3 <Network Working Group> Larry Zhu
4 Internet Draft Karthik Jaganathan
5 Updates: 1964 Microsoft
6 Category: Standards Track Sam Hartman
7 draft-ietf-krb-wg-gssapi-cfx-03.txt MIT
9 Expires: April 26, 2004
11 The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism: Version 2
15 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
16 all provisions of Section 10 of [RFC-2026].
18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
21 Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of
22 six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
23 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
24 as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
35 This memo defines protocols, procedures, and conventions to be
36 employed by peers implementing the Generic Security Service
37 Application Program Interface (GSS-API as specified in [RFC-2743])
38 when using the Kerberos Version 5 mechanism (as specified in
41 [RFC-1964] is updated and incremental changes are proposed in
42 response to recent developments such as the introduction of Kerberos
43 crypto framework [KCRYPTO]. These changes support the inclusion of
44 new cryptosystems based on crypto profiles [KCRYPTO], by defining
45 new per-message tokens along with their encryption and checksum
48 Conventions used in this document
50 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
51 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
52 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-2119].
58 Zhu Internet Draft 1
\f
59 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
62 [KCRYPTO] defines a generic framework for describing encryption and
63 checksum types to be used with the Kerberos protocol and associated
66 [RFC-1964] describes the GSS-API mechanism for Kerberos Version 5.
67 It defines the format of context establishment, per-message and
68 context deletion tokens and uses algorithm identifiers for each
69 cryptosystem in per message and context deletion tokens.
71 The approach taken in this document obviates the need for algorithm
72 identifiers. This is accomplished by using the same encryption
73 algorithm, specified by the crypto profile [KCRYPTO] for the session
74 key or subkey that is created during context negotiation, and its
75 required checksum algorithm. Message layouts of the per-message
76 tokens are therefore revised to remove algorithm indicators and also
77 to add extra information to support the generic crypto framework
80 Tokens transferred between GSS-API peers for security context
81 establishment are also described in this document. The data
82 elements exchanged between a GSS-API endpoint implementation and the
83 Kerberos KDC are not specific to GSS-API usage and are therefore
84 defined within [KRBCLAR] rather than within this specification.
86 The new token formats specified in this memo MUST be used with all
87 "newer" encryption types [KRBCLAR] and MAY be used with "older"
88 encryption types, provided that the initiator and acceptor know,
89 from the context establishment, that they can both process these new
92 "Newer" encryption types are those which have been specified along
93 with or since the new Kerberos cryptosystem specification [KCRYPTO],
94 as defined in section 3.1.3 of [KRBCLAR].
96 Note that in this document, the term "little endian order" is used
97 for brevity to refer to the least-significant-octet-first encoding,
98 while the term "big endian order" is for the most-significant-octet-
101 2. Key Derivation for Per-Message Tokens
103 To limit the exposure of a given key, [KCRYPTO] adopted "one-way"
104 "entropy-preserving" derived keys, for different purposes or key
105 usages, from a base key or protocol key. This document defines four
106 key usage values below for signing and sealing messages:
109 -------------------------------------
110 KG-USAGE-ACCEPTOR-SEAL 22
111 KG-USAGE-ACCEPTOR-SIGN 23
112 KG-USAGE-INITIATOR-SEAL 24
113 KG-USAGE-INITIATOR-SIGN 25
116 Zhu Internet Draft 2
\f
117 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
120 When the sender is the context acceptor, KG-USAGE-ACCEPTOR-SIGN is
121 used as the usage number in the key derivation function for deriving
122 keys to be used in MIC tokens, and KG-USAGE-ACCEPTOR-SEAL is used
123 for Wrap tokens; similarly when the sender is the context initiator,
124 KG-USAGE-INITIATOR-SIGN is used as the usage number in the key
125 derivation function for MIC tokens, KG-USAGE-INITIATOR-SEAL is used
126 for Wrap Tokens. Even if the Wrap token does not provide for
127 confidentiality the same usage values specified above are used.
