1 INTERNET-DRAFT Brian Tung
2 draft-ietf-cat-kerberos-pk-init-14.txt Clifford Neuman
3 Updates: RFC 1510bis USC/ISI
4 expires January 15, 2002 Matthew Hur
15 Public Key Cryptography for Initial Authentication in Kerberos
17 0. Status Of This Memo
19 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
20 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. Internet-Drafts are
21 working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF),
22 its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also
23 distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
26 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
27 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
28 as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
35 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
37 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check
38 the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts
39 Shadow Directories on ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast),
40 nic.nordu.net (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or
41 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim).
43 The distribution of this memo is unlimited. It is filed as
44 draft-ietf-cat-kerberos-pk-init-14.txt, and expires January 15,
45 2002. Please send comments to the authors.
49 This document defines extensions (PKINIT) to the Kerberos protocol
50 specification (RFC 1510bis [1]) to provide a method for using public
51 key cryptography during initial authentication. The methods
52 defined specify the ways in which preauthentication data fields and
53 error data fields in Kerberos messages are to be used to transport
58 The popularity of public key cryptography has produced a desire for
59 its support in Kerberos [2]. The advantages provided by public key
60 cryptography include simplified key management (from the Kerberos
61 perspective) and the ability to leverage existing and developing
62 public key certification infrastructures.
64 Public key cryptography can be integrated into Kerberos in a number
65 of ways. One is to associate a key pair with each realm, which can
66 then be used to facilitate cross-realm authentication; this is the
67 topic of another draft proposal. Another way is to allow users with
68 public key certificates to use them in initial authentication. This
69 is the concern of the current document.
71 PKINIT utilizes ephemeral-ephemeral Diffie-Hellman keys in
72 combination with DSA keys as the primary, required mechanism. Note
73 that PKINIT supports the use of separate signature and encryption
76 PKINIT enables access to Kerberos-secured services based on initial
77 authentication utilizing public key cryptography. PKINIT utilizes
78 standard public key signature and encryption data formats within the
79 standard Kerberos messages. The basic mechanism is as follows: The
80 user sends an AS-REQ message to the KDC as before, except that if that
81 user is to use public key cryptography in the initial authentication
82 step, his certificate and a signature accompany the initial request
83 in the preauthentication fields. Upon receipt of this request, the
84 KDC verifies the certificate and issues a ticket granting ticket
85 (TGT) as before, except that the encPart from the AS-REP message
86 carrying the TGT is now encrypted utilizing either a Diffie-Hellman
87 derived key or the user's public key. This message is authenticated
88 utilizing the public key signature of the KDC.
90 Note that PKINIT does not require the use of certificates. A KDC
91 may store the public key of a principal as part of that principal's
92 record. In this scenario, the KDC is the trusted party that vouches
93 for the principal (as in a standard, non-cross realm, Kerberos
94 environment). Thus, for any principal, the KDC may maintain a
95 symmetric key, a public key, or both.
97 The PKINIT specification may also be used as a building block for
98 other specifications. PKINIT may be utilized to establish
99 inter-realm keys for the purposes of issuing cross-realm service
100 tickets. It may also be used to issue anonymous Kerberos tickets
101 using the Diffie-Hellman option. Efforts are under way to draft
102 specifications for these two application protocols.
104 Additionally, the PKINIT specification may be used for direct peer
105 to peer authentication without contacting a central KDC. This
106 application of PKINIT is based on concepts introduced in [6, 7].
107 For direct client-to-server authentication, the client uses PKINIT
108 to authenticate to the end server (instead of a central KDC), which
109 then issues a ticket for itself. This approach has an advantage
110 over TLS [5] in that the server does not need to save state (cache
111 session keys). Furthermore, an additional benefit is that Kerberos
112 tickets can facilitate delegation (see [6]).
114 3. Proposed Extensions
116 This section describes extensions to RFC 1510bis for supporting the
117 use of public key cryptography in the initial request for a ticket
118 granting ticket (TGT).
120 In summary, the following change to RFC 1510bis is proposed:
122 * Users may authenticate using either a public key pair or a
123 conventional (symmetric) key. If public key cryptography is
124 used, public key data is transported in preauthentication
125 data fields to help establish identity. The user presents
126 a public key certificate and obtains an ordinary TGT that may
127 be used for subsequent authentication, with such
128 authentication using only conventional cryptography.
