Oops, forgot to actually add krb5-plugin.7

[heimdal.git] / doc / standardisation / draft-newman-auth-scram-11.txt

NETWORK WORKING GROUP                                       A. Menon-Sen
Internet-Draft                                    Oryx Mail Systems GmbH
Intended status: Standards Track                             A. Melnikov
Expires: September 24, 2009                                    Isode Ltd
                                                               C. Newman
                                                             N. Williams
                                                        Sun Microsystems
                                                          March 23, 2009


            Salted Challenge Response (SCRAM) SASL Mechanism
                     draft-newman-auth-scram-11.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 24, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.





Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009               [Page 1]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


Abstract

   The secure authentication mechanism most widely deployed and used by
   Internet application protocols is the transmission of clear-text
   passwords over a channel protected by Transport Layer Security (TLS).
   There are some significant security concerns with that mechanism,
   which could be addressed by the use of a challenge response
   authentication mechanism protected by TLS.  Unfortunately, the
   challenge response mechanisms presently on the standards track all
   fail to meet requirements necessary for widespread deployment, and
   have had success only in limited use.

   This specification describes a family of authentication mechanisms
   called the Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism
   (SCRAM), which addresses the security concerns and meets the
   deployability requirements.  When used in combination with TLS or an
   equivalent security layer, a mechanism from this family could improve
   the status-quo for application protocol authentication and provide a
   suitable choice for a mandatory-to-implement mechanism for future
   application protocol standards.































Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009               [Page 2]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


Table of Contents

   1.          Conventions Used in This Document  . . . . . . . . . .  4
   1.1.        Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   1.2.        Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.          Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.          SCRAM Algorithm Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.          SCRAM Mechanism Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.          SCRAM Authentication Exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.1.        SCRAM Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.          Channel Binding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   6.1.        Channel Binding to TLS Channels  . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.          Formal Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   8.          SCRAM as a GSS-API Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   8.1.        GSS-API Principal Name Types for SCRAM . . . . . . . . 20
   8.2.        GSS-API Per-Message Tokens for SCRAM . . . . . . . . . 20
   8.3.        GSS_Pseudo_random() for SCRAM  . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   9.          Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   10.         IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   11.         Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Appendix A. Other Authentication Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   Appendix B. Design Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   Appendix C. SCRAM Examples and Internet-Draft Change History . . . 28
   12.         References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   12.1.       Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   12.2.       Normative References for GSS-API implementors  . . . . 31
   12.3.       Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
               Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34























Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009               [Page 3]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


1.  Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   Formal syntax is defined by [RFC5234] including the core rules
   defined in Appendix B of [RFC5234].

   Example lines prefaced by "C:" are sent by the client and ones
   prefaced by "S:" by the server.  If a single "C:" or "S:" label
   applies to multiple lines, then the line breaks between those lines
   are for editorial clarity only, and are not part of the actual
   protocol exchange.

1.1.  Terminology

   This document uses several terms defined in [RFC4949] ("Internet
   Security Glossary") including the following: authentication,
   authentication exchange, authentication information, brute force,
   challenge-response, cryptographic hash function, dictionary attack,
   eavesdropping, hash result, keyed hash, man-in-the-middle, nonce,
   one-way encryption function, password, replay attack and salt.
   Readers not familiar with these terms should use that glossary as a
   reference.

   Some clarifications and additional definitions follow:

   o  Authentication information: Information used to verify an identity
      claimed by a SCRAM client.  The authentication information for a
      SCRAM identity consists of salt, iteration count, the "StoredKey"
      and "ServerKey" (as defined in the algorithm overview) for each
      supported cryptographic hash function.

   o  Authentication database: The database used to look up the
      authentication information associated with a particular identity.
      For application protocols, LDAPv3 (see [RFC4510]) is frequently
      used as the authentication database.  For network-level protocols
      such as PPP or 802.11x, the use of RADIUS is more common.

   o  Base64: An encoding mechanism defined in [RFC4648] which converts
      an octet string input to a textual output string which can be
      easily displayed to a human.  The use of base64 in SCRAM is
      restricted to the canonical form with no whitespace.

   o  Octet: An 8-bit byte.

   o  Octet string: A sequence of 8-bit bytes.



Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009               [Page 4]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


   o  Salt: A random octet string that is combined with a password
      before applying a one-way encryption function.  This value is used
      to protect passwords that are stored in an authentication
      database.