129 During the context initiation and acceptance sequence, the acceptor
130 MAY assert a subkey. If the acceptor asserts a subkey, subsequent
131 messages SHOULD use this subkey as the protocol key and these
132 messages MUST be flagged as "AcceptorSubkey" as described in section
135 3. Quality of Protection
137 The GSS-API specification [RFC-2743] provides for Quality of
138 Protection (QOP) values that can be used by applications to request
139 a certain type of encryption or signing. A zero QOP value is used
140 to indicate the "default" protection; applications which do not use
141 the default QOP are not guaranteed to be portable across
142 implementations or even inter-operate with different deployment
143 configurations of the same implementation. Using an algorithm that
144 is different from the one for which the key is defined may not be
145 appropriate. Therefore, when the new method in this document is
146 used, the QOP value is ignored.
148 The encryption and checksum algorithms in per-message tokens are now
149 implicitly defined by the algorithms associated with the session key
150 or subkey. Algorithms identifiers as described in [RFC-1964] are
151 therefore no longer needed and removed from the new token headers.
153 4. Definitions and Token Formats
155 This section provides terms and definitions, as well as descriptions
156 for tokens specific to the Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API mechanism.
158 4.1. Context Establishment Tokens
160 All context establishment tokens emitted by the Kerberos V5 GSS-API
161 mechanism will have the framing shown below:
163 GSS-API DEFINITIONS ::=
167 MechType ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER
168 -- representing Kerberos V5 mechanism
171 -- option indication (delegation, etc.) indicated within
172 -- mechanism-specific token
173 [APPLICATION 0] IMPLICIT SEQUENCE {
176 Zhu Internet Draft 3
\f
177 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
181 innerToken ANY DEFINED BY thisMech
182 -- contents mechanism-specific
183 -- ASN.1 structure not required
188 Where the notation and encoding of this pseudo ASN.1 header, which
189 is referred as the generic GSS-API token framing later in this
190 document, are described in [RFC-2743], and the innerToken field
191 starts with a two-octet token-identifier (TOK_ID) expressed in big
192 endian order, followed by a Kerberos message.
194 Here are the TOK_ID values used in the context establishment tokens:
196 Token TOK_ID Value in Hex
197 -----------------------------------------
202 Where Kerberos message KRB_AP_REQUEST, KRB_AP_REPLY, and KRB_ERROR
203 are defined in [KRBCLAR].
205 If an unknown token identifier (TOK_ID) is received in the initial
206 context estalishment token, the receiver MUST return
207 GSS_S_CONTINUE_NEEDED major status, and the returned output token
208 MUST contain a KRB_ERROR message with the error code
209 KRB_AP_ERR_MSG_TYPE [KRBCLAR].
211 4.1.1. Authenticator Checksum
213 The authenticator in the KRB_AP_REQ message MUST include the
214 optional sequence number and the checksum field. The checksum field
215 is used to convey service flags, channel bindings, and optional
216 delegation information. The checksum type MUST be 0x8003. The
217 length of the checksum MUST be 24 octets when delegation is not
218 used. When delegation is used, a ticket-granting ticket will be
219 transferred in a KRB_CRED message. This ticket SHOULD have its
220 forwardable flag set. The KRB_CRED message MUST be encrypted in the
221 session key of the ticket used to authenticate the context.
223 The format of the authenticator checksum field is as follows.
225 Octet Name Description
226 -----------------------------------------------------------------
227 0..3 Lgth Number of octets in Bnd field; Currently
228 contains hex value 10 00 00 00 (16, represented
229 in little-endian order)
230 4..19 Bnd Channel binding information, as described in
232 20..23 Flags Four-octet context-establishment flags in little-
233 endian order as described in section 4.1.1.1.
