|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 5247
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Key Management Framework
Last modified on Friday, August 15th, 2008
 Permanent link to RFC 5247
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 5247
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 5247
Network Working Group B. Aboba
Request for Comments: 5247 D. Simon
Updates: 3748 Microsoft Corporation
Category: Standards Track P. Eronen
Nokia
August 2008
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Key Management Framework
 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.
Abstract
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in RFC 3748,
enables extensible network access authentication. This document
specifies the EAP key hierarchy and provides a framework for the
transport and usage of keying material and parameters generated by
EAP authentication algorithms, known as "methods". It also provides
a detailed system-level security analysis, describing the conditions
under which the key management guidelines described in RFC 4962 can
be satisfied.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Requirements Language ......................................3
1.2. Terminology ................................................3
1.3. Overview ...................................................7
1.4. EAP Key Hierarchy .........................................10
1.5. Security Goals ............................................15
1.6. EAP Invariants ............................................16
2. Lower-Layer Operation ..........................................20
2.1. Transient Session Keys ....................................20
2.2. Authenticator and Peer Architecture .......................22
2.3. Authenticator Identification ..............................23
2.4. Peer Identification .......................................27
2.5. Server Identification .....................................29
3. Security Association Management ................................31
3.1. Secure Association Protocol ...............................32
3.2. Key Scope .................................................35
3.3. Parent-Child Relationships ................................35
3.4. Local Key Lifetimes .......................................37
3.5. Exported and Calculated Key Lifetimes .....................37
3.6. Key Cache Synchronization .................................40
3.7. Key Strength ..............................................40
3.8. Key Wrap ..................................................41
4. Handoff Vulnerabilities ........................................41
4.1. EAP Pre-Authentication ....................................43
4.2. Proactive Key Distribution ................................44
4.3. AAA Bypass ................................................46
5. Security Considerations ........................................50
5.1. Peer and Authenticator Compromise .........................51
5.2. Cryptographic Negotiation .................................53
5.3. Confidentiality and Authentication ........................54
5.4. Key Binding ...............................................59
5.5. Authorization .............................................60
5.6. Replay Protection .........................................63
5.7. Key Freshness .............................................64
5.8. Key Scope Limitation ......................................66
5.9. Key Naming ................................................66
5.10. Denial-of-Service Attacks ................................67
6. References .....................................................68
6.1. Normative References ......................................68
6.2. Informative References ....................................68
Acknowledgments ...................................................74
Appendix A - Exported Parameters in Existing Methods ..............75
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
1. Introduction
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in [RFC 3748],
was designed to enable extensible authentication for network access
in situations in which the Internet Protocol (IP) protocol is not
available. Originally developed for use with Point-to-Point Protocol
(PPP) [RFC 1661], it has subsequently also been applied to IEEE 802
wired networks [IEEE-802.1X], Internet Key Exchange Protocol version
2 (IKEv2) [RFC 4306], and wireless networks such as [IEEE-802.11] and
[IEEE-802.16e].
EAP is a two-party protocol spoken between the EAP peer and server.
Within EAP, keying material is generated by EAP authentication
algorithms, known as "methods". Part of this keying material can be
used by EAP methods themselves, and part of this material can be
exported. In addition to the export of keying material, EAP methods
can also export associated parameters such as authenticated peer and
server identities and a unique EAP conversation identifier, and can
import and export lower-layer parameters known as "channel binding
parameters", or simply "channel bindings".
This document specifies the EAP key hierarchy and provides a
framework for the transport and usage of keying material and
parameters generated by EAP methods. It also provides a detailed
security analysis, describing the conditions under which the
requirements described in "Guidance for Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Key Management" [RFC 4962] can be
satisfied.
1.1. Requirements Language
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 [RFC 2119].
1.2. Terminology
The terms "Cryptographic binding", "Cryptographic separation", "Key
strength" and "Mutual authentication" are defined in [RFC 3748] and
are used with the same meaning in this document, which also
frequently uses the following terms:
4-Way Handshake
A pairwise Authentication and Key Management Protocol (AKMP)
defined in [IEEE-802.11], which confirms mutual possession of a
Pairwise Master Key by two parties and distributes a Group Key.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
AAA Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting
AAA protocols with EAP support include "RADIUS Support for EAP"
[RFC 3579] and "Diameter EAP Application" [RFC 4072]. In this
document, the terms "AAA server" and "backend authentication
server" are used interchangeably.
AAA-Key
The term AAA-Key is synonymous with Master Session Key (MSK).
Since multiple keys can be transported by AAA, the term is
potentially confusing and is not used in this document.
Authenticator
The entity initiating EAP authentication.
Backend Authentication Server
A backend authentication server is an entity that provides an
authentication service to an authenticator. When used, this
server typically executes EAP methods for the authenticator. This
terminology is also used in [IEEE-802.1X].
Channel Binding
A secure mechanism for ensuring that a subset of the parameters
transmitted by the authenticator (such as authenticator
identifiers and properties) are agreed upon by the EAP peer and
server. It is expected that the parameters are also securely
agreed upon by the EAP peer and authenticator via the lower layer
if the authenticator advertised the parameters.
Derived Keying Material
Keys derived from EAP keying material, such as Transient Session
Keys (TSKs).
EAP Keying Material
Keys derived by an EAP method; this includes exported keying
material (MSK, Extended MSK (EMSK), Initialization Vector (IV)) as
well as local keying material such as Transient EAP Keys (TEKs).
EAP Pre-Authentication
The use of EAP to pre-establish EAP keying material on an
authenticator prior to arrival of the peer at the access network
managed by that authenticator.
EAP Re-Authentication
EAP authentication between an EAP peer and a server with whom the
EAP peer shares valid unexpired EAP keying material.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
EAP Server
The entity that terminates the EAP authentication method with the
peer. In the case where no backend authentication server is used,
the EAP server is part of the authenticator. In the case where
the authenticator operates in pass-through mode, the EAP server is
located on the backend authentication server.
Exported Keying Material
The EAP Master Session Key (MSK), Extended Master Session Key
(EMSK), and Initialization Vector (IV).
Extended Master Session Key (EMSK)
Additional keying material derived between the peer and server
that is exported by the EAP method. The EMSK is at least 64
octets in length and is never shared with a third party. The EMSK
MUST be at least as long as the MSK in size.
Initialization Vector (IV)
A quantity of at least 64 octets, suitable for use in an
initialization vector field, that is derived between the peer and
EAP server. Since the IV is a known value in methods such as
EAP-TLS (Transport Layer Security) [RFC 5216], it cannot be used by
itself for computation of any quantity that needs to remain
secret. As a result, its use has been deprecated and it is
OPTIONAL for EAP methods to generate it. However, when it is
generated, it MUST be unpredictable.
Keying Material
Unless otherwise qualified, the term "keying material" refers to
EAP keying material as well as derived keying material.
Key Scope
The parties to whom a key is available.
Key Wrap
The encryption of one symmetric cryptographic key in another. The
algorithm used for the encryption is called a key wrap algorithm
or a key encryption algorithm. The key used in the encryption
process is called a key-encryption key (KEK).
Long-Term Credential
EAP methods frequently make use of long-term secrets in order to
enable authentication between the peer and server. In the case of
a method based on pre-shared key authentication, the long-term
credential is the pre-shared key. In the case of a
public-key-based method, the long-term credential is the
corresponding private key.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Lower Layer
The lower layer is responsible for carrying EAP frames between the
peer and authenticator.
Lower-Layer Identity
A name used to identify the EAP peer and authenticator within the
lower layer.
Master Session Key (MSK)
Keying material that is derived between the EAP peer and server
and exported by the EAP method. The MSK is at least 64 octets in
length.
Network Access Server (NAS)
A device that provides an access service for a user to a network.