1.2.  Notation

   The pseudocode description of the algorithm uses the following
   notations:

   o  ":=": The variable on the left hand side represents the octet
      string resulting from the expression on the right hand side.

   o  "+": Octet string concatenation.

   o  "[ ]": A portion of an expression enclosed in "[" and "]" may not
      be included in the result under some circumstances.  See the
      associated text for a description of those circumstances.

   o  HMAC(key, str): Apply the HMAC keyed hash algorithm (defined in
      [RFC2104]) using the octet string represented by "key" as the key
      and the octet string "str" as the input string.  The size of the
      result is the hash result size for the hash function in use.  For
      example, it is 20 octets for SHA-1 (see [RFC3174]).

   o  H(str): Apply the cryptographic hash function to the octet string
      "str", producing an octet string as a result.  The size of the
      result depends on the hash result size for the hash function in
      use.

   o  XOR: Apply the exclusive-or operation to combine the octet string
      on the left of this operator with the octet string on the right of
      this operator.  The length of the output and each of the two
      inputs will be the same for this use.

   o  Hi(str, salt):



      U0   := HMAC(str, salt + INT(1))
      U1   := HMAC(str, U0)
      U2   := HMAC(str, U1)
      ...
      Ui-1 := HMAC(str, Ui-2)
      Ui   := HMAC(str, Ui-1)

      Hi := U0 XOR U1 XOR U2 XOR ... XOR Ui




Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009               [Page 5]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


      where "i" is the iteration count, "+" is the string concatenation
      operator and INT(g) is a four-octet encoding of the integer g,
      most significant octet first.

   o  This is, essentially, PBKDF2 [RFC2898] with HMAC() as the PRF and
      with dkLen == output length of HMAC() == output length of H().













































Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009               [Page 6]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


2.  Introduction

   This specification describes a family of authentication mechanisms
   called the Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM)
   which addresses the requirements necessary to deploy a challenge-
   response mechanism more widely than past attempts.  When used in
   combination with Transport Layer Security (TLS, see [RFC5246]) or an
   equivalent security layer, a mechanism from this family could improve
   the status-quo for application protocol authentication and provide a
   suitable choice for a mandatory-to-implement mechanism for future
   application protocol standards.

   For simplicity, this family of mechanism does not presently include
   negotiation of a security layer.  It is intended to be used with an
   external security layer such as that provided by TLS or SSH, with
   optional channel binding [RFC5056] to the external security layer.

   SCRAM is specified herein as a pure Simple Authentication and
   Security Layer (SASL) [RFC4422] mechanism, but it conforms to the new
   bridge between SASL and the Generic Security Services Application
   Programming Interface (GSS-API) called "GS2" [ref-needed].  This
   means that SCRAM is actually both, a GSS-API and SASL mechanism.

   SCRAM provides the following protocol features:

   o  The authentication information stored in the authentication
      database is not sufficient by itself to impersonate the client.
      The information is salted to prevent a pre-stored dictionary
      attack if the database is stolen.

   o  The server does not gain the ability to impersonate the client to
      other servers (with an exception for server-authorized proxies).

   o  The mechanism permits the use of a server-authorized proxy without
      requiring that proxy to have super-user rights with the back-end
      server.

   o  A standard attribute is defined to enable storage of the
      authentication information in LDAPv3 (see [RFC4510]).

   o  Mutual authentication is supported, but only the client is named
      (i.e., the server has no name).

   For an in-depth discussion of why other challenge response mechanisms
   are not considered sufficient, see appendix A.  For more information
   about the motivations behind the design of this mechanism, see
   appendix B.




Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009               [Page 7]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


   Comments regarding this draft may be sent either to the
   ietf-sasl@imc.org mailing list or to the authors.

















































Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009               [Page 8]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


3.  SCRAM Algorithm Overview

   Note that this section omits some details, such as client and server
   nonces.  See Section 5 for more details.

   To begin with, the client is in possession of a username and
   password.  It sends the username to the server, which retrieves the
   corresponding authentication information, i.e. a salt, StoredKey,
   ServerKey and the iteration count i.  (Note that a server
   implementation may chose to use the same iteration count for all
   account.)  The server sends the salt and the iteration count to the
   client, which then computes the following values and sends a
   ClientProof to the server:


      SaltedPassword  := Hi(password, salt)
      ClientKey       := H(SaltedPassword)
      StoredKey       := H(ClientKey)
      AuthMessage     := client-first-message + "," +
                         server-first-message + "," +
                         client-final-message-without-proof
      ClientSignature := HMAC(StoredKey, AuthMessage)
      ClientProof     := ClientKey XOR ClientSignature
      ServerKey       := HMAC(SaltedPassword, salt)
      ServerSignature := HMAC(ServerKey, AuthMessage)


   The server authenticates the client by computing the ClientSignature,
   exclusive-ORing that with the ClientProof to recover the ClientKey
   and verifying the correctness of the ClientKey by applying the hash
   function and comparing the result to the StoredKey.  If the ClientKey
   is correct, this proves that the client has access to the user's
   password.

   Similarly, the client authenticates the server by computing the
   ServerSignature and comparing it to the value sent by the server.  If
   the two are equal, it proves that the server had access to the user's
   ServerKey.

   The AuthMessage is computed by concatenating messages from the
   authentication exchange.  The format of these messages is defined in
   Section 7.









Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009               [Page 9]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


4.  SCRAM Mechanism Names

   A SCRAM mechanism name is a string "SCRAM-HMAC-" followed by the
   uppercased name of the underlying hashed function taken from the IANA
   "Hash Function Textual Names" registry (see http://www.iana.org),
   optionally followed by the suffix "-PLUS" (see below)..

   For interoperability, all SCRAM clients and servers MUST implement
   the SCRAM-HMAC-SHA-1 authentication mechanism, i.e. an authentication
   mechanism from the SCRAM family that uses the SHA-1 hash function as
   defined in [RFC3174].

   The "-PLUS" suffix is used only when the server supports channel
   binding to the external channel.  In this case the server will
   advertise both, SCRAM-HMAC-SHA-1 and SCRAM-HMAC-SHA-1-PLUS, otherwise
   the server will advertise only SCRAM-HMAC-SHA-1.  The "-PLUS" exists
   to allow negotiation of the use of channel binding.  See Section 6.


































Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 10]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


5.  SCRAM Authentication Exchange

   SCRAM is a text protocol where the client and server exchange
   messages containing one or more attribute-value pairs separated by
   commas.  Each attribute has a one-letter name.  The messages and
   their attributes are described in Section 5.1, and defined in
   Section 7.

   This is a simple example of a SCRAM-HMAC-SHA-1 authentication
   exchange:


      C: n,n=Chris Newman,r=ClientNonce
      S: r=ClientNonceServerNonce,s=PxR/wv+epq,i=128
      C: r=ClientNonceServerNonce,p=WxPv/siO5l+qxN4
      S: v=WxPv/siO5l+qxN4


   With channel-binding data sent by the client this might look like
   this:


      C: p,n=Chris Newman,r=ClientNonce
      S: r=ClientNonceServerNonce,s=PxR/wv+epq,i=128
      C: c=0123456789ABCDEF,r=ClientNonceServerNonce,p=WxPv/siO5l+qxN4
      S: v=WxPv/siO5l+qxN4


   <<Note that the channel-bind data above, as well as all hashes are
   fake>>

   First, the client sends a message containing:

   o  a GS2 header consisting of a flag indicating whether channel
      binding is supported-but-not-used, not supported, or used, and the
      SASL authzid (optional);

   o  SCRAM username and client nonce attributes.

   Note that the client's first message will always start with "n", "y"
   or "p", otherwise the message is invalid and authentication MUST
   fail.  This is important, as it allows for GS2 extensibility (e.g.,
   to add support for security layers).

   In response, the server sends the user's iteration count i, the
   user's salt, and appends its own nonce to the client-specified one.
   The client then responds with the same nonce and a ClientProof
   computed using the selected hash function as explained earlier.  In



Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 11]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


   this step the client can also include an optional authorization
   identity.  The server verifies the nonce and the proof, verifies that
   the authorization identity (if supplied by the client in the second
   message) is authorized to act as the authentication identity, and,
   finally, it responds with a ServerSignature, concluding the
   authentication exchange.  The client then authenticates the server by
   computing the ServerSignature and comparing it to the value sent by
   the server.  If the two are different, the client MUST consider the
   authentication exchange to be unsuccessful and it might have to drop
   the connection.

5.1.  SCRAM Attributes

   This section describes the permissible attributes, their use, and the
   format of their values.  All attribute names are single US-ASCII
   letters and are case-sensitive.

   o  a: This is an optional attribute, and is part of the GS2 [ref-
      needed] bridge between the GSS-API and SASL.  This attribute
      specifies an authorization identity.  A client may include it in
      its second message to the server if it wants to authenticate as
      one user, but subsequently act as a different user.  This is
      typically used by an administrator to perform some management task
      on behalf of another user, or by a proxy in some situations.

         Upon the receipt of this value the server verifies its
         correctness according to the used SASL protocol profile.
         Failed verification results in failed authentication exchange.

         If this attribute is omitted (as it normally would be), or
         specified with an empty value, the authorization identity is
         assumed to be derived from the username specified with the
         (required) "n" attribute.

         The server always authenticates the user specified by the "n"
         attribute.  If the "a" attribute specifies a different user,
         the server associates that identity with the connection after
         successful authentication and authorization checks.

         The syntax of this field is the same as that of the "n" field
         with respect to quoting of '=' and ','.

   o  n: This attribute specifies the name of the user whose password is
      used for authentication.  A client must include it in its first
      message to the server.  If the "a" attribute is not specified
      (which would normally be the case), this username is also the
      identity which will be associated with the connection subsequent
      to authentication and authorization.



Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 12]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


         Before sending the username to the server, the client MUST
         prepare the username using the "SASLPrep" profile [RFC4013] of
         the "stringprep" algorithm [RFC3454].  If the preparation of
         the username fails or results in an empty string, the client
         SHOULD abort the authentication exchange (*).

