Internet DRAFT - draft-ssh-ext-info
draft-ssh-ext-info
Internet-Draft D. Bider
Expires: June 17, 2016 Bitvise Limited
December 17, 2015
Extension Negotiation in Secure Shell (SSH)
draft-ssh-ext-info-05.txt
Abstract
This memo defines a mechanism for SSH clients and servers to exchange
information about supported protocol extensions confidentially after
completed key exchange.
Status
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2015 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.
Bider [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Extension Negotiation in SSH December 2015
1. Overview and Rationale
Secure Shell (SSH) is a common protocol for secure communication on
the Internet. The original design of the SSH transport layer [RFC4253]
lacks proper extension negotiation. Meanwhile, diverse implementations
take steps to ensure that known message types contain no unrecognized
information. This makes it difficult for implementations to signal
capabilities and negotiate extensions without risking disconnection.
This obstacle has been recognized in relationship with [SSH-RSA-SHA2],
where the need arises for a client to efficiently discover signature
algorithms a server accepts, to avoid round-trips of trial and error.
1.1. Requirements Terminology
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].
2. Extension Negotiation Mechanism
2.1. Signaling of Extension Negotiation in KEXINIT
Applications implementing this mechanism MUST add to the field
"kex_algorithms", in their KEXINIT packet sent for the first key
exchange, one of the following indicator names:
- When acting as server: "ext-info-s"
- When acting as client: "ext-info-c"
The indicator name is added without quotes, and MAY be added at any
position in the name-list, subject to proper separation from other
names as per name-list conventions.
The names are added to the "kex_algorithms" field because this is one
of two name-list fields in KEXINIT that do not have a separate copy
for each data direction.
The indicator names inserted by the client and server are different to
ensure that these names will not produce a match, and will be neutral
with respect to key exchange algorithm negotiation.
The inclusion of textual indicator names is intended to provide a clue
for implementers to discover this mechanism.
2.2. Enabling Criteria
If a client or server offers "ext-info-c" or "ext-info-s"
respectively, it must be prepared to accept a SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO message
from the peer.
Bider [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Extension Negotiation in SSH December 2015
Thus a server only needs to send "ext-info-s" if it intends to process
SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO from the client.
If a server receives an "ext-info-c", it MAY send an SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO
message, but is not required to do so.
If a SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO message is sent, then it MUST be the first
message after the initial SSH_MSG_NEWKEYS.
Implementations MUST NOT send an incorrect indicator name for their
role. Implementations MAY disconnect if the counter-party sends an
incorrect indicator. If "ext-info-c" or "ext-info-s" ends up being
negotiated as a key exchange method, the parties MUST disconnect.
2.3. SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO Message
A party that received the "ext-info-c" or "ext-info-s" indicator
can send the the following message:
byte SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO (value 7)
uint32 nr-extensions
repeat "nr-extensions" times:
string extension-name
string extension-value
This message is sent without delay, and immediately after
SSH_MSG_NEWKEYS.
2.4. Server's Secondary SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO
If the client sent "ext-info-c", the server MAY send, but is not
obligated to send, an SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO message immediately before
SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_SUCCESS, as defined in [RFC4252]. The server MAY send
this message whether or not it sent EXT_INFO after SSH_MSG_NEWKEYS.
This allows a server to reveal support for additional extensions that
it was unwilling to reveal to an unauthenticated client. If a server
sends a subsequent SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO, this replaces any initial one,
and both the client and the server re-evaluate extensions in effect.
The server's last EXT_INFO is matched against the client's original.
2.5. Interpretation of Extension Names and Values
Each extension is identified by its extension-name, and defines the
conditions under which the extension is considered to be in effect.
Applications MUST ignore unrecognized extension-names.
In general, if an extension requires both the client and the server
to include it in order for the extension to take effect, the relative
position of the extension-name in each EXT_INFO message is irrelevant.
Bider [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Extension Negotiation in SSH December 2015
Extension-value fields are interpreted as defined by their respective
extension. An extension-value field MAY be empty if so permitted by
the extension. Applications that do not implement or recognize a
particular extension MUST ignore the associated extension-value field,
regardless of its size or content.
The cumulative size of an SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO message is limited only by
the maximum packet length that an implementation may apply in
accordance with [RFC4253]. Implementations MUST accept well-formed
SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO messages up to the maximum packet length they accept.
3. Initially Defined Extensions
3.1. "server-sig-algs"
This extension is sent with the following extension name and value:
string "server-sig-algs"
name-list signature-algorithms-accepted
Note that the name-list type is a strict subset of the string type,
and is thus permissible as an extension-value.
This extension is sent by the server only, and contains a list of
signature algorithms that the server is able to process as part of a
"publickey" request.
A client that wishes to proceed with public key authentication MAY
wait for the server's SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO so it can send a "publickey"
authentication request with an appropriate signature algorithm, rather
than resorting to trial and error.
Servers that implement public key authentication SHOULD implement this
extension.
If a server does not send this extension, a client SHALL NOT make any
assumptions about the server's signature algorithm support, and MAY
proceed with authentication request trial and error.
3.2. "no-flow-control"
This extension is sent with the following extension name and value:
string "no-flow-control"
string (empty)
This extension MUST be sent by both parties in order to take effect.
If included by both parties, the effect of this extension is that the
"initial window size" fields in the messages SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_OPEN and
Bider [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Extension Negotiation in SSH December 2015
SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_OPEN_CONFIRMATION, as defined in [RFC4254], become
meaningless. The values of these fields MUST be ignored, and a channel
behaves as if the window size in either direction is infinite. Neither
side is required to send any SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_WINDOW_ADJUST messages,
and if received, such messages MUST be ignored.
