 of [RFC7296] for description of the
Encrypted payload). In other words, the IntAuth_*_[I/R]_P chunk is
the inner payloads of the Encrypted payload in plaintext form.
Smyslov Expires June 6, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange December 2018
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ v |
| | |
~ Unencrypted payloads (if any) ~ |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ^ |
| Next Payload |C| RESERVED | Payload Length | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ E v
| Initialization Vector | n
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 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 INTERMEDIATE Exchange Messages
Figure 1 illustrates the layout of the IntAuth_*_[I/R]_P (denoted as
P) and the IntAuth_*_[I/R]_A (denoted as A) chunks in case the
Encrypted payload is not empty.
The calculations are applied to whole messages only, before possible
fragmentation. This ensures that the IntAuth will be the same
regardless of whether fragmentation takes place or not ([RFC7383]
allows sending first unfragmented message and then trying
fragmentation in case of no reply).
Each calculation of IntAuth_*_[I/R] uses its own key SK_p[i/r]_*,
which is the most recently updated SK_p[i/r] key available before the
corresponded INTERMEDIATE exchange is started. The first
INTERMEDIATE exchange always uses SK_p[i/r] key that was computed in
Smyslov Expires June 6, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange December 2018
the IKE_SA_INIT as SK_p[i/r]_1. If the first INTERMEDIATE exchange
performs additional key exchange resulting in SK_p[i/r] update, then
this updated SK_p[i/r] is used as SK_p[i/r]_2, otherwise the original
SK_p[i/r] is used, and so on. Note, that if keys are updated then
for any given INTERMEDIATE exchange the keys SK_e[i/r] and SK_a[i/r]
used for its messages protection (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 INTERMEDIATE Exchange
Since messages of the INTERMEDIATE exchange are not authenticated
until the IKE_AUTH exchange successfully completes, possible errors
need to be handled carefully. There is a trade-off between providing
a better diagnostics of the problem and a risk to become a part of
DoS attack. See Section 2.21.1 and 2.21.2 of [RFC7296] describe how
errors are handled in initial IKEv2 exchanges, these considerations
are applied to the INTERMEDIATE exchange too.
4. Interaction with other IKEv2 Extensions
The INTERMEDIATE exchanges MAY be used in the IKEv2 Session
Resumption [RFC5723] between the IKE_SESSION_RESUME and the IKE_AUTH
exchanges.
5. Security Considerations
The data that is transferred by means of the 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 receives messages from
the party he/she performed the IKE_SA_INIT with if they can
successfully verify the Integrity Checksum Data of the Encrypted
payload.
The main application for Intermediate Exchange is to transfer large
amount of data before 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 INTERMEDIATE exchanges.
Section 5 of [RFC7383] contains security considerations for IKE
Fragmentation.
Note, that if an attacker was able to break key exchange in real time
(e.g. by means of Quantum Computer), then the security of the
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 employed authentication
Smyslov Expires June 6, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange December 2018
mechanism), but the ability to inject forged the INTERMEDIATE
exchange messages with valid ICV would allow the attacker to mount
Denial-of-Service attack. Moreover, if in this situation the
negotiated prf was not secure against preimage attack with known key,
then the attacker could forge the INTERMEDIATE exchange messages
without later being detected in the IKE_AUTH exchange. To do this
the attacker should 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:
<TBA> INTERMEDIATE
This document also defines a new Notify Message Types in the "Notify
Message Types - Status Types" registry:
<TBA> INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED
7. Acknowledgements
The idea to use an intermediate exchange between IKE_SA_INIT and
IKE_AUTH was first suggested by Tero Kivinen. Scott Fluhrer and
Daniel Van Geest identified a possible problem with authentication of
the INTERMEDIATE exchange and helped to resolve it.
8. References
8.1. 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 June 6, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Intermediate IKEv2 Exchange December 2018
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[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>.
[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>.
Author's Address
Valery Smyslov
ELVIS-PLUS
PO Box 81
Moscow (Zelenograd) 124460
RU
Phone: +7 495 276 0211
Email: svan@elvis.ru
Smyslov Expires June 6, 2019 [Page 10]