         (*) An interactive client can request a repeated entry of the
         username value.

         Upon receipt of the username by the server, the server SHOULD
         prepare it using the "SASLPrep" profile [RFC4013] of the
         "stringprep" algorithm [RFC3454].  If the preparation of the
         username fails or results in an empty string, the server SHOULD
         abort the authentication exchange.

         The characters ',' or '=' in usernames are sent as '=2C' and
         '=3D' respectively.  If the server receives a username which
         contains '=' not followed by either '2C' or '3D', then the
         server MUST fail the authentication.

   o  m: This attribute is reserved for future extensibility.  In this
      version of SCRAM, its presence in a client or a server message
      MUST cause authentication failure when the attribute is parsed by
      the other end.

   o  r: This attribute specifies a sequence of random printable
      characters excluding ',' which forms the nonce used as input to
      the hash function.  No quoting is applied to this string (<<unless
      the binding of SCRAM to a particular protocol states otherwise>>).
      As described earlier, the client supplies an initial value in its
      first message, and the server augments that value with its own
      nonce in its first response.  It is important that this be value
      different for each authentication.  The client MUST verify that
      the initial part of the nonce used in subsequent messages is the
      same as the nonce it initially specified.  The server MUST verify
      that the nonce sent by the client in the second message is the
      same as the one sent by the server in its first message.

   o  c: This REQUIRED attribute specifies base64-encoded of a header
      and the channel-binding data.  It is sent by the client in its
      second authentication message.  The header consist of:

      *  the GS2 header from the client's first message (recall: a
         channel binding flag and an optional authzid);

      *  followed by the external channel's channel binding type prefix
         (see [RFC5056], if and only if the client is using channel
         binding;



Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 13]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


      *  followed by the external channel's channel binding data, if and
         only if the client is using channel binding.

   o  s: This attribute specifies the base64-encoded salt used by the
      server for this user.  It is sent by the server in its first
      message to the client.

   o  i: This attribute specifies an iteration count for the selected
      hash function and user, and must be sent by the server along with
      the user's salt.

         For SCRAM-HMAC-SHA-1 SASL mechanism servers SHOULD announce a
         hash iteration-count of at least 128.

   o  p: This attribute specifies a base64-encoded ClientProof.  The
      client computes this value as described in the overview and sends
      it to the server.

   o  v: This attribute specifies a base64-encoded ServerSignature.  It
      is sent by the server in its final message, and is used by the
      client to verify that the server has access to the user's
      authentication information.  This value is computed as explained
      in the overview.




























Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 14]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


6.  Channel Binding

   SCRAM supports channel binding to external secure channels, such as
   TLS.  Clients and servers may or may not support channel binding,
   therefore the use of channel binding is negotiable.  SCRAM does not
   provide security layers, however, therefore it is imperative that
   SCRAM provide integrity protection for the negotiation of channel
   binding.

   Use of channel binding is negotiated as follows:

   o  The server advertises support for channel binding by advertising
      both, SCRAM-HMAC-<hash-function> and SCRAM-HMAC-<hash-function>-
      PLUS.

   o  If the client negotiates mechanisms then client MUST select SCRAM-
      HMAC-<hash-function>-PLUS if offered by the server.  Otherwise, if
      the client does not negotiate mechanisms then it MUST select only
      SCRAM-HMAC-<hash-function> (not suffixed with "-PLUS").

   o  If the client and server both support channel binding, or if the
      client wishes to use channel binding but the client does not
      negotiate mechanisms, the client MUST set the GS2 channel binding
      flag to "p" and MUST include channel binding data for the external
      channel in the computation of the "c=" attribute (see
      Section 5.1).

   o  If the client supports channel binding but the server does not
      then the client MUST set the GS2 channel binding flag to "y" and
      MUST NOT include channel binding data for the external channel in
      the computation of the "c=" attribute (see Section 5.1).

   o  If the client does not support channel binding then the client
      MUST set the GS2 channel binding flag to "n" and MUST NOT include
      channel binding data for the external channel in the computation
      of the "c=" attribute (see Section 5.1).

   o  If the server receives a client first message with the GS2 channel
      binding flag set to "y" and the server supports channel binding
      the server MUST fail authentication.  This is because if the
      client sets the GS2 channel binding flag set to "y" then the
      client must have believed that the server did not support channel
      binding -- if the server did in fact support channel binding then
      this is an indication that there has been a downgrade attack
      (e.g., an attacker changed the server's mechanism list to exclude
      the -PLUS suffixed SCRAM mechanism name(s)).

   The server MUST always validate the client's "c=" field.  The server



Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 15]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


   does this by constructing the value of the "c=" attribute and then
   checking that it matches the client's c= attribute value.

6.1.  Channel Binding to TLS Channels

   If an external TLS channel is to be bound into the SCRAM
   authentication, and if the channel was established using a server
   certificate to authenticate the server, then the SCRAM client and
   server MUST use the 'tls-server-end-point' channel binding type.  See
   the IANA Channel Binding Types registry.