130 Section 3.1 provides definitions to help specify message formats.
131 Section 3.2 describes the extensions for the initial authentication
136 The extensions involve new preauthentication fields; we introduce
137 the following preauthentication types:
142 The extensions also involve new error types; we introduce the
145 KDC_ERR_CLIENT_NOT_TRUSTED 62
146 KDC_ERR_KDC_NOT_TRUSTED 63
147 KDC_ERR_INVALID_SIG 64
148 KDC_ERR_KEY_TOO_WEAK 65
149 KDC_ERR_CERTIFICATE_MISMATCH 66
150 KDC_ERR_CANT_VERIFY_CERTIFICATE 70
151 KDC_ERR_INVALID_CERTIFICATE 71
152 KDC_ERR_REVOKED_CERTIFICATE 72
153 KDC_ERR_REVOCATION_STATUS_UNKNOWN 73
154 KDC_ERR_REVOCATION_STATUS_UNAVAILABLE 74
155 KDC_ERR_CLIENT_NAME_MISMATCH 75
156 KDC_ERR_KDC_NAME_MISMATCH 76
158 We utilize the following typed data for errors:
160 TD-PKINIT-CMS-CERTIFICATES 101
163 TD-TRUSTED-CERTIFIERS 104
164 TD-CERTIFICATE-INDEX 105
166 We utilize the following encryption types (which map directly to
170 md5WithRSAEncryption-CmsOID 10
171 sha1WithRSAEncryption-CmsOID 11
173 rsaEncryption-EnvOID (PKCS#1 v1.5) 13
174 rsaES-OAEP-ENV-OID (PKCS#1 v2.0) 14
175 des-ede3-cbc-Env-OID 15
177 These mappings are provided so that a client may send the
178 appropriate enctypes in the AS-REQ message in order to indicate
179 support for the corresponding OIDs (for performing PKINIT).
181 In many cases, PKINIT requires the encoding of the X.500 name of a
182 certificate authority as a Realm. When such a name appears as
183 a realm it will be represented using the "Other" form of the realm
184 name as specified in the naming constraints section of RFC 1510bis.
185 For a realm derived from an X.500 name, NAMETYPE will have the value
186 X500-RFC2253. The full realm name will appear as follows:
188 <nametype> + ":" + <string>
190 where nametype is "X500-RFC2253" and string is the result of doing
191 an RFC2253 encoding of the distinguished name, i.e.
193 "X500-RFC2253:" + RFC2253Encode(DistinguishedName)
195 where DistinguishedName is an X.500 name, and RFC2253Encode is a
196 function returing a readable UTF encoding of an X.500 name, as
197 defined by RFC 2253 [11] (part of LDAPv3 [15]).
199 To ensure that this encoding is unique, we add the following rule
200 to those specified by RFC 2253:
202 The order in which the attributes appear in the RFC 2253
203 encoding MUST be the reverse of the order in the ASN.1
204 encoding of the X.500 name that appears in the public key
205 certificate. The order of the relative distinguished names
206 (RDNs), as well as the order of the AttributeTypeAndValues
207 within each RDN, will be reversed. (This is despite the fact
208 that an RDN is defined as a SET of AttributeTypeAndValues, where
209 an order is normally not important.)
211 Similarly, in cases where the KDC does not provide a specific
212 policy-based mapping from the X.500 name or X.509 Version 3
213 SubjectAltName extension in the user's certificate to a Kerberos
214 principal name, PKINIT requires the direct encoding of the X.500
215 name as a PrincipalName. In this case, the name-type of the
216 principal name MUST be set to KRB_NT-X500-PRINCIPAL. This new
217 name type is defined in RFC 1510bis as:
219 KRB_NT_X500_PRINCIPAL 6
221 For this type, the name-string MUST be set as follows:
223 RFC2253Encode(DistinguishedName)
225 as described above. When this name type is used, the principal's
226 realm MUST be set to the certificate authority's distinguished
227 name using the X500-RFC2253 realm name format described earlier in
230 RFC 1510bis specifies the ASN.1 structure for PrincipalName as follows:
232 PrincipalName ::= SEQUENCE {
233 name-type[0] INTEGER,
234 name-string[1] SEQUENCE OF GeneralString
237 The following rules relate to the the matching of PrincipalNames
238 with regard to the PKI name constraints for CAs as laid out in RFC
239 2459 [12]. In order to be regarded as a match (for permitted and
240 excluded name trees), the following MUST be satisfied.
242 1. If the constraint is given as a user plus realm name, or
243 as a client principal name plus realm name (as specified in
244 RFC 1510bis), the realm name MUST be valid (see 2.a-d below)
245 and the match MUST be exact, byte for byte.
247 2. If the constraint is given only as a realm name, matching
248 depends on the type of the realm:
250 a. If the realm contains a colon (':') before any equal
251 sign ('='), it is treated as a realm of type Other,
252 and MUST match exactly, byte for byte.
254 b. Otherwise, if the realm name conforms to rules regarding
255 the format of DNS names, it is considered a realm name of
256 type Domain. The constraint may be given as a realm
257 name 'FOO.BAR', which matches any PrincipalName within
258 the realm 'FOO.BAR' but not those in subrealms such as
259 'CAR.FOO.BAR'. A constraint of the form '.FOO.BAR'
260 matches PrincipalNames in subrealms of the form
261 'CAR.FOO.BAR' but not the realm 'FOO.BAR' itself.
263 c. Otherwise, the realm name is invalid and does not match
264 under any conditions.
266 3.1.1. Encryption and Key Formats
268 In the exposition below, we use the terms public key and private
269 key generically. It should be understood that the term "public
270 key" may be used to refer to either a public encryption key or a
271 signature verification key, and that the term "private key" may be
272 used to refer to either a private decryption key or a signature
273 generation key. The fact that these are logically distinct does
274 not preclude the assignment of bitwise identical keys for RSA
277 In the case of Diffie-Hellman, the key is produced from the agreed
278 bit string as follows:
280 * Truncate the bit string to the appropriate length.