236 Zhu Internet Draft 4
\f
237 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
240 24..25 DlgOpt The Delegation Option identifier (=1) [optional]
241 26..27 Dlgth The length of the Deleg field [optional]
242 28..n Deleg A KRB_CRED message (n = Dlgth + 29) [optional]
244 4.1.1.1. Checksum Flags Field
246 The checksum "Flags" field is used to convey service options or
247 extension negotiation information. The following context
248 establishment flags are defined in [RFC-2744].
251 ---------------------------------
255 GSS_C_SEQUENCE_FLAG 8
259 Context establishment flags are exposed to the calling application.
260 If the calling application desires a particular service option then
261 it requests that option via GSS_Init_sec_context() [RFC-2743]. An
262 implementation that supports a particular option or extension SHOULD
263 then set the appropriate flag in the checksum Flags field.
265 The most significant eight bits of the checksum flags are reserved
266 for future use. The receiver MUST ignore unknown checksum flags.
268 4.1.1.2. Channel Binding Information
270 Channel bindings are user-specified tags to identify a given context
271 to the peer application. These tags are intended to be used to
272 identify the particular communications channel that carries the
273 context [RFC-2743] [RFC-2744].
275 When using C language bindings, channel bindings are communicated to
276 the GSS-API using the following structure [RFC-2744]:
278 typedef struct gss_channel_bindings_struct {
279 OM_uint32 initiator_addrtype;
280 gss_buffer_desc initiator_address;
281 OM_uint32 acceptor_addrtype;
282 gss_buffer_desc acceptor_address;
283 gss_buffer_desc application_data;
284 } *gss_channel_bindings_t;
286 The member fields and constants used for different address types are
287 defined in [RFC-2744].
289 The "Bnd" field contains the MD5 hash of channel bindings, taken
290 over all non-null components of bindings, in order of declaration.
291 Integer fields within channel bindings are represented in little-
292 endian order for the purposes of the MD5 calculation.
295 Zhu Internet Draft 5
\f
296 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
299 In computing the contents of the Bnd field, the following detailed
302 (1) Each integer field shall be formatted into four octets, using
303 little endian octet ordering, for purposes of MD5 hash computation.
305 (2) All input length fields within gss_buffer_desc elements of a
306 gss_channel_bindings_struct even those which are zero-valued, shall
307 be included in the hash calculation; the value elements of
308 gss_buffer_desc elements shall be dereferenced, and the resulting
309 data shall be included within the hash computation, only for the
310 case of gss_buffer_desc elements having non-zero length specifiers.
312 (3) If the caller passes the value GSS_C_NO_BINDINGS instead of a
313 valid channel binding structure, the Bnd field shall be set to 16
316 4.2. Per-Message Tokens
318 Two classes of tokens are defined in this section: "MIC" tokens,
319 emitted by calls to GSS_GetMIC() and consumed by calls to
320 GSS_VerifyMIC(), "Wrap" tokens, emitted by calls to GSS_Wrap() and
321 consumed by calls to GSS_Unwrap().
323 The new per-message tokens introduced here do not include the
324 generic GSS-API token framing used by the context establishment
325 tokens. These new tokens are designed to be used with newer crypto
326 systems that can, for example, have variable-size checksums.
328 4.2.1. Sequence Number
330 To distinguish intentionally-repeated messages from maliciously-
331 replayed ones, per-message tokens contain a sequence number field,
332 which is a 64 bit integer expressed in big endian order. After
333 sending a GSS_GetMIC() or GSS_Wrap() token, the sender's sequence
334 numbers are incremented by one.
338 The "Flags" field is a one-octet integer used to indicate a set of
339 attributes for the protected message. For example, one flag is
340 allocated as the direction-indicator, thus preventing an adversary
341 from sending back the same message in the reverse direction and
344 The meanings of bits in this field (the least significant bit is bit
348 ---------------------------------------------------------------
349 0 SentByAcceptor When set, this flag indicates the sender
350 is the context acceptor. When not set,
351 it indicates the sender is the context
355 Zhu Internet Draft 6
\f
356 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
359 1 Sealed When set in Wrap tokens, this flag
360 indicates confidentiality is provided
361 for. It SHALL NOT be set in MIC tokens.