   If an external TLS channel is to be bound into the SCRAM
   authentication, and if the channel was established without the use of
   any server certificate to authenticate the server, then the SCRAM
   client and server MUST use the 'tls-unique' channel binding type.




































Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 16]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


7.  Formal Syntax

   The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur
   Form (ABNF) notation as specified in [RFC5234].  "UTF8-2", "UTF8-3"
   and "UTF8-4" non-terminal are defined in [RFC3629].


     ALPHA = <as defined in RFC 5234 appendix B.1>
     DIGIT = <as defined in RFC 5234 appendix B.1>
     UTF8-2 = <as defined in RFC 3629 (STD 63)>
     UTF8-3 = <as defined in RFC 3629 (STD 63)>
     UTF8-4 = <as defined in RFC 3629 (STD 63)>

     generic-message = attr-val *("," attr-val)
                       ;; Generic syntax of any server challenge
                       ;; or client response

     attr-val        = ALPHA "=" value

     value           = *value-char

     value-safe-char = %x01-2B / %x2D-3C / %x3E-7F /
                       UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
                       ;; UTF8-char except NUL, "=", and ",".

     value-char      = value-safe-char / "="

     base64-char     = ALPHA / DIGIT / "/" / "+"

     base64-4        = 4base64-char

     base64-3        = 3base64-char "="

     base64-2        = 2base64-char "=="

     base64          = *base64-4 [base64-3 / base64-2]

     posit-number = %x31-39 *DIGIT
                       ;; A positive number

     saslname        = 1*(value-safe-char / "=2C" / "=3D")
                       ;; Conforms to <value>

     authzid         = "a=" saslname
                       ;; Protocol specific.

     gs2-cbind-flag  = "n" / "y" / "p"
                       ;; "n" -> client doesn't support channel binding



Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 17]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


                       ;; "y" -> client does support channel binding
                       ;;        but thinks the server does not.
                       ;; "p" -> client requires channel binding
     gs2-header      = gs2-cbind-flag [ authzid ] ","
                       ;; GS2 header for SCRAM
                       ;; (the actual GS2 header includes an optional
                       ;; flag to indicate that the GSS mechanism is not
                       ;; "standard" but since SCRAM is "standard" we
                       ;; don't include that flag).

     username        = "n=" saslname
                       ;; Usernames are prepared using SASLPrep.

     reserved-mext  = "m=" 1*(value-char)
                       ;; Reserved for signalling mandatory extensions.
                       ;; The exact syntax will be defined in
                       ;; the future.

     ;;cbind-type    = value
     ;;cbind-input   = gs2-header [ value ":" cbind-data ]
     channel-binding = "c=" base64
                       ;; base64 encoding of cbind-input

     proof           = "p=" base64

     nonce           = "r=" c-nonce [s-nonce]
                       ;; Second part provided by server.

     c-nonce         = value

     s-nonce         = value

     salt            = "s=" base64

     verifier        = "v=" base64
                       ;; base-64 encoded ServerSignature.

     iteration-count = "i=" posit-number
                       ;; A positive number

     client-first-message =
                       gs2-header [reserved-mext ","]
                       username "," nonce ["," extensions]

     server-first-message =
                       [reserved-mext ","] nonce "," salt ","
                       iteration-count ["," extensions]




Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 18]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


     client-final-message-without-proof =
                       [channel-binding ","] nonce [","
                       extensions]

     client-final-message =
                       client-final-message-without-proof "," proof

     gss-server-error = "e=" value
     server-final-message = gss-server-error /
                       verifier ["," extensions]
                       ;; The error message is only for the GSS-API
                       ;; form of SCRAM, and it is OPTIONAL to
                       ;; implement it.

     extensions = attr-val *("," attr-val)
                       ;; All extensions are optional,
                       ;; i.e. unrecognized attributes
                       ;; not defined in this document
                       ;; MUST be ignored.
































Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 19]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


8.  SCRAM as a GSS-API Mechanism

   This section and its sub-sections and all normative references of it
   not referenced elsewhere in this document are INFORMATIONAL for SASL
   implementors, but they are NORMATIVE for GSS-API implementors.

   SCRAM is actually also GSS-API mechanism.  The messages are the same,
   but a) the GS2 header on the client's first message and channel
   binding data is excluded when SCRAM is used as a GSS-API mechanism,
   and b) the RFC2743 section 3.1 initial context token header is
   prefixed to the client's first authentication message (context
   token).

   The GSS-API mechanism OID for SCRAM is <TBD> (see Section 10).

8.1.  GSS-API Principal Name Types for SCRAM

   SCRAM does not name acceptors.  Therefore only GSS_C_NO_NAME and
   names of type GSS_C_NT_ANONYMOUS shall be allowed as the target name
   input of GSS_Init_sec_context() when using a SCRAM mechanism.