281 * Rectify parity in each byte (if necessary) to obtain the key.
283 For instance, in the case of a DES key, we take the first eight
284 bytes of the bit stream, and then adjust the least significant bit
285 of each byte to ensure that each byte has odd parity. Appropriate
286 key constraints for each valid cryptosystem are given in RFC
289 3.1.2. Algorithm Identifiers
291 PKINIT does not define, but does permit, the algorithm identifiers
294 3.1.2.1. Signature Algorithm Identifiers
296 The following signature algorithm identifiers specified in [8] and
297 in [12] are used with PKINIT:
299 id-dsa-with-sha1 (DSA with SHA1)
300 md5WithRSAEncryption (RSA with MD5)
301 sha-1WithRSAEncryption (RSA with SHA1)
303 3.1.2.2 Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Algorithm Identifier
305 The following algorithm identifier shall be used within the
306 SubjectPublicKeyInfo data structure: dhpublicnumber
308 This identifier and the associated algorithm parameters are
309 specified in RFC 2459 [12].
311 3.1.2.3. Algorithm Identifiers for RSA Encryption
313 These algorithm identifiers are used inside the EnvelopedData data
314 structure, for encrypting the temporary key with a public key:
316 rsaEncryption (RSA encryption, PKCS#1 v1.5)
317 id-RSAES-OAEP (RSA encryption, PKCS#1 v2.0)
319 Both of the above RSA encryption schemes are specified in [13].
320 Currently, only PKCS#1 v1.5 is specified by CMS [8], although the
321 CMS specification says that it will likely include PKCS#1 v2.0 in
322 the future. (PKCS#1 v2.0 addresses adaptive chosen ciphertext
323 vulnerability discovered in PKCS#1 v1.5.)
325 3.1.2.4. Algorithm Identifiers for Encryption with Secret Keys
327 These algorithm identifiers are used inside the EnvelopedData data
328 structure in the PKINIT Reply, for encrypting the reply key with the
330 des-ede3-cbc (3-key 3-DES, CBC mode)
331 rc2-cbc (RC2, CBC mode)
333 The full definition of the above algorithm identifiers and their
334 corresponding parameters (an IV for block chaining) is provided in
335 the CMS specification [8].
337 3.2. Public Key Authentication
339 Implementation of the changes in this section is REQUIRED for
340 compliance with PKINIT.
342 3.2.1. Client Request
344 Public keys may be signed by some certification authority (CA), or
345 they may be maintained by the KDC in which case the KDC is the
346 trusted authority. Note that the latter mode does not require the
349 The initial authentication request is sent as per RFC 1510bis, except
350 that a preauthentication field containing data signed by the user's
351 private key accompanies the request:
353 PA-PK-AS-REQ ::= SEQUENCE {
355 signedAuthPack [0] SignedData
356 -- Defined in CMS [8];
357 -- AuthPack (below) defines the
358 -- data that is signed.
359 trustedCertifiers [1] SEQUENCE OF TrustedCas OPTIONAL,
360 -- This is a list of CAs that the
361 -- client trusts and that certify
363 kdcCert [2] IssuerAndSerialNumber OPTIONAL
364 -- As defined in CMS [8];
365 -- specifies a particular KDC
366 -- certificate if the client
368 encryptionCert [3] IssuerAndSerialNumber OPTIONAL
369 -- For example, this may be the
370 -- client's Diffie-Hellman
371 -- certificate, or it may be the
372 -- client's RSA encryption
376 TrustedCas ::= CHOICE {
377 principalName [0] KerberosName,
380 -- fully qualified X.500 name
381 -- as defined by X.509
382 issuerAndSerial [2] IssuerAndSerialNumber
383 -- Since a CA may have a number of
384 -- certificates, only one of which
390 The SignedData data type is specified in the Cryptographic
391 Message Syntax, a product of the S/MIME working group of the
392 IETF. The following describes how to fill in the fields of
395 1. The encapContentInfo field MUST contain the PKAuthenticator
396 and, optionally, the client's Diffie Hellman public value.
398 a. The eContentType field MUST contain the OID value for
399 pkauthdata: iso (1) org (3) dod (6) internet (1)
400 security (5) kerberosv5 (2) pkinit (3) pkauthdata (1)
402 b. The eContent field is data of the type AuthPack (below).
404 2. The signerInfos field contains the signature of AuthPack.
406 3. The Certificates field, when non-empty, contains the client's
407 certificate chain. If present, the KDC uses the public key
408 from the client's certificate to verify the signature in the
409 request. Note that the client may pass different certificate
410 chains that are used for signing or for encrypting. Thus,
411 the KDC may utilize a different client certificate for
412 signature verification than the one it uses to encrypt the
413 reply to the client. For example, the client may place a
414 Diffie-Hellman certificate in this field in order to convey
415 its static Diffie Hellman certificate to the KDC to enable
416 static-ephemeral Diffie-Hellman mode for the reply; in this
417 case, the client does NOT place its public value in the
418 AuthPack (defined below). As another example, the client may
419 place an RSA encryption certificate in this field. However,
420 there MUST always be (at least) a signature certificate.