362 2 AcceptorSubkey A subkey asserted by the context acceptor
363 is used to protect the message.
365 The rest of available bits are reserved for future use and MUST be
366 cleared. The receiver MUST ignore unknown flags.
370 The "EC" (Extra Count) field is a two-octet integer field expressed
373 In Wrap tokens with confidentiality, the EC field is used to encode
374 the number of octets in the filler, as described in section 4.2.4.
376 In Wrap tokens without confidentiality, the EC field is used to
377 encode the number of octets in the trailing checksum, as described
380 4.2.4. Encryption and Checksum Operations
382 The encryption algorithms defined by the crypto profiles provide for
383 integrity protection [KCRYPTO]. Therefore no separate checksum is
386 The result of decryption can be longer than the original plaintext
387 [KCRYPTO] and the extra trailing octets are called "crypto-system
388 garbage". However, given the size of any plaintext data, one can
389 always find the next (possibly larger) size so that, when padding
390 the to-be-encrypted text to that size, there will be no crypto-
391 system garbage added [KCRYPTO].
393 In Wrap tokens that provide for confidentiality, the first 16 octets
394 of the Wrap token (the "header", as defined in section 4.2.6), are
395 appended to the plaintext data before encryption. Filler octets can
396 be inserted between the plaintext data and the "header", and the
397 values and size of the filler octets are chosen by implementations,
398 such that there is no crypto-system garbage present after the
399 decryption. The resulting Wrap token is {"header" |
400 encrypt(plaintext-data | filler | "header")}, where encrypt() is the
401 encryption operation (which provides for integrity protection)
402 defined in the crypto profile [KCRYPTO], and the RRC field in the
403 to-be-encrypted header contains the hex value 00 00.
405 In Wrap tokens that do not provide for confidentiality, the checksum
406 is calculated first over the to-be-signed plaintext data, and then
407 the first 16 octets of the Wrap token (the "header", as defined in
408 section 4.2.6). Both the EC field and the RRC field in the token
409 header are filled with zeroes for the purpose of calculating the
410 checksum. The resulting Wrap token is {"header" | plaintext-data |
411 get_mic(plaintext-data | "header")}, where get_mic() is the
413 Zhu Internet Draft 7
\f
414 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
417 checksum operation for the required checksum mechanism of the chosen
418 encryption mechanism defined in the crypto profile [KCRYPTO].
420 The parameters for the key and the cipher-state in the encrypt() and
421 get_mic() operations have been omitted for brevity.
423 For MIC tokens, the checksum is first calculated over the to-be-
424 signed plaintext data, and then the first 16 octets of the MIC
425 token, where the checksum mechanism is the required checksum
426 mechanism of the chosen encryption mechanism defined in the crypto
429 The resulting Wrap and MIC tokens bind the data to the token header,
430 including the sequence number and the direction indicator.
434 The "RRC" (Right Rotation Count) field in Wrap tokens is added to
435 allow the data to be encrypted in-place by existing [SSPI]
436 applications that do not provide an additional buffer for the
437 trailer (the cipher text after the in-place-encrypted data) in
438 addition to the buffer for the header (the cipher text before the
439 in-place-encrypted data). The resulting Wrap token in the previous
440 section, excluding the first 16 octets of the token header, is
441 rotated to the right by "RRC" octets. The net result is that "RRC"
442 octets of trailing octets are moved toward the header. Consider the
443 following as an example of this rotation operation: Assume that the
444 RRC value is 3 and the token before the rotation is {"header" | aa |
445 bb | cc | dd | ee | ff | gg | hh}, the token after rotation would be
446 {"header" | ff | gg | hh | aa | bb | cc | dd | ee }, where {aa | bb
447 | cc |...| hh} is used to indicate the octet sequence.
449 The RRC field is expressed as a two-octet integer in big endian
452 The rotation count value is chosen by the sender based on
453 implementation details, and the receiver MUST be able to interpret
454 all possible rotation count values.