   SCRAM supports only a single name type for initiators:
   GSS_C_NT_USER_NAME.  GSS_C_NT_USER_NAME is the default name type for
   SCRAM.

   There is no name canonicalization procedure for SCRAM beyond applying
   SASLprep as described in Section 5.1.

   The query, display and exported name syntax for SCRAM principal names
   is the same: there is no syntax -- SCRAM principal names are free-
   form.  (The exported name token does, of course, conform to [RFC2743]
   section 3.2, but the "NAME" part of the token is just a SCRAM user
   name.)

8.2.  GSS-API Per-Message Tokens for SCRAM

   The per-message tokens for SCRAM as a GSS-API mechanism SHALL BE the
   same as those for the Kerberos V GSS-API mechanism [RFC4121], using
   the Kerberos V "aes128-cts-hmac-sha1-96" enctype [RFC3962].

   The 128-bit session key SHALL be derived by using the least
   significant (right-most) 128 bits of HMAC(StoredKey, "GSS-API session
   key" || ClientKey || AuthMessage).

   SCRAM does support PROT_READY, and is PROT_READY on the initiator
   side first upon receipt of the server's reply to the initial security
   context token.




Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 20]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


8.3.  GSS_Pseudo_random() for SCRAM

   The GSS_Pseudo_random() [RFC4401] for SCRAM SHALL be the same as for
   the Kerberos V GSS-API mechanism [RFC4402].  There is no acceptor-
   asserted sub-session key for SCRAM, thus GSS_C_PRF_KEY_FULL and
   GSS_C_PRF_KEY_PARTIAL are equivalent for SCRAM's GSS_Pseudo_random().













































Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 21]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


9.  Security Considerations

   If the authentication exchange is performed without a strong security
   layer, then a passive eavesdropper can gain sufficient information to
   mount an offline dictionary or brute-force attack which can be used
   to recover the user's password.  The amount of time necessary for
   this attack depends on the cryptographic hash function selected, the
   strength of the password and the iteration count supplied by the
   server.  An external security layer with strong encryption will
   prevent this attack.

   If the external security layer used to protect the SCRAM exchange
   uses an anonymous key exchange, then the SCRAM channel binding
   mechanism can be used to detect a man-in-the-middle attack on the
   security layer and cause the authentication to fail as a result.
   However, the man-in-the-middle attacker will have gained sufficient
   information to mount an offline dictionary or brute-force attack.
   For this reason, SCRAM includes the ability to increase the iteration
   count over time.

   If the authentication information is stolen from the authentication
   database, then an offline dictionary or brute-force attack can be
   used to recover the user's password.  The use of salt mitigates this
   attack somewhat by requiring a separate attack on each password.
   Authentication mechanisms which protect against this attack are
   available (e.g., the EKE class of mechanisms), but the patent
   situation is presently unclear.

   If an attacker obtains the authentication information from the
   authentication repository and either eavesdrops on one authentication
   exchange or impersonates a server, the attacker gains the ability to
   impersonate that user to all servers providing SCRAM access using the
   same hash function, password, iteration count and salt.  For this
   reason, it is important to use randomly-generated salt values.

   SCRAM does not negotiate a hash function to use.  Hash function
   negotiation is left to the SASL mechanism negotiation.  It is
   important that clients be able to sort a locally available list of
   mechanisms by preference so that the client may pick the most
   preferred of a server's advertised mechanism list.  This preference
   order is not specified here as it is a local matter.  The preference
   order should include objective and subjective notions of mechanism
   cryptographic strength (e.g., SCRAM with a successor to SHA-1 may be
   preferred over SCRAM with SHA-1).

   Note that to protect the SASL mechanism negotiation applications
   normally must list the server mechs twice: once before and once after
   authentication, the latter using security layers.  Since SCRAM does



Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 22]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


   not provide security layers the only ways to protect the mechanism
   negotiation are: a) use channel binding to an external channel, or b)
   use an external channel that authenticates a user-provided server
   name.

   A hostile server can perform a computational denial-of-service attack
   on clients by sending a big iteration count value.












































Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 23]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


10.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to add the following entries to the SASL Mechanism
   registry established by [RFC4422]:


   To: iana@iana.org
   Subject: Registration of a new SASL mechanism SCRAM-HMAC-SHA-1

   SASL mechanism name (or prefix for the family): SCRAM-HMAC-SHA-1
   Security considerations: Section 7 of [RFCXXXX]
   Published specification (optional, recommended): [RFCXXXX]
   Person & email address to contact for further information:
    IETF SASL WG <ietf-sasl@imc.org>
   Intended usage: COMMON
   Owner/Change controller: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
   Note:

   To: iana@iana.org
   Subject: Registration of a new SASL mechanism SCRAM-HMAC-SHA-1-PLUS