422 4. When a DH key is being used, the public exponent is provided
423 in the subjectPublicKey field of the SubjectPublicKeyInfo and
424 the DH parameters are supplied as a DHParameter in the
425 AlgorithmIdentitfier parameters. The DH paramters SHOULD be
426 chosen from the First and Second defined Oakley Groups [The
427 Internet Key Exchange (IKE) RFC-2409], if a server will not
428 accept either of these groups, it will respond with a krb-error
429 of KDC_ERR_KEY_TOO_WEAK and the e_data will contain a
430 DHParameter with appropriate parameters for the client to use.
432 5. The KDC may wish to use cached Diffie-Hellman parameters
433 (see Section 3.2.2, KDC Response). To indicate acceptance
434 of cached parameters, the client sends zero in the nonce
435 field of the PKAuthenticator. Zero is not a valid value
436 for this field under any other circumstances. If cached
437 parameters are used, the client and the KDC MUST perform
438 key derivation (for the appropriate cryptosystem) on the
439 resulting encryption key, as specified in RFC 1510bis. (With
440 a zero nonce, message binding is performed using the nonce
441 in the main request, which must be encrypted using the
442 encapsulated reply key.)
444 AuthPack ::= SEQUENCE {
445 pkAuthenticator [0] PKAuthenticator,
446 clientPublicValue [1] SubjectPublicKeyInfo OPTIONAL
447 -- if client is using Diffie-Hellman
448 -- (ephemeral-ephemeral only)
451 PKAuthenticator ::= SEQUENCE {
453 -- for replay prevention as in RFC 1510bis
454 ctime [1] KerberosTime,
455 -- for replay prevention as in RFC 1510bis
457 -- zero only if client will accept
458 -- cached DH parameters from KDC;
459 -- must be non-zero otherwise
460 pachecksum [3] Checksum
461 -- Checksum over KDC-REQ-BODY
462 -- Defined by Kerberos spec
465 SubjectPublicKeyInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
466 algorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
468 subjectPublicKey BIT STRING
470 -- public exponent (INTEGER encoded
471 -- as payload of BIT STRING)
472 } -- as specified by the X.509 recommendation [7]
474 AlgorithmIdentifier ::= SEQUENCE {
475 algorithm OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
476 -- for dhKeyAgreement, this is
477 -- { iso (1) member-body (2) US (840)
478 -- rsadsi (113459) pkcs (1) 3 1 }
480 parameters ANY DEFINED by algorithm OPTIONAL
481 -- for dhKeyAgreement, this is
483 } -- as specified by the X.509 recommendation [7]
485 DHParameter ::= SEQUENCE {
490 privateValueLength INTEGER OPTIONAL
492 } -- as defined in PKCS #3 [17]
494 If the client passes an issuer and serial number in the request,
495 the KDC is requested to use the referred-to certificate. If none
496 exists, then the KDC returns an error of type
497 KDC_ERR_CERTIFICATE_MISMATCH. It also returns this error if, on the
498 other hand, the client does not pass any trustedCertifiers,
499 believing that it has the KDC's certificate, but the KDC has more
500 than one certificate. The KDC should include information in the
501 KRB-ERROR message that indicates the KDC certificate(s) that a
502 client may utilize. This data is specified in the e-data, which
503 is defined in RFC 1510bis revisions as a SEQUENCE of TypedData:
505 TypedData ::= SEQUENCE {
506 data-type [0] INTEGER,
507 data-value [1] OCTET STRING,
508 } -- per Kerberos RFC 1510bis
511 data-type = TD-PKINIT-CMS-CERTIFICATES = 101
512 data-value = CertificateSet // as specified by CMS [8]
514 The PKAuthenticator carries information to foil replay attacks, to
515 bind the pre-authentication data to the KDC-REQ-BODY, and to bind the
516 request and response. The PKAuthenticator is signed with the client's
521 Upon receipt of the AS_REQ with PA-PK-AS-REQ pre-authentication
522 type, the KDC attempts to verify the user's certificate chain
523 (userCert), if one is provided in the request. This is done by
524 verifying the certification path against the KDC's policy of
525 legitimate certifiers.
527 If the client's certificate chain contains no certificate signed by
528 a CA trusted by the KDC, then the KDC sends back an error message
529 of type KDC_ERR_CANT_VERIFY_CERTIFICATE. The accompanying e-data
530 is a SEQUENCE of one TypedData (with type TD-TRUSTED-CERTIFIERS=104)
531 whose data-value is an OCTET STRING which is the DER encoding of
533 TrustedCertifiers ::= SEQUENCE OF PrincipalName
534 -- X.500 name encoded as a principal name
537 If while verifying a certificate chain the KDC determines that the
538 signature on one of the certificates in the CertificateSet from
539 the signedAuthPack fails verification, then the KDC returns an
540 error of type KDC_ERR_INVALID_CERTIFICATE. The accompanying
541 e-data is a SEQUENCE of one TypedData (with type
542 TD-CERTIFICATE-INDEX=105) whose data-value is an OCTET STRING
543 which is the DER encoding of the index into the CertificateSet
544 ordered as sent by the client.