456 4.2.6. Message Layouts
458 Per-message tokens start with a two-octet token identifier (TOK_ID)
459 field, expressed in big endian order. These tokens are defined
460 separately in subsequent sub-sections.
464 Use of the GSS_GetMIC() call yields a token, separate from the user
465 data being protected, which can be used to verify the integrity of
466 that data as received. The token has the following format:
468 Octet no Name Description
469 -----------------------------------------------------------------
470 0..1 TOK_ID Identification field. Tokens emitted by
473 Zhu Internet Draft 8
\f
474 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
477 GSS_GetMIC() contain the hex value 04 04
478 expressed in big endian order in this field.
479 2 Flags Attributes field, as described in section
481 3..7 Filler Contains five octets of hex value FF.
482 8..15 SND_SEQ Sequence number field in clear text,
483 expressed in big endian order.
484 16..last SGN_CKSUM Checksum of octet 0..15 and the "to-be-
485 signed" data, as described in section 4.2.4.
487 The Filler field is included in the checksum calculation for
492 Use of the GSS_Wrap() call yields a token, which consists of a
493 descriptive header, followed by a body portion that contains either
494 the input user data in plaintext concatenated with the checksum, or
495 the input user data encrypted. The GSS_Wrap() token has the
498 Octet no Name Description
499 ---------------------------------------------------------------
500 0..1 TOK_ID Identification field. Tokens emitted by
501 GSS_Wrap() contain the the hex value 05 04
502 expressed in big endian order in this field.
503 2 Flags Attributes field, as described in section
505 3 Filler Contains the hex value FF.
506 4..5 EC Contains the "extra count" field, in big
507 endian order as described in section 4.2.3.
508 6..7 RRC Contains the "right rotation count" in big
509 endian order, as described in section 4.2.5.
510 8..15 SND_SEQ Sequence number field in clear text,
511 expressed in big endian order.
512 16..last Data Encrypted data for Wrap tokens with
513 confidentiality, or plaintext data followed
514 by the checksum for Wrap tokens without
515 confidentiality, as described in section
518 4.3. Context Deletion Tokens
520 Context deletion tokens are empty in this mechanism. Both peers to
521 a security context invoke GSS_Delete_sec_context() [RFC-2743]
522 independently, passing a null output_context_token buffer to
523 indicate that no context_token is required. Implementations of
524 GSS_Delete_sec_context() should delete relevant locally-stored
527 4.4. Token Identifier Assignment Considerations
529 Token identifiers (TOK_ID) from 0x60 0x00 through 0x60 0xFF
530 inclusive are reserved and SHALL NOT be assigned. Thus by examining
533 Zhu Internet Draft 9
\f
534 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
537 the first two octets of a token, one can tell unambiguously if it is
538 wrapped with the generic GSS-API token framing.
540 5. Parameter Definitions
542 This section defines parameter values used by the Kerberos V5 GSS-
543 API mechanism. It defines interface elements in support of
544 portability, and assumes use of C language bindings per [RFC-2744].
546 5.1. Minor Status Codes
548 This section recommends common symbolic names for minor_status
549 values to be returned by the Kerberos V5 GSS-API mechanism. Use of
550 these definitions will enable independent implementers to enhance
551 application portability across different implementations of the
552 mechanism defined in this specification. (In all cases,
553 implementations of GSS_Display_status() will enable callers to
554 convert minor_status indicators to text representations.) Each
555 implementation should make available, through include files or other
556 means, a facility to translate these symbolic names into the
557 concrete values which a particular GSS-API implementation uses to
558 represent the minor_status values specified in this section.
560 It is recognized that this list may grow over time, and that the
561 need for additional minor_status codes specific to particular
562 implementations may arise. It is recommended, however, that
563 implementations should return a minor_status value as defined on a
564 mechanism-wide basis within this section when that code is
565 accurately representative of reportable status rather than using a
566 separate, implementation-defined code.