   SASL mechanism name (or prefix for the family): SCRAM-HMAC-SHA-1-PLUS
   Security considerations: Section 7 of [RFCXXXX]
   Published specification (optional, recommended): [RFCXXXX]
   Person & email address to contact for further information:
    IETF SASL WG <ietf-sasl@imc.org>
   Intended usage: COMMON
   Owner/Change controller: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
   Note:


   Note that even though this document defines a family of SCRAM-HMAC
   mechanisms, it doesn't register a family of SCRAM-HMAC mechanisms in
   the SASL Mechanisms registry.  IANA is requested to prevent future
   registrations of SASL mechanisms starting with SCRAM-HMAC- without
   consulting the SASL mailing list <ietf-sasl@imc.org> first.

   Note to future SCRAM-HMAC mechanism designers: each new SCRAM-HMAC
   SASL mechanism MUST be explicitly registered with IANA and MUST
   comply with SCRAM-HMAC mechanism naming convention defined in
   Section 4 of this document.

   We hereby request that IANA assign a GSS-API mechanism OID for SCRAM.








Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 24]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


11.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Dave Cridland for his contributions
   to this document.















































Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 25]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


Appendix A.  Other Authentication Mechanisms

   The DIGEST-MD5 [I-D.ietf-sasl-digest-to-historic] mechanism has
   proved to be too complex to implement and test, and thus has poor
   interoperability.  The security layer is often not implemented, and
   almost never used; everyone uses TLS instead.  For a more complete
   list of problems with DIGEST-MD5 which lead to the creation of SCRAM
   see [I-D.ietf-sasl-digest-to-historic].

   The CRAM-MD5 SASL mechanism, while widely deployed has also some
   problems, in particular it is missing some modern SASL features such
   as support for internationalized usernames and passwords, support for
   passing of authorization identity, support for channel bindings.  It
   also doesn't support server authentication.  For a more complete list
   of problems with CRAM-MD5 see [I-D.ietf-sasl-crammd5-to-historic].

   The PLAIN [RFC4616] SASL mechanism allows a malicious server or
   eavesdropper to impersonate the authenticating user to any other
   server for which the user has the same password.  It also sends the
   password in the clear over the network, unless TLS is used.  Server
   authentication is not supported.






























Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 26]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


Appendix B.  Design Motivations

   The DIGEST-MD5 [I-D.ietf-sasl-digest-to-historic] mechanism has
   proved to be too complex to implement and test, and thus has poor
   interoperability.  The security layer is often not implemented, and
   almost never used; everyone uses TLS instead.  For a more complete
   list of problems with DIGEST-MD5 which lead to the creation of SCRAM
   see [I-D.ietf-sasl-digest-to-historic].

   The CRAM-MD5 SASL mechanism, while widely deployed has also some
   problems, in particular it is missing some modern SASL features such
   as support for internationalized usernames and passwords, support for
   passing of authorization identity, support for channel bindings.  It
   also doesn't support server authentication.  For a more complete list
   of problems with CRAM-MD5 see [I-D.ietf-sasl-crammd5-to-historic].

   The PLAIN [RFC4616] SASL mechanism allows a malicious server or
   eavesdropper to impersonate the authenticating user to any other
   server for which the user has the same password.  It also sends the
   password in the clear over the network, unless TLS is used.  Server
   authentication is not supported.






























Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 27]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


Appendix C.  SCRAM Examples and Internet-Draft Change History

   <<To be written.>>

   (RFC Editor: Please delete everything after this point)

   Open Issues

   o  The appendices need to be written.

   o  Should the server send a base64-encoded ServerSignature for the
      value of the "v" attribute, or should it compute a ServerProof the
      way the client computes a ClientProof?

   Changes since -10

   o  Converted the source for this I-D to XML.

   o  Added text to make SCRAM compliant with the new GS2 design.

   o  Added text on channel binding negotiation.

   o  Added text on channel binding, including a reference to RFC5056.

   o  Added text on SCRAM as a GSS-API mechanism.  This noted as not
      relevant to SASL-only implementors -- the normative references for
      SCRAM as a GSS-API mechanism are segregated as well.

   Changes since -07

   o  Updated References.

   o  Clarified purpose of the m= attribute.

   o  Fixed a problem with authentication/authorization identity's ABNF
      not allowing for some characters.

   o  Updated ABNF for nonce to show client-generated and server-
      generated parts.

   o  Only register SCRAM-HMAC-SHA-1 with IANA and require explicit
      registrations of all other SCRAM-HMAC- mechanisms.

   Changes since -06

   o  Removed hash negotiation from SCRAM and turned it into a family of
      SASL mechanisms.




Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 28]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


   o  Start using "Hash Function Textual Names" IANA registry for SCRAM
      mechanism naming.

   o  Fixed definition of Hi(str, salt) to be consistent with [RFC2898].

   o  Clarified extensibility of SCRAM: added m= attribute (for future
      mandatory extensions) and specified that all unrecognized
      attributes must be ignored.