546 CertificateIndex ::= INTEGER
547 -- 0 = 1st certificate,
548 -- (in order of encoding)
549 -- 1 = 2nd certificate, etc
551 The KDC may also check whether any of the certificates in the
552 client's chain has been revoked. If one of the certificates has
553 been revoked, then the KDC returns an error of type
554 KDC_ERR_REVOKED_CERTIFICATE; if such a query reveals that
555 the certificate's revocation status is unknown or not
556 available, then if required by policy, the KDC returns the
557 appropriate error of type KDC_ERR_REVOCATION_STATUS_UNKNOWN or
558 KDC_ERR_REVOCATION_STATUS_UNAVAILABLE. In any of these three
559 cases, the affected certificate is identified by the accompanying
560 e-data, which contains a CertificateIndex as described for
561 KDC_ERR_INVALID_CERTIFICATE.
563 If the certificate chain can be verified, but the name of the
564 client in the certificate does not match the client's name in the
565 request, then the KDC returns an error of type
566 KDC_ERR_CLIENT_NAME_MISMATCH. There is no accompanying e-data
569 Even if all succeeds, the KDC may--for policy reasons--decide not
570 to trust the client. In this case, the KDC returns an error message
571 of type KDC_ERR_CLIENT_NOT_TRUSTED. One specific case of this is
572 the presence or absence of an Enhanced Key Usage (EKU) OID within
573 the certificate extensions. The rules regarding acceptability of
574 an EKU sequence (or the absence of any sequence) are a matter of
575 local policy. For the benefit of implementers, we define a PKINIT
576 EKU OID as the following: iso (1) org (3) dod (6) internet (1)
577 security (5) kerberosv5 (2) pkinit (3) pkekuoid (2).
579 If a trust relationship exists, the KDC then verifies the client's
580 signature on AuthPack. If that fails, the KDC returns an error
581 message of type KDC_ERR_INVALID_SIG. Otherwise, the KDC uses the
582 timestamp (ctime and cusec) in the PKAuthenticator to assure that
583 the request is not a replay. The KDC also verifies that its name
584 is specified in the PKAuthenticator.
586 If the clientPublicValue field is filled in, indicating that the
587 client wishes to use Diffie-Hellman key agreement, then the KDC
588 checks to see that the parameters satisfy its policy. If they do
589 not (e.g., the prime size is insufficient for the expected
590 encryption type), then the KDC sends back an error message of type
591 KDC_ERR_KEY_TOO_WEAK, with an e-data containing a structure of
592 type DHParameter with appropriate DH parameters for the client to
593 retry the request. Otherwise, it generates its own public and
594 private values for the response.
596 The KDC also checks that the timestamp in the PKAuthenticator is
597 within the allowable window and that the principal name and realm
598 are correct. If the local (server) time and the client time in the
599 authenticator differ by more than the allowable clock skew, then the
600 KDC returns an error message of type KRB_AP_ERR_SKEW as defined in
603 Assuming no errors, the KDC replies as per RFC 1510bis, except as
604 follows. The user's name in the ticket is determined by the
605 following decision algorithm:
607 1. If the KDC has a mapping from the name in the certificate
608 to a Kerberos name, then use that name.
610 2. If the certificate contains the SubjectAltName extention
611 and the local KDC policy defines a mapping from the
612 SubjectAltName to a Kerberos name, then use that name.
614 3. Use the name as represented in the certificate, mapping
615 as necessary (e.g., as per RFC 2253 for X.500 names). In
616 this case the realm in the ticket MUST be the name of the
617 certifier that issued the user's certificate.
619 Note that a principal name may be carried in the subjectAltName
620 field of a certificate. This name may be mapped to a principal
621 record in a security database based on local policy, for example
622 the subjectAltName may be kerberos/principal@realm format. In
623 this case the realm name is not that of the CA but that of the
624 local realm doing the mapping (or some realm name chosen by that
627 If a non-KDC X.509 certificate contains the principal name within
628 the subjectAltName version 3 extension, that name may utilize
629 KerberosName as defined below, or, in the case of an S/MIME
630 certificate [14], may utilize the email address. If the KDC
631 is presented with an S/MIME certificate, then the email address
632 within subjectAltName will be interpreted as a principal and realm
633 separated by the "@" sign, or as a name that needs to be mapped
634 according to local policy. If the resulting name does not correspond
635 to a registered principal name, then the principal name is formed as
636 defined in section 3.1.
638 The trustedCertifiers field contains a list of certification
639 authorities trusted by the client, in the case that the client does
640 not possess the KDC's public key certificate. If the KDC has no
641 certificate signed by any of the trustedCertifiers, then it returns
642 an error of type KDC_ERR_KDC_NOT_TRUSTED.
644 KDCs should try to (in order of preference):
645 1. Use the KDC certificate identified by the serialNumber included
646 in the client's request.
647 2. Use a certificate issued to the KDC by one of the client's
649 If the KDC is unable to comply with any of these options, then the
650 KDC returns an error message of type KDC_ERR_KDC_NOT_TRUSTED to the
653 The KDC encrypts the reply not with the user's long-term key, but
654 with the Diffie Hellman derived key or a random key generated
655 for this particular response which is carried in the padata field of
658 PA-PK-AS-REP ::= CHOICE {
660 dhSignedData [0] SignedData,
661 -- Defined in CMS and used only with
662 -- Diffie-Hellman key exchange (if the
663 -- client public value was present in the
665 -- This choice MUST be supported
666 -- by compliant implementations.