568 5.1.1. Non-Kerberos-specific codes
570 GSS_KRB5_S_G_BAD_SERVICE_NAME
571 /* "No @ in SERVICE-NAME name string" */
572 GSS_KRB5_S_G_BAD_STRING_UID
573 /* "STRING-UID-NAME contains nondigits" */
575 /* "UID does not resolve to username" */
576 GSS_KRB5_S_G_VALIDATE_FAILED
577 /* "Validation error" */
578 GSS_KRB5_S_G_BUFFER_ALLOC
579 /* "Couldn't allocate gss_buffer_t data" */
580 GSS_KRB5_S_G_BAD_MSG_CTX
581 /* "Message context invalid" */
582 GSS_KRB5_S_G_WRONG_SIZE
583 /* "Buffer is the wrong size" */
584 GSS_KRB5_S_G_BAD_USAGE
585 /* "Credential usage type is unknown" */
586 GSS_KRB5_S_G_UNKNOWN_QOP
587 /* "Unknown quality of protection specified" */
589 5.1.2. Kerberos-specific-codes
591 Zhu Internet Draft 10
\f
592 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
595 GSS_KRB5_S_KG_CCACHE_NOMATCH
596 /* "Client principal in credentials does not match
598 GSS_KRB5_S_KG_KEYTAB_NOMATCH
599 /* "No key available for specified service principal" */
600 GSS_KRB5_S_KG_TGT_MISSING
601 /* "No Kerberos ticket-granting ticket available" */
602 GSS_KRB5_S_KG_NO_SUBKEY
603 /* "Authenticator has no subkey" */
604 GSS_KRB5_S_KG_CONTEXT_ESTABLISHED
605 /* "Context is already fully established" */
606 GSS_KRB5_S_KG_BAD_SIGN_TYPE
607 /* "Unknown signature type in token" */
608 GSS_KRB5_S_KG_BAD_LENGTH
609 /* "Invalid field length in token" */
610 GSS_KRB5_S_KG_CTX_INCOMPLETE
611 /* "Attempt to use incomplete security context" */
615 All implementations of this specification shall be capable of
616 accepting buffers of at least 16K octets as input to GSS_GetMIC(),
617 GSS_VerifyMIC(), and GSS_Wrap(), and shall be capable of accepting
618 the output_token generated by GSS_Wrap() for a 16K octet input
619 buffer as input to GSS_Unwrap(). Support for larger buffer sizes is
620 optional but recommended.
622 6. Backwards Compatibility Considerations
624 The new token formats defined in this document will only be
625 recognized by new implementations. To address this, implementations
626 can always use the explicit sign or seal algorithm in [RFC-1964]
627 when the key type corresponds to "older" enctypes. An alternative
628 approach might be to retry sending the message with the sign or seal
629 algorithm explicitly defined as in [RFC-1964]. However this would
630 require either the use of a mechanism such as [RFC-2478] to securely
631 negotiate the method or the use out of band mechanism to choose
632 appropriate mechanism. For this reason, it is RECOMMENDED that the
633 new token formats defined in this document SHOULD be used only if
634 both peers are known to support the new mechanism during context
635 negotiation because of, for example, the use of "new" enctypes.
637 GSS_Unwrap() or GSS_Verify_MIC() can process a message token as
638 follows: it can look at the first octet of the token header, if it
639 is 0x60 then the token must carry the generic GSS-API pseudo ASN.1
640 framing, otherwise the first two octets of the token contain the
641 TOK_ID that uniquely identify the token message format.
643 7. Security Considerations
645 Under the current mechanism, no negotiation of algorithm types
646 occurs, so server-side (acceptor) implementations cannot request
647 that clients not use algorithm types not understood by the server.
649 Zhu Internet Draft 11
\f
650 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
653 However, administration of the server's Kerberos data (e.g., the
654 service key) has to be done in communication with the KDC, and it is
655 from the KDC that the client will request credentials. The KDC
656 could therefore be given the task of limiting session keys for a
657 given service to types actually supported by the Kerberos and GSSAPI
658 software on the server.
