4 NETWORK WORKING GROUP L. Zhu
5 Internet-Draft K. Jaganathan
6 Expires: January 20, 2006 Microsoft Corporation
12 OCSP Support for PKINIT
13 draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-06
17 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
18 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
19 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
20 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
23 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
24 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
32 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
33 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
35 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
36 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
38 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 20, 2006.
42 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
46 This document defines a mechanism to enable in-band transmission of
47 Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) responses in the Kerberos
48 network authentication protocol. These responses are used to verify
49 the validity of the certificates used in PKINIT - the Kerberos
50 Version 5 extension that provides for the use of public key
55 Zhu, et al. Expires January 20, 2006 [Page 1]
57 Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT July 2005
62 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
63 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
64 3. Message Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
65 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
66 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
67 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
68 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
69 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
70 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
72 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 7
111 Zhu, et al. Expires January 20, 2006 [Page 2]
113 Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT July 2005
118 Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC2560] enables
119 applications to obtain timely information regarding the revocation
120 status of a certificate. Because OCSP responses are well-bounded and
121 small in size, constrained clients may wish to use OCSP to check the
122 validity of the certificates for Kerberos Key Distribution Center
123 (KDC) in order to avoid transmission of large Certificate Revocation
124 Lists (CRLs) and therefore save bandwidth on constrained networks
127 This document defines a pre-authentication type [RFC4120], where the
128 client and the KDC MAY piggyback OCSP responses for certificates used
129 in authentication exchanges, as defined in [PKINIT].
131 By using this OPTIONAL extension, PKINIT clients and the KDC can
132 maximize the reuse of cached OCSP responses.
134 2. Conventions Used in This Document
136 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
137 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
138 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
140 3. Message Definition
142 A pre-authentication type identifier is defined for this mechanism:
144 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE 18
146 The corresponding padata-value field [RFC4120] contains the DER [X60]
147 encoding of the following ASN.1 type:
149 PKOcspData ::= SEQUENCE OF OcspResponse
150 -- If more than one OcspResponse is
151 -- included, the first OcspResponse
152 -- MUST contain the OCSP response
153 -- for the signer's certificate.
154 -- The signer refers to the client for
155 -- AS-REQ, and the KDC for the AS-REP,
158 OcspResponse ::= OCTET STRING
159 -- Contains a complete OCSP response,
160 -- as defined in [RFC2560].
162 The client MAY send OCSP responses for certificates used in PA-PK-AS-
163 REQ [PKINIT] via a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE.
167 Zhu, et al. Expires January 20, 2006 [Page 3]
169 Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT July 2005
172 The KDC that receives a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE then SHOULD send a PA-PK-
173 OCSP-RESPONSE containing OCSP responses for certificates used in the
174 KDC's PA-PK-AS-REP. The client can request a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE by
175 using a PKOcspData containing an empty sequence.
177 The KDC MAY send a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE when it does not receive a PA-
178 PK-OCSP-RESPONSE from the client.
180 The PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE sent by the KDC contains OCSP responses for
181 certificates used in PA-PK-AS-REP [PKINIT].
183 Note the lack of integrity protection for the empty or missing OCSP
184 response; lack of an expected OCSP response from the KDC for the
185 KDC's certificates SHOULD be treated as an error by the client,
186 unless it is configured otherwise.
188 When using OCSP, the response is signed by the OCSP server, which is
189 trusted by the receiver. Depending on local policy, further
190 verification of the validity of the OCSP servers may be needed
192 The client and the KDC SHOULD ignore invalid OCSP responses received
193 via this mechanism, and they MAY implement CRL processing logic as a
194 fall-back position, if the OCSP responses received via this mechanism
195 alone are not sufficient for the verification of certificate
196 validity. The client and/or the KDC MAY ignore a valid OCSP response
197 and perform their own revocation status verification independently.
199 4. Security Considerations
201 The pre-authentication data in this document do not actually
202 authenticate any principals, but is designed to be used in
203 conjunction with PKINIT.
205 There is no binding between PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE pre-authentication
206 data and PKINIT pre-authentication data other than a given OCSP
207 response corresponding to a certificate used in a PKINIT pre-
208 authentication data element. Attacks involving removal or
209 replacement of PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE pre-authentication data elements
210 are, at worst, downgrade attacks, where a PKINIT client or KDC would
211 proceed without use of CRLs or OCSP for certificate validation, or
212 denial of service attacks, where a PKINIT client or KDC that cannot
213 validate the other's certificate without an accompanying OCSP
214 response might reject the AS exchange or where they might have to
215 download very large CRLs in order to continue. Kerberos V does not
216 protect against denial-of-service attacks, therefore the denial-of-
217 service aspect of these attacks are acceptable.
219 If a PKINIT client or KDC cannot validate certificates without the
223 Zhu, et al. Expires January 20, 2006 [Page 4]
225 Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT July 2005
228 aid of a valid PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE then it SHOULD fail the AS
229 exchange, possibly according to local configuration.
231 5. IANA Considerations
233 No IANA actions are required for this document.
237 This document was based on conversations among the authors, Jeffrey
238 Altman, Sam Hartman, Martin Rex and other members of the Kerberos
243 7.1 Normative References
245 [PKINIT] RFC-Editor: To be replaced by RFC number for draft-ietf-
246 cat-kerberos-pk-init. Work in Progress.
248 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
249 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
251 [RFC2560] Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., and C.
252 Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online
253 Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, June 1999.
255 [RFC4120] Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The
256 Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120,
259 [X690] ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic Encoding
260 Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and
261 Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER), ITU-T Recommendation
262 X.690 (1997) | ISO/IEC International Standard 8825-1:1998.
264 7.2 Informative References
267 RFC-Editor: To be replaced by RFC number for draft-deacon-
268 lightweight-ocsp-profile. Work in Progress.
283 Zhu, et al. Expires January 20, 2006 [Page 5]
285 Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT July 2005
291 Microsoft Corporation
296 Email: lzhu@microsoft.com
300 Microsoft Corporation
305 Email: karthikj@microsoft.com
314 Email: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com
339 Zhu, et al. Expires January 20, 2006 [Page 6]
341 Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT July 2005
344 Intellectual Property Statement
346 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
347 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
348 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
349 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
350 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
351 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
352 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
353 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
355 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
356 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
357 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
358 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
359 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
360 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
362 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
363 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
364 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
365 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
369 Disclaimer of Validity
371 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
372 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
373 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
374 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
375 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
376 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
377 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
382 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
383 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
384 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
389 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
395 Zhu, et al. Expires January 20, 2006 [Page 7]