Pairwise Master Key (PMK)
Lower layers use the MSK in a lower-layer dependent manner. For
instance, in IEEE 802.11 [IEEE-802.11], Octets 0-31 of the MSK are
known as the Pairwise Master Key (PMK); the Temporal Key Integrity
Protocol (TKIP) and Advanced Encryption Standard Counter Mode with
CBC-MAC Protocol (AES CCMP) ciphersuites derive their Transient
Session Keys (TSKs) solely from the PMK, whereas the Wired
Equivalent Privacy (WEP) ciphersuite, as noted in "IEEE 802.1X
RADIUS Usage Guidelines" [RFC 3580], derives its TSKs from both
halves of the MSK. In [IEEE-802.16e], the MSK is truncated to 20
octets for PMK and 20 octets for PMK2.
Peer
The entity that responds to the authenticator. In [IEEE-802.1X],
this entity is known as the Supplicant.
Security Association
A set of policies and cryptographic state used to protect
information. Elements of a security association include
cryptographic keys, negotiated ciphersuites and other parameters,
counters, sequence spaces, authorization attributes, etc.
Secure Association Protocol
An exchange that occurs between the EAP peer and authenticator in
order to manage security associations derived from EAP exchanges.
The protocol establishes unicast and (optionally) multicast
security associations, which include symmetric keys and a context
for the use of the keys. An example of a Secure Association
Protocol is the 4-way handshake defined within [IEEE-802.11].
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Session-Id
The EAP Session-Id uniquely identifies an EAP authentication
exchange between an EAP peer (as identified by the Peer-Id(s)) and
server (as identified by the Server-Id(s)). For more information,
see Section 1.4.
Transient EAP Keys (TEKs)
Session keys that are used to establish a protected channel
between the EAP peer and server during the EAP authentication
exchange. The TEKs are appropriate for use with the ciphersuite
negotiated between EAP peer and server for use in protecting the
EAP conversation. The TEKs are stored locally by the EAP method
and are not exported. Note that the ciphersuite used to set up
the protected channel between the EAP peer and server during EAP
authentication is unrelated to the ciphersuite used to
subsequently protect data sent between the EAP peer and
authenticator.
Transient Session Keys (TSKs)
Keys used to protect data exchanged after EAP authentication has
successfully completed using the ciphersuite negotiated between
the EAP peer and authenticator.
1.3. Overview
Where EAP key derivation is supported, the conversation typically
takes place in three phases:
Phase 0: Discovery
Phase 1: Authentication
1a: EAP authentication
1b: AAA Key Transport (optional)
Phase 2: Secure Association Protocol
2a: Unicast Secure Association
2b: Multicast Secure Association (optional)
Of these phases, phase 0, 1b, and 2 are handled external to EAP.
phases 0 and 2 are handled by the lower-layer protocol, and phase 1b
is typically handled by a AAA protocol.
In the discovery phase (phase 0), peers locate authenticators and
discover their capabilities. A peer can locate an authenticator
providing access to a particular network, or a peer can locate an
authenticator behind a bridge with which it desires to establish a
Secure Association. Discovery can occur manually or automatically,
depending on the lower layer over which EAP runs.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
The authentication phase (phase 1) can begin once the peer and
authenticator discover each other. This phase, if it occurs, always
includes EAP authentication (phase 1a). Where the chosen EAP method
supports key derivation, in phase 1a, EAP keying material is derived
on both the peer and the EAP server.
An additional step (phase 1b) is needed in deployments that include a
backend authentication server, in order to transport keying material
from the backend authentication server to the authenticator. In
order to obey the principle of mode independence (see Section 1.6.1),
where a backend authentication server is present, all keying material
needed by the lower layer is transported from the EAP server to the
authenticator. Since existing TSK derivation and transport
techniques depend solely on the MSK, in existing implementations,
this is the only keying material replicated in the AAA key transport
phase 1b.
Successful completion of EAP authentication and key derivation by a
peer and EAP server does not necessarily imply that the peer is
committed to joining the network associated with an EAP server.
