GSS-API channel bindings: Clarifications and Extensions to the Generic Security Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API) for the Use of Channel Bindings
A general structure and requirements for GSS-API channel bindings.
Williams, N., "Clarifications and Extensions to the Generic Security Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API) for the Use of Channel Bindings", RFC 5554, DOI 10.17487/RFC5554, May 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5554>.
@misc{rfc5554,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 5554,
howpublished = {RFC 5554},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC5554},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5554},
author = {N. Williams},
title = {{Clarifications and Extensions to the Generic Security Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API) for the Use of Channel Bindings}},
pagetotal = 4,
year = 2009,
month = may,
} RFC text
Contents
Network Working Group N. Williams
Request for Comments: 5554 Sun
Updates: 2743 May 2009
Category: Standards Track
Clarifications and Extensions to
the Generic Security Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API)
for the Use of Channel Bindings
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
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.
Abstract
This document clarifies and generalizes the Generic Security Service
Application Programming Interface (GSS-API) "channel bindings"
facility, and imposes requirements on future GSS-API mechanisms and
programming language bindings of the GSS-API.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................2
3. New Requirements for GSS-API Mechanisms .........................2
4. Generic Structure for GSS-API Channel Bindings ..................2
5. Security Considerations .........................................3
6. References ......................................................4
6.1. Normative References .......................................4
6.2. Informative References .....................................4
1. Introduction
The base GSS-API version 2, update 1 specification [RFC2743] provides
a facility for channel binding (see also [RFC5056]), but its
treatment is incomplete. The GSS-API C-bindings specification
[RFC2744] expands somewhat on this facility in what should be a
generic way, but is instead a C-specific way, thus leaving the
treatment of this facility incomplete.
This document clarifies the GSS-API's channel binding facility and
generalizes the parts of it that are specified in the C-bindings
document but that should have been generic from the start.
2. 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].
3. New Requirements for GSS-API Mechanisms
Given the publication of RFC 5056, we now assert that all new GSS-API
mechanisms that support channel binding MUST conform to [RFC5056].
4. Generic Structure for GSS-API Channel Bindings
The base GSS-API version 2, update 1 specification [RFC2743] provides
a facility for channel binding. It models channel bindings as an
OCTET STRING and leaves it to the GSS-API version 2, update 1
C-bindings specification to specify the structure of the contents of
the channel bindings OCTET STRINGs. The C-bindings specification
[RFC2744] then defines, in terms of C, what should have been a
generic structure for channel bindings. The Kerberos V GSS mechanism
[RFC4121] also defines a method for encoding GSS channel bindings in
a way that is independent of the C-bindings -- otherwise, the
mechanism's channel binding facility would not be useable with other
language bindings.
In other words, the structure of GSS channel bindings given in
[RFC2744] is actually generic in spite of being specified in terms of
C concepts and syntax.
We generalize it as shown below, using the same pseudo-ASN.1 as is
used in RFC 2743. Although the figure below is, indeed, a valid
ASN.1 [CCITT.X680] type, we do not provide a full ASN.1 module as
none is needed because no standard encoding of this structure is
needed -- the definition below is part of an abstract API, not part
of a protocol defining bits on the wire. GSS-API mechanisms do need
to encode the contents of this structure, but that encoding will be
mechanism specific (see below).
GSS-CHANNEL-BINDINGS ::= SEQUENCE {
initiator-address-type INTEGER, -- See RFC2744
initiator-address OCTET STRING, -- See RFC2744
acceptor-address-type INTEGER, -- See RFC2744
acceptor-address OCTET STRING, -- See RFC2744
application-data OCTET STRING -- See RFC5056
}
Abstract GSS-API Channel Bindings Structure
The values for the address fields are described in [RFC2744].
New language-specific bindings of the GSS-API SHOULD specify a
language-specific formulation of this structure.
Where a language binding of the GSS-API models channel bindings as
OCTET STRINGs (or the language's equivalent), then the implementation
MUST assume that the given bindings correspond only to the
application-data field of GSS-CHANNEL-BINDINGS as shown above, rather
than some encoding of GSS-CHANNEL-BINDINGS.
As mentioned above, [RFC4121] describes an encoding of the above GSS-
CHANNEL-BINDINGS structure and then hashes that encoding. Other GSS-
API mechanisms are free to use that encoding.
5. Security Considerations
For general security considerations relating to channel bindings, see
[RFC5056].
Language bindings that use OCTET STRING (or equivalent) for channel
bindings will not support the use of network addresses as channel
bindings. This should not cause any security problems, as the use of
network addresses as channel bindings is not generally secure.
However, it is important that "end-point channel bindings" not be
modeled as network addresses; otherwise, such channel bindings may
not be useable with all language bindings of the GSS-API.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000.
[RFC2744] Wray, J., "Generic Security Service API Version 2 :
C-bindings", RFC 2744, January 2000.
[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.
[RFC5056] Williams, N., "On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure
Channels", RFC 5056, November 2007.
6.2. Informative References
[CCITT.X680] International Telephone and Telegraph Consultative
Committee, "Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1):
Specification of basic notation", CCITT Recommendation
X.680, July 2002.
Author's Address
Nicolas Williams
Sun Microsystems
5300 Riata Trace Ct
Austin, TX 78727
US
EMail: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1Why Channel Bindings Need a Generic Form
The GSS-API provides a channel-binding facility, but the base specification treated the bindings as an octet string and left important structure details to its C-language binding. RFC 5554 generalizes those details so they are not specific to C.
The earlier GSS-API descriptions did not define channel bindings in a language-independent way. This RFC describes a generic form that different language bindings can use.
§4The Channel-Bindings Structure
The generic structure contains an initiator address type and address, an acceptor address type and address, and application data. The address-field values are described in the C-bindings specification, while this RFC presents the structure as part of an abstract API rather than a protocol format on the wire.
Mechanisms still encode the structure's contents in a mechanism-specific way. A new language-specific binding SHOULD specify a formulation of this structure. If a binding represents channel bindings as an octet string, it MUST treat that string as the application-data field alone, not as an encoding of the whole structure.
The structure records address information for both parties and data supplied by the application. It is an API structure, not a message format sent over the network.
§3Requirements for New Mechanisms
New GSS-API mechanisms that support channel binding MUST conform to RFC 5056. The RFC also explains that language bindings should use the generic structure rather than define a C-specific form.
A new GSS-API mechanism that supports channel binding must follow RFC 5056. Language bindings should describe the same general structure in their own terms.
§5Security Considerations
The RFC refers readers to RFC 5056 for general channel-binding security considerations. It also says that language bindings using an octet string will not support network addresses as channel bindings, and cautions that endpoint channel bindings should not be modeled as network addresses.
The memo points to RFC 5056 for general security guidance. It warns that representing endpoint bindings as network addresses can make them unusable across language bindings.