660 This does have a drawback for cases where a service principal name
661 is used both for GSSAPI-based and non-GSSAPI-based communication
662 (most notably the "host" service key), if the GSSAPI implementation
663 does not understand (for example) AES [AES-KRB5] but the Kerberos
664 implementation does. It means that AES session keys cannot be
665 issued for that service principal, which keeps the protection of
666 non-GSSAPI services weaker than necessary. KDC administrators
667 desiring to limit the session key types to support interoperability
668 with such GSSAPI implementations should carefully weigh the
669 reduction in protection offered by such mechanisms against the
670 benefits of interoperability.
674 Ken Raeburn and Nicolas Williams corrected many of our errors in the
675 use of generic profiles and were instrumental in the creation of this
678 The text for security considerations was contributed by Ken Raeburn.
680 Sam Hartman and Ken Raeburn suggested the "floating trailer" idea,
681 namely the encoding of the RRC field.
683 Sam Hartman and Nicolas Williams recommended the replacing our
684 earlier key derivation function for directional keys with different
685 key usage numbers for each direction as well as retaining the
686 directional bit for maximum compatibility.
688 Paul Leach provided numerous suggestions and comments.
690 Scott Field, Richard Ward, Dan Simon, and Kevin Damour also provided
691 valuable inputs on this memo.
693 Jeffrey Hutzelman provided comments on channel bindings and suggested
694 many editorial changes.
696 Luke Howard provided implementations of this memo for the Heimdal
697 code base, and helped inter-operability testing with the Microsoft
698 code base, together with Love. These experiments formed the basis of
701 Martin Rex provided suggestions of TOK_ID assignment recommendations
702 thus the token tagging in this memo is unambiguous if the token is
703 wrapped with the pseudo ASN.1 header.
707 Zhu Internet Draft 12
\f
708 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
711 This document retains some of the text of RFC-1964 in relevant
716 9.1. Normative References
718 [RFC-2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
719 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
721 [RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
722 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
724 [RFC-2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
725 Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000.
727 [RFC-2744] Wray, J., "Generic Security Service API Version 2: C-
728 bindings", RFC 2744, January 2000.
730 [RFC-1964] Linn, J., "The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism",
733 [KCRYPTO] Raeburn, K., "Encryption and Checksum Specifications for
734 Kerberos 5", draft-ietf-krb-wg-crypto-05.txt, June, 2003. Work in
737 [KRBCLAR] Neuman, C., Kohl, J., Ts'o T., Yu T., Hartman, S.,
738 Raeburn, K., "The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)",
739 draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-clarifications-04.txt, February 2002.
742 [AES-KRB5] Raeburn, K., "AES Encryption for Kerberos 5", draft-
743 raeburn-krb-rijndael-krb-05.txt, June 2003. Work in progress.
745 [RFC-2478] Baize, E., Pinkas D., "The Simple and Protected GSS-API
746 Negotiation Mechanism", RFC 2478, December 1998.
748 9.2. Informative References
750 [SSPI] Leach, P., "Security Service Provider Interface", Microsoft
751 Developer Network (MSDN), April 2003.
757 Redmond, WA 98052 - USA
758 EMail: LZhu@microsoft.com
762 Redmond, WA 98052 - USA
765 Zhu Internet Draft 13
\f
766 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
769 EMail: karthikj@microsoft.com
772 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
773 77 Massachusetts Avenue
774 Cambridge, MA 02139 - USA
775 Email: hartmans@MIT.EDU
822 Zhu Internet Draft 14
\f
823 Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API October 2003
827 Full Copyright Statement
829 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved.
831 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
832 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
833 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
834 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
835 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
836 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
837 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
838 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
839 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
840 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
841 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
842 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
845 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
846 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
848 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
849 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
850 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
851 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
852 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
853 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
880 Zhu Internet Draft 15
\f