draft-ietf-kitten-krb-auth-indicator-04.txt   draft-ietf-kitten-krb-auth-indicator-05.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force A. Jain Internet Engineering Task Force A. Jain
Internet-Draft Georgia Tech Internet-Draft Georgia Tech
Updates: 4120 (if approved) N. Kinder Updates: 7751 (if approved) N. Kinder
Intended status: Standards Track N. McCallum Intended status: Standards Track N. McCallum
Expires: June 18, 2017 Red Hat, Inc. Expires: July 7, 2017 Red Hat, Inc.
December 15, 2016 January 3, 2017
Authentication Indicator in Kerberos Tickets Authentication Indicator in Kerberos Tickets
draft-ietf-kitten-krb-auth-indicator-04 draft-ietf-kitten-krb-auth-indicator-05
Abstract Abstract
This document updates RFC 4120 in order to specify an extension in This document updates section "6. Assigned Numbers" of RFC 7751 in
the Kerberos protocol. It defines a new authorization data type AD- order to specify an extension in the Kerberos protocol. It defines a
AUTHENTICATION-INDICATOR. The purpose of introducing this data type new authorization data type AD-AUTHENTICATION-INDICATOR. The purpose
is to include an indicator of the strength of a client's of introducing this data type is to include an indicator of the
authentication in service tickets so that application services can strength of a client's authentication in service tickets so that
use it as an input into policy decisions. application services can use it as an input into policy decisions.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 7, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 38 skipping to change at page 2, line 38
authentication as well as multi-factor authentication using one-time authentication as well as multi-factor authentication using one-time
password devices, public-key cryptography and other pre- password devices, public-key cryptography and other pre-
authentication schemes. Implementations that offer pre- authentication schemes. Implementations that offer pre-
authentication mechanisms supporting significantly different authentication mechanisms supporting significantly different
strengths of client authentication may choose to keep track of the strengths of client authentication may choose to keep track of the
strength of the authentication that was used, for use as an input strength of the authentication that was used, for use as an input
into policy decisions. into policy decisions.
This document specifies a new authorization data type to convey This document specifies a new authorization data type to convey
authentication strength information to application services. authentication strength information to application services.
Elements of this type MUST appear within an AD-CAMMAC [RFC7751] Elements of this type appear within an AD-CAMMAC [RFC7751] container.
container.
2. Document Conventions 2. Document Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. AD Type Specification 3. AD Type Specification
The KDC MAY include authorization data of ad-type 97, wrapped in AD- The KDC MAY include authorization data of ad-type 97, wrapped in AD-
skipping to change at page 3, line 43 skipping to change at page 3, line 43
KDC implementations MUST use AD-CAMMAC verifiers as described in the KDC implementations MUST use AD-CAMMAC verifiers as described in the
the security considerations of RFC 7751 [RFC7751] to ensure that AD- the security considerations of RFC 7751 [RFC7751] to ensure that AD-
AUTHENTICATION-INDICATOR elements are not modified by an attacker. AUTHENTICATION-INDICATOR elements are not modified by an attacker.
Application servers MUST validate the AD-CAMMAC container before Application servers MUST validate the AD-CAMMAC container before
making authorization decisions based on AD-AUTHENTICATION-INDICATOR making authorization decisions based on AD-AUTHENTICATION-INDICATOR
elements. Application servers MUST NOT make authorization decisions elements. Application servers MUST NOT make authorization decisions
based on AD-AUTHENTICATION-INDICATOR elements which appear outside of based on AD-AUTHENTICATION-INDICATOR elements which appear outside of
AD-CAMMAC containers. AD-CAMMAC containers.
Using multiple strings in AD-AUTHENTICATION-INDICATOR MAY lead to Using multiple strings in AD-AUTHENTICATION-INDICATOR may lead to
ambiguity when a service tries to make a decision based on the AD- ambiguity when a service tries to make a decision based on the AD-
AUTHENTICATION-INDICATOR values. This ambiguity can be avoided if AUTHENTICATION-INDICATOR values. This ambiguity can be avoided if
indicator values are always used as a positive indication of certain indicator values are always used as a positive indication of certain
requirements being met during the initial authentication. requirements being met during the initial authentication. For
example, if a "without-password" indicator is inserted whenever
authentication occurs without a password, a service might assume this
is an indication that a higher-strength client authentication
occurred. However, this indicator might also be inserted when no
authentication occurred at all (such as anonymous PKINIT).
Service evaluation of site-defined indicators MUST consider the realm
of original authentication in order to avoid cross-realm indicator
collision. Failure to enforce this property can result in invalid
authorization.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no actions for IANA.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 25 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/