   Changes since -05

   o  Changed the mandatory to implement hash algorithm to SHA-1 (as per
      WG consensus).

   o  Added text about use of SASLPrep for username canonicalization/
      validation.

   o  Clarified that authorization identity is canonicalized/verified
      according to SASL protocol profile.

   o  Clarified that iteration count is per-user.

   o  Clarified how clients select the authentication function.

   o  Added IANA registration for the new mechanism.

   o  Added missing normative references (UTF-8, SASLPrep).

   o  Various editorial changes based on comments from Hallvard B
      Furuseth, Nico William and Simon Josefsson.

   Changes since -04

   o  Update Base64 and Security Glossary references.

   o  Add Formal Syntax section.

   o  Don't bother with "v=".

   o  Make MD5 mandatory to implement.  Suggest i=128.

   Changes since -03

   o  Seven years have passed, in which it became clear that DIGEST-MD5
      suffered from unacceptably bad interoperability, so SCRAM-MD5 is
      now back from the dead.

   o  Be hash agnostic, so MD5 can be replaced more easily.



Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 29]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


   o  General simplification.


















































Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 30]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2104]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
              Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
              February 1997.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3174]  Eastlake, D. and P. Jones, "US Secure Hash Algorithm 1
              (SHA1)", RFC 3174, September 2001.

   [RFC3454]  Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
              Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454,
              December 2002.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

   [RFC4013]  Zeilenga, K., "SASLprep: Stringprep Profile for User Names
              and Passwords", RFC 4013, February 2005.

   [RFC4422]  Melnikov, A. and K. Zeilenga, "Simple Authentication and
              Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006.

   [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.

   [RFC5056]  Williams, N., "On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure
              Channels", RFC 5056, November 2007.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

12.2.  Normative References for GSS-API implementors

   [RFC2743]  Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
              Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000.

   [RFC3962]  Raeburn, K., "Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
              Encryption for Kerberos 5", RFC 3962, February 2005.

   [RFC4121]  Zhu, L., Jaganathan, K., and S. Hartman, "The Kerberos
              Version 5 Generic Security Service Application Program
              Interface (GSS-API) Mechanism: Version 2", RFC 4121,
              July 2005.



Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 31]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


   [RFC4401]  Williams, N., "A Pseudo-Random Function (PRF) API
              Extension for the Generic Security Service Application
              Program Interface (GSS-API)", RFC 4401, February 2006.

   [RFC4402]  Williams, N., "A Pseudo-Random Function (PRF) for the
              Kerberos V Generic Security Service Application Program
              Interface (GSS-API) Mechanism", RFC 4402, February 2006.

12.3.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-sasl-crammd5-to-historic]
              Zeilenga, K., "CRAM-MD5 to Historic",
              draft-ietf-sasl-crammd5-to-historic-00 (work in progress),
              November 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-sasl-digest-to-historic]
              Melnikov, A., "Moving DIGEST-MD5 to Historic",
              draft-ietf-sasl-digest-to-historic-00 (work in progress),
              July 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-sasl-rfc2831bis]
              Melnikov, A., "Using Digest Authentication as a SASL
              Mechanism", draft-ietf-sasl-rfc2831bis-12 (work in
              progress), March 2007.

   [RFC2195]  Klensin, J., Catoe, R., and P. Krumviede, "IMAP/POP
              AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response",
              RFC 2195, September 1997.

   [RFC2202]  Cheng, P. and R. Glenn, "Test Cases for HMAC-MD5 and HMAC-
              SHA-1", RFC 2202, September 1997.

   [RFC2898]  Kaliski, B., "PKCS #5: Password-Based Cryptography
              Specification Version 2.0", RFC 2898, September 2000.

   [RFC4086]  Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
              Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.

   [RFC4510]  Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): Technical Specification Road Map", RFC 4510,
              June 2006.

   [RFC4616]  Zeilenga, K., "The PLAIN Simple Authentication and
              Security Layer (SASL) Mechanism", RFC 4616, August 2006.

   [RFC4949]  Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
              RFC 4949, August 2007.




Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 32]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

















































Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 33]
\f
Internet-Draft                    SCRAM                       March 2009


Authors' Addresses

   Abhijit Menon-Sen
   Oryx Mail Systems GmbH

   Email: ams@oryx.com


   Alexey Melnikov
   Isode Ltd

   Email: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com


   Chris Newman
   Sun Microsystems
   1050 Lakes Drive
   West Covina, CA  91790
   USA

   Email: chris.newman@sun.com


   Nicolas Williams
   Sun Microsystems
   5300 Riata Trace Ct
   Austin, TX  78727
   USA

   Email: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com





















Menon-Sen, et al.      Expires September 24, 2009              [Page 34]
\f