[Emu] [Errata Verified] RFC7170 (5768)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 01 April 2024 11:19 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4FEEC14F6AA; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 04:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GmhCLf6a-I-w; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 04:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA6B5C14F60A; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 04:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 9DB9D5BDD43; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 04:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
To: j@w1.fi, hzhou@cisco.com, ncamwing@cisco.com, jsalowey@cisco.com, steve.hanna@infineon.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: paul.wouters@aiven.io, iesg@ietf.org, emu@ietf.org, iana@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240401111926.9DB9D5BDD43@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 04:19:26 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/-AfKxssTQnnTdFo7riKM20duEJ8>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 11:16:43 -0700
Subject: [Emu] [Errata Verified] RFC7170 (5768)
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emu/>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:19:30 -0000

The following errata report has been verified for RFC7170,
"Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version 1". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5768

--------------------------------------
Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported by: Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>
Date Reported: 2019-06-29
Verified by: Paul Wouters (IESG)

Section: 5.

Original Text
-------------
   The Compound MAC computation is as follows:

      CMK = CMK[j]
      Compound-MAC = MAC( CMK, BUFFER )

   where j is the number of the last successfully executed inner EAP
   method, MAC is the MAC function negotiated in TLS 1.2 [RFC5246], and
   BUFFER is created after concatenating these fields in the following
   order:


Corrected Text
--------------
The Compound MAC computation is as follows:

    Compound-MAC = the first 20 octets of MAC( CMK[n], BUFFER )

where n is the number of the last successfully executed inner method, MAC is the MAC function negotiated in TLS (e.g. TLS 1.2 in [RFC5246]), and BUFFER is created after concatenating these fields in the following order:


Notes
-----
This definition of how Compound MAC is computed is not compatible with the definition of Compound MAC fields in the Crypto-Binding TLV. Those fields have a fixed length of 20 octets based on Section 4.2.13 (and that TLV is claimed to have a fixed length of 76 octets). However, the MAC function negotiated in TLS have variable mac_length (e.g., MAC=SHA256 used HMAC-SHA256 with mac_length=32).

How is this supposed to work? Is Section 4.2.13 wrong in claiming that the Compound MAC fields are 20 octets? Or is Section 5.3 wrong in not specifying MAC() function to truncate the output to 20 octets? One of those need to be changed since the current design would work only with the mac_length=20 case (i.e., MAC=SHA with HMAC-SHA1).

Furthermore, that "TLS 1.2" part should not be hardcoding this to not allow TLS 1.3 or newer versions from being used.

It is also a bit strange to see the BUFFER include "The EAP Type sent by the other party in the first TEAP message." since that can only be EAP Type=TEAP, i.e., 55. If that is indeed a fixed value, it does not seem to add any protection for a negotiated parameter as a part of the crypto binding. Regardless, it would be good to be clearer in the text on how this "EAP Type" is to be encoded here (assumable it is a single octet field with value 0x37).

Paul Wouters(AD): Corrected Text provided by the WG and in 7170bis

--------------------------------------
RFC7170 (draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-10)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version 1
Publication Date    : May 2014
Author(s)           : H. Zhou, N. Cam-Winget, J. Salowey, S. Hanna
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : EAP Method Update
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG