Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Tue, 02 February 2021 03:55 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 A52303A1706; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 19:55:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GfKLQu_UZk0k; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 19:55:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DB0A3A131B; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 19:55:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 1123t3xf012457 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 1 Feb 2021 22:55:08 -0500
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 19:55:03 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
Cc: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>, EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20210202035503.GK21@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <770e6a49-52fc-4e8b-91af-48f85e581fbb@www.fastmail.com> <CAOgPGoBGOMXH-kMhQSujWxnACdmBL845u0ouE0fUYc4rWtUrZg@mail.gmail.com> <ca4c526e-79a0-4fa7-abda-2b626795f068@www.fastmail.com> <3409F71E-4CE4-46BB-8079-BFBE9BE83C9A@deployingradius.com> <66157321-55DC-4831-8EF2-D75934D9024C@deployingradius.com> <20210129183220.GI21@kduck.mit.edu> <1A830492-3404-4BCC-844B-D7D950458BD9@deployingradius.com> <20210201171155.GB21@kduck.mit.edu> <CAOgPGoA9FqzEGr5_XVYVr2bairdWdNV-Bh8PX462cRKcSrjpug@mail.gmail.com> <EAEC77E1-EFF1-4B39-9275-2D053584AC76@deployingradius.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <EAEC77E1-EFF1-4B39-9275-2D053584AC76@deployingradius.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/e7ndO1krngbhQteNtuV10hnJKcg>
Subject: Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 03:55:17 -0000
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 02:52:58PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > On Feb 1, 2021, at 1:30 PM, Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> wrote: > > [Joe] This could also address the early export of keys before the peer is authenticated. RFC 5216 provides a canonical way to create these IDs, but I'm not sure anyone follows it today > > FreeRADIUS does not officially expose Peer-Id or Server-Id. But the certificate subjectAltNames are available via the policy engine. The greater difficulty is *which* Id to use. > > RFC 5216 Section 5.2 says: > > It is possible for more than one subjectAltName field to be present > in a peer or server certificate in addition to an empty or non-empty > subject distinguished name. EAP-TLS implementations supporting > export of the Peer-Id and Server-Id SHOULD export all the > subjectAltName fields within Peer-Ids or Server-Ids, and SHOULD also > export a non-empty subject distinguished name field within the Peer- > Ids or Server-Ids. All of the exported Peer-Ids and Server-Ids are > considered valid. I had missed that part of 5216 before. While you're mostly stuck doing that sort of "all names in the cert are deemed valid" for the TLS client certificate, since the server just asks for *some* cert and has to handle what it gets back, that's not the normal pattern for authenticating the server. Consider, e.g., the RFC 6125 procedure, which takes as input to validation the name that the TLS client was attempting to initiate communication towards. Depending on the application protocol that might be a DNS-ID or URI-ID or whatever, but there's still a clear "I initiated communication towards this specific named entity; can the server prove that it is that entity" which is very much not "they proved possession of the private key; all names are verified". Even for the same server and same certificate, the answer can be different for different names in the certificate. (I am about to clear a DISCUSS position on draft-ietf-quic-http for just this topic; the historical HTTP semantics are in line with RFC 6125. It is perhaps not strictly required that the EAP usage do the same, but it is surprising, at least.) > > and it may be difficult to implement in practice due to ordering. It might be simpler to just specify that the end entity peer and client certificates are used in the key derivation. Most libraries provide APIs to get the raw certs. > > Yes. We expose the certs to the policy engine, along with various fields. Having the TLS exporter use more data should just be about updating some code. I think that you get better security properties if you include the entire certificates, but even just identities are better than nothing (provided there is a clear unique ordering/encoding, as you note). -Ben
- [Emu] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-emu-… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- [Emu] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Mohit Sethi M
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Martin Thomson
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Martin Thomson
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Mohit Sethi M
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Martin Thomson
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Martin Thomson
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Mohit Sethi M
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Mohit Sethi M
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Salz, Rich
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Michael Richardson
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Mohit Sethi M
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Dan Harkins
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Michael Richardson
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Mohit Sethi M
- [Emu] Fwd: [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on… Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Martin Thomson
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Jorge Vergara
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … John Mattsson
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Jorge Vergara
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Mohit Sethi M
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Jorge Vergara
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Peter Gutmann
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Salz, Rich
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Jorge Vergara
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … John Mattsson
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Emu] [TLS] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on … John Mattsson