667 encKeyPack [1] EnvelopedData,
669 -- The temporary key is encrypted
670 -- using the client public key
672 -- SignedReplyKeyPack, encrypted
673 -- with the temporary key, is also
679 When the Diffie-Hellman option is used, dhSignedData in
680 PA-PK-AS-REP provides authenticated Diffie-Hellman parameters
681 of the KDC. The reply key used to encrypt part of the KDC reply
682 message is derived from the Diffie-Hellman exchange:
684 1. Both the KDC and the client calculate a secret value
685 (g^ab mod p), where a is the client's private exponent and
686 b is the KDC's private exponent.
688 2. Both the KDC and the client take the first N bits of this
689 secret value and convert it into a reply key. N depends on
692 a. For example, if the reply key is DES, N=64 bits, where
693 some of the bits are replaced with parity bits, according
696 b. As another example, if the reply key is (3-key) 3-DES,
697 N=192 bits, where some of the bits are replaced with
698 parity bits, according to FIPS PUB 74.
700 3. The encapContentInfo field MUST contain the KdcDHKeyInfo as
703 a. The eContentType field MUST contain the OID value for
704 pkdhkeydata: iso (1) org (3) dod (6) internet (1)
705 security (5) kerberosv5 (2) pkinit (3) pkdhkeydata (2)
707 b. The eContent field is data of the type KdcDHKeyInfo
710 4. The certificates field MUST contain the certificates
711 necessary for the client to establish trust in the KDC's
712 certificate based on the list of trusted certifiers sent by
713 the client in the PA-PK-AS-REQ. This field may be empty if
714 the client did not send to the KDC a list of trusted
715 certifiers (the trustedCertifiers field was empty, meaning
716 that the client already possesses the KDC's certificate).
718 5. The signerInfos field is a SET that MUST contain at least
719 one member, since it contains the actual signature.
721 6. If the client indicated acceptance of cached Diffie-Hellman
722 parameters from the KDC, and the KDC supports such an option
723 (for performance reasons), the KDC should return a zero in
724 the nonce field and include the expiration time of the
725 parameters in the dhKeyExpiration field. If this time is
726 exceeded, the client SHOULD NOT use the reply. If the time
727 is absent, the client SHOULD NOT use the reply and MAY
728 resubmit a request with a non-zero nonce (thus indicating
729 non-acceptance of cached Diffie-Hellman parameters). As
730 indicated above in Section 3.2.1, Client Request, when the
731 KDC uses cached parameters, the client and the KDC MUST
732 perform key derivation (for the appropriate cryptosystem)
733 on the resulting encryption key, as specified in RFC 1510bis.
735 KdcDHKeyInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
736 -- used only when utilizing Diffie-Hellman
737 subjectPublicKey [0] BIT STRING,
738 -- Equals public exponent (g^a mod p)
739 -- INTEGER encoded as payload of
742 -- Binds response to the request
743 -- Exception: Set to zero when KDC
744 -- is using a cached DH value
745 dhKeyExpiration [2] KerberosTime OPTIONAL
746 -- Expiration time for KDC's cached
750 Usage of EnvelopedData:
752 The EnvelopedData data type is specified in the Cryptographic
753 Message Syntax, a product of the S/MIME working group of the
754 IETF. It contains a temporary key encrypted with the PKINIT
755 client's public key. It also contains a signed and encrypted
758 1. The originatorInfo field is not required, since that
759 information may be presented in the signedData structure
760 that is encrypted within the encryptedContentInfo field.
762 2. The optional unprotectedAttrs field is not required for
765 3. The recipientInfos field is a SET which MUST contain exactly
766 one member of the KeyTransRecipientInfo type for encryption
769 a. The encryptedKey field (in KeyTransRecipientInfo)
770 contains the temporary key which is encrypted with the
771 PKINIT client's public key.
773 4. The encryptedContentInfo field contains the signed and
776 a. The contentType field MUST contain the OID value for
777 id-signedData: iso (1) member-body (2) us (840)
778 rsadsi (113549) pkcs (1) pkcs7 (7) signedData (2)
780 b. The encryptedContent field is encrypted data of the CMS
781 type signedData as specified below.
783 i. The encapContentInfo field MUST contains the
786 * The eContentType field MUST contain the OID value
787 for pkrkeydata: iso (1) org (3) dod (6) internet (1)
788 security (5) kerberosv5 (2) pkinit (3) pkrkeydata (3)
790 * The eContent field is data of the type ReplyKeyPack
793 ii. The certificates field MUST contain the certificates
794 necessary for the client to establish trust in the
795 KDC's certificate based on the list of trusted
796 certifiers sent by the client in the PA-PK-AS-REQ.
797 This field may be empty if the client did not send
798 to the KDC a list of trusted certifiers (the
799 trustedCertifiers field was empty, meaning that the
800 client already possesses the KDC's certificate).