This extension is intended, but not limited to, use by file transfer
applications that are only going to use one channel, and for which the
flow control provided by SSH is an impediment, rather than a feature.
Implementations MUST refuse to open more than one simultaneous channel
when this extension is in effect. Nevertheless, server implementations
SHOULD support clients opening more than one non-simultaneous channel.
3.3. "accept-channels"
This extension is sent with the following extension name and value:
string "accept-channels"
name-list channel-types-accepted
An implementation MAY use this extension to signal to the other party
a list of channel types it might accept. A server that adapts the list
of available channel types based on authentication MAY defer sending
this extension until a subsequent EXT_INFO, just before sending the
message USERAUTH_SUCCESS.
An implementation is not obligated to unconditionally accept open
requests for channel types advertised in this extension. An open
request for a listed channel type MAY still fail for another reason.
3.4. "elevation"
This extension MAY be sent by the client as follows:
string "elevation"
string choice of: "y" | "n" | "d"
A client sends "y" to indicate its preference that the session should
be elevated; "n" to not be elevated; and "d" for the server to use its
default behavior. If a client does not send the "elevation" extension,
the server SHOULD act as if "d" was sent.
If a client has included this extension, then after authentication, a
server that supports this extension SHOULD indicate to the client
whether elevation was done by sending the following global request:
byte SSH_MSG_GLOBAL_REQUEST
string "elevation"
boolean want reply = false
boolean elevation performed
Bider [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Extension Negotiation in SSH December 2015
3.5. "delay-compression"
This extension MAY be sent by both parties as follows:
string "delay-compression"
string:
name-list compression_algorithms_client_to_server
name-list compression_algorithms_server_to_client
This extension allows the server and client to renegotiate compression
algorithm support without having to conduct a key re-exchange, putting
new algorithms into effect immediately upon successful authentication.
This extension takes effect only if both parties send it. Name-lists
MAY include any compression algorithm that could have been negotiated
in SSH_MSG_KEXINIT, except algorithms that define their own delayed
compression semantics. This means "zlib,none" is a valid algorithm
list in this context; but "zlib@openssh.com" is not.
If both parties send this extension, but the name-lists do not contain
a common algorithm in either direction, the parties MUST disconnect in
the same way as if negotiation failed as part of SSH_MSG_KEXINIT.
If this extension takes effect, the renegotiated compression algorithm
is used as follows:
- By the server, starting with the very next SSH message after
SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_SUCCESS.
- By the client, after sending SSH_MSG_NEWCOMPRESS. If this extension
takes effect, the client MUST send the following message immediately
after receiving the server's SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_SUCCESS:
byte SSH_MSG_NEWCOMPRESS (value 8)
The purpose of this message is to avoid a race condition where the
server cannot reliably know whether a message sent by the client was
sent before or after receiving the server's USERAUTH_SUCCESS.
As with all extensions, the server may delay including this extension
until its secondary SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO, sent before USERAUTH_SUCCESS.
This allows the server to avoid advertising compression support until
the client has been authenticated.
In subsequent key re-exchange, the compression algorithms negotiated
in re-exchange override the algorithms negotiated with this extension.
Bider [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Extension Negotiation in SSH December 2015
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. Additions to existing tables
IANA is requested to insert the following entries into the table
Message Numbers under Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters
[RFC4250]:
Value Message ID Reference
7 SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO [this document]
8 SSH_MSG_NEWCOMPRESS [this document]
IANA is requested to insert the following entries into the table Key
Exchange Method Names:
Method Name Reference Note
ext-info-s [this document] Section 2.2
ext-info-c [this document] Section 2.2
4.2. New table: Extension Names
Also under Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters, IANA is requested
to create a new table, Extension Names, with initial content:
Extension Name Reference Note
server-sig-algs [this document] Section 3.1
no-flow-control [this document] Section 3.2
accept-channels [this document] Section 3.3
elevation [this document] Section 3.4
delay-compression [this document] Section 3.5
4.2.1. Future Assignments to Extension Names
Names in the Extension Names table MUST follow the Conventions for
Names defined in [RFC4250], Section 4.6.1.
Requests for assignments of new non-local names in the Extension Names
table (i.e. names not including the '@' character) MUST be done
through the IETF CONSENSUS method, as described in [RFC5226].
Bider [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Extension Negotiation in SSH December 2015
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4250] Lehtinen, S. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Protocol Assigned Numbers", RFC 4250, January 2006.
[RFC4252] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, January 2006.
[RFC4253] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Transport Layer Protocol", RFC 4253, January 2006.
[RFC4254] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Connection Protocol", RFC 4254, January 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
6.2. Informative References
[SSH-RSA-SHA2]
Bider, D., "Use of RSA Keys with SHA-2 256 and 512 in
Secure Shell (SSH)", draft-rsa-dsa-sha2-256-02,
November 2015,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rsa-dsa-sha2-256-02>.
Bider [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Extension Negotiation in SSH December 2015
Author's Address
Denis Bider
Bitvise Limited
Suites 41/42, Victoria House
26 Main Street
GI
Phone: +506 8315 6519
EMail: ietf-ssh3@denisbider.com
URI: https://www.bitvise.com/
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Markus Friedl and Damien Miller for comments and initial
implementation.
Bider [Page 9]