802 iii. The signerInfos field is a SET that MUST contain at
803 least one member, since it contains the actual
806 ReplyKeyPack ::= SEQUENCE {
807 -- not used for Diffie-Hellman
808 replyKey [0] EncryptionKey,
810 -- used to encrypt main reply
811 -- ENCTYPE is at least as strong as
812 -- ENCTYPE of session key
814 -- binds response to the request
815 -- must be same as the nonce
816 -- passed in the PKAuthenticator
820 3.2.2.1. Use of transited Field
822 Since each certifier in the certification path of a user's
823 certificate is equivalent to a separate Kerberos realm, the name
824 of each certifier in the certificate chain MUST be added to the
825 transited field of the ticket. The format of these realm names is
826 defined in Section 3.1 of this document. If applicable, the
827 transit-policy-checked flag should be set in the issued ticket.
830 3.2.2.2. Kerberos Names in Certificates
832 The KDC's certificate(s) MUST bind the public key(s) of the KDC to
833 a name derivable from the name of the realm for that KDC. X.509
834 certificates MUST contain the principal name of the KDC (defined in
835 RFC 1510bis) as the SubjectAltName version 3 extension. Below is
836 the definition of this version 3 extension, as specified by the
839 subjectAltName EXTENSION ::= {
841 IDENTIFIED BY id-ce-subjectAltName
844 GeneralNames ::= SEQUENCE SIZE(1..MAX) OF GeneralName
846 GeneralName ::= CHOICE {
847 otherName [0] OtherName,
851 OtherName ::= SEQUENCE {
852 type-id OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
853 value [0] EXPLICIT ANY DEFINED BY type-id
856 For the purpose of specifying a Kerberos principal name, the value
857 in OtherName MUST be a KerberosName as defined in RFC 1510bis:
859 KerberosName ::= SEQUENCE {
861 principalName [1] PrincipalName
864 This specific syntax is identified within subjectAltName by setting
865 the type-id in OtherName to krb5PrincipalName, where (from the
866 Kerberos specification) we have
868 krb5 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso (1)
875 krb5PrincipalName OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { krb5 2 }
877 (This specification may also be used to specify a Kerberos name
878 within the user's certificate.) The KDC's certificate may be signed
879 directly by a CA, or there may be intermediaries if the server resides
880 within a large organization, or it may be unsigned if the client
881 indicates possession (and trust) of the KDC's certificate.
883 Note that the KDC's principal name has the instance equal to the
884 realm, and those fields should be appropriately set in the realm
885 and principalName fields of the KerberosName. This is the case
886 even when obtaining a cross-realm ticket using PKINIT.
889 3.2.3. Client Extraction of Reply
891 The client then extracts the random key used to encrypt the main
892 reply. This random key (in encPaReply) is encrypted with either the
893 client's public key or with a key derived from the DH values
894 exchanged between the client and the KDC. The client uses this
895 random key to decrypt the main reply, and subsequently proceeds as
896 described in RFC 1510bis.
898 3.2.4. Required Algorithms
900 Not all of the algorithms in the PKINIT protocol specification have
901 to be implemented in order to comply with the proposed standard.
902 Below is a list of the required algorithms:
904 * Diffie-Hellman public/private key pairs
905 * utilizing Diffie-Hellman ephemeral-ephemeral mode
906 * SHA1 digest and DSA for signatures
907 * SHA1 digest also for the Checksum in the PKAuthenticator
908 * 3-key triple DES keys derived from the Diffie-Hellman Exchange
909 * 3-key triple DES Temporary and Reply keys
911 4. Logistics and Policy
913 This section describes a way to define the policy on the use of
914 PKINIT for each principal and request.
916 The KDC is not required to contain a database record for users
917 who use public key authentication. However, if these users are
918 registered with the KDC, it is recommended that the database record
919 for these users be modified to an additional flag in the attributes
920 field to indicate that the user should authenticate using PKINIT.
921 If this flag is set and a request message does not contain the
922 PKINIT preauthentication field, then the KDC sends back as error of
923 type KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED indicating that a preauthentication
924 field of type PA-PK-AS-REQ must be included in the request.
926 5. Security Considerations
928 PKINIT raises a few security considerations, which we will address
931 First of all, PKINIT introduces a new trust model, where KDCs do not
932 (necessarily) certify the identity of those for whom they issue
933 tickets. PKINIT does allow KDCs to act as their own CAs, in the
934 limited capacity of self-signing their certificates, but one of the
935 additional benefits is to align Kerberos authentication with a global
936 public key infrastructure. Anyone using PKINIT in this way must be
937 aware of how the certification infrastructure they are linking to
940 Also, PKINIT introduces the possibility of interactions between
941 different cryptosystems, which may be of widely varying strengths.
942 Many systems, for instance, allow the use of 512-bit public keys.
943 Using such keys to wrap data encrypted under strong conventional
944 cryptosystems, such as triple-DES, is inappropriate; it adds a
945 weak link to a strong one at extra cost. Implementors and
946 administrators should take care to avoid such wasteful and
947 deceptive interactions.
949 Care should be taken in how certificates are choosen for the purposes
950 of authentication using PKINIT. Some local policies require that key
951 escrow be applied for certain certificate types. People deploying
952 PKINIT should be aware of the implications of using certificates that
953 have escrowed keys for the purposes of authentication.
955 As described in Section 3.2, PKINIT allows for the caching of the
956 Diffie-Hellman parameters on the KDC side, for performance reasons.
957 For similar reasons, the signed data in this case does not vary from
958 message to message, until the cached parameters expire. Because of
959 the persistence of these parameters, the client and the KDC are to
960 use the appropriate key derivation measures (as described in RFC
961 1510bis) when using cached DH parameters.
963 Lastly, PKINIT calls for randomly generated keys for conventional
964 cryptosystems. Many such systems contain systematically "weak"
965 keys. PKINIT implementations MUST avoid use of these keys, either
966 by discarding those keys when they are generated, or by fixing them
967 in some way (e.g., by XORing them with a given mask). These
968 precautions vary from system to system; it is not our intention to
969 give an explicit recipe for them here.
973 Certificate chains can potentially grow quite large and span several
974 UDP packets; this in turn increases the probability that a Kerberos
975 message involving PKINIT extensions will be broken in transit. In
976 light of the possibility that the Kerberos specification will
977 require KDCs to accept requests using TCP as a transport mechanism,
978 we make the same recommendation with respect to the PKINIT
983 [1] J. Kohl, C. Neuman. The Kerberos Network Authentication Service
984 (V5). Request for Comments 1510.
986 [2] B.C. Neuman, Theodore Ts'o. Kerberos: An Authentication Service
987 for Computer Networks, IEEE Communications, 32(9):33-38. September
990 [3] M. Sirbu, J. Chuang. Distributed Authentication in Kerberos
991 Using Public Key Cryptography. Symposium On Network and Distributed
992 System Security, 1997.
994 [4] B. Cox, J.D. Tygar, M. Sirbu. NetBill Security and Transaction
995 Protocol. In Proceedings of the USENIX Workshop on Electronic
998 [5] T. Dierks, C. Allen. The TLS Protocol, Version 1.0
999 Request for Comments 2246, January 1999.
1001 [6] B.C. Neuman, Proxy-Based Authorization and Accounting for
1002 Distributed Systems. In Proceedings of the 13th International
1003 Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, May 1993.
1005 [7] ITU-T (formerly CCITT) Information technology - Open Systems
1006 Interconnection - The Directory: Authentication Framework
1007 Recommendation X.509 ISO/IEC 9594-8
1009 [8] R. Housley. Cryptographic Message Syntax.
1010 draft-ietf-smime-cms-13.txt, April 1999, approved for publication
1013 [9] PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message Syntax Standard,
1014 An RSA Laboratories Technical Note Version 1.5
1015 Revised November 1, 1993
1017 [10] R. Rivest, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science and RSA Data
1018 Security, Inc. A Description of the RC2(r) Encryption Algorithm
1020 Request for Comments 2268.
1022 [11] M. Wahl, S. Kille, T. Howes. Lightweight Directory Access
1023 Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished Names.
1024 Request for Comments 2253.
1026 [12] R. Housley, W. Ford, W. Polk, D. Solo. Internet X.509 Public
1027 Key Infrastructure, Certificate and CRL Profile, January 1999.
1028 Request for Comments 2459.
1030 [13] B. Kaliski, J. Staddon. PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography
1031 Specifications, October 1998. Request for Comments 2437.
1033 [14] S. Dusse, P. Hoffman, B. Ramsdell, J. Weinstein. S/MIME
1034 Version 2 Certificate Handling, March 1998. Request for
1037 [15] M. Wahl, T. Howes, S. Kille. Lightweight Directory Access
1038 Protocol (v3), December 1997. Request for Comments 2251.
1040 [16] ITU-T (formerly CCITT) Information Processing Systems - Open
1041 Systems Interconnection - Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation
1042 One (ASN.1) Rec. X.680 ISO/IEC 8824-1
1044 [17] PKCS #3: Diffie-Hellman Key-Agreement Standard, An RSA
1045 Laboratories Technical Note, Version 1.4, Revised November 1, 1993.
1049 Some of the ideas on which this proposal is based arose during
1050 discussions over several years between members of the SAAG, the IETF
1051 CAT working group, and the PSRG, regarding integration of Kerberos
1052 and SPX. Some ideas have also been drawn from the DASS system.
1053 These changes are by no means endorsed by these groups. This is an
1054 attempt to revive some of the goals of those groups, and this
1055 proposal approaches those goals primarily from the Kerberos
1056 perspective. Lastly, comments from groups working on similar ideas
1057 in DCE have been invaluable.
1061 This draft expires January 15, 2002.
1067 USC Information Sciences Institute
1068 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 1001
1069 Marina del Rey CA 90292-6695
1070 Phone: +1 310 822 1511
1071 E-mail: {brian, bcn}@isi.edu
1075 500 108th Ave. NE, Suite 500
1077 Phone: (408) 525-0034
1078 E-Mail: mhur@cisco.com
1082 150 Independence Drive
1084 Phone: +1 650 289 3134
1085 E-mail: ari@keen.com
1092 E-mail: smedvinsky@gi.com
1095 Iris Associates, Inc.
1096 5 Technology Park Dr.
1098 E-mail: John_Wray@iris.com
1104 E-mail: jtrostle@cisco.com