Rather, this commitment is implied by the creation of a security
association between the EAP peer and authenticator, as part of the
Secure Association Protocol (phase 2). The Secure Association
Protocol exchange (phase 2) occurs between the peer and authenticator
in order to manage the creation and deletion of unicast (phase 2a)
and multicast (phase 2b) security associations between the peer and
authenticator. The conversation between the parties is shown in
Figure 1.
EAP peer Authenticator Auth. Server
-------- ------------- ------------
|<----------------------------->| |
| Discovery (phase 0) | |
|<----------------------------->|<----------------------------->|
| EAP auth (phase 1a) | AAA pass-through (optional) |
| | |
| |<----------------------------->|
| | AAA Key transport |
| | (optional; phase 1b) |
|<----------------------------->| |
| Unicast Secure association | |
| (phase 2a) | |
| | |
|<----------------------------->| |
| Multicast Secure association | |
| (optional; phase 2b) | |
| | |
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 8
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Figure 1: Conversation Overview
1.3.1. Examples
Existing EAP lower layers implement phase 0, 2a, and 2b in different
ways:
PPP
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP), defined in [RFC 1661], does not
support discovery, nor does it include a Secure Association
Protocol.
PPPoE
PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE), defined in [RFC 2516], includes support
for a Discovery stage (phase 0). In this step, the EAP peer sends
a PPPoE Active Discovery Initiation (PADI) packet to the broadcast
address, indicating the service it is requesting. The Access
Concentrator replies with a PPPoE Active Discovery Offer (PADO)
packet containing its name, the service name, and an indication of
the services offered by the concentrator. The discovery phase is
not secured. PPPoE, like PPP, does not include a Secure
Association Protocol.
IKEv2
Internet Key Exchange v2 (IKEv2), defined in [RFC 4306], includes
support for EAP and handles the establishment of unicast security
associations (phase 2a). However, the establishment of multicast
security associations (phase 2b) typically does not involve EAP
and needs to be handled by a group key management protocol such as
Group Domain of Interpretation (GDOI) [RFC 3547], Group Secure
Association Key Management Protocol (GSAKMP) [RFC 4535], Multimedia
Internet KEYing (MIKEY) [RFC 3830], or Group Key Distribution
Protocol (GKDP) [GKDP]. Several mechanisms have been proposed for
the discovery of IPsec security gateways. [RFC 2230] discusses the
use of Key eXchange (KX) Resource Records (RRs) for IPsec gateway
discovery; while KX RRs are supported by many Domain Name Service
(DNS) server implementations, they have not yet been widely
deployed. Alternatively, DNS SRV RRs [RFC 2782] can be used for
this purpose. Where DNS is used for gateway location, DNS
security mechanisms such as DNS Security (DNSSEC) ([RFC 4033],
[RFC 4035]), TSIG [RFC 2845], and Simple Secure Dynamic Update
[RFC 3007] are available.
IEEE 802.11
IEEE 802.11, defined in [IEEE-802.11], handles discovery via the
Beacon and Probe Request/Response mechanisms. IEEE 802.11 Access
Points (APs) periodically announce their Service Set Identifiers
(SSIDs) as well as capabilities using Beacon frames. Stations can
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 9
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
query for APs by sending a Probe Request. Neither Beacon nor
Probe Request/Response frames are secured. The 4-way handshake
defined in [IEEE-802.11] enables the derivation of unicast (phase
2a) and multicast/broadcast (phase 2b) secure associations. Since
the group key exchange transports a group key from the AP to the
station, two 4-way handshakes can be needed in order to support
peer-to-peer communications. A proof of the security of the IEEE
802.11 4-way handshake, when used with EAP-TLS, is provided in
[He].
IEEE 802.1X
IEEE 802.1X-2004, defined in [IEEE-802.1X], does not support
discovery (phase 0), nor does it provide for derivation of unicast
or multicast secure associations.
1.4. EAP Key Hierarchy
As illustrated in Figure 2, the EAP method key derivation has, at the
root, the long-term credential utilized by the selected EAP method.
If authentication is based on a pre-shared key, the parties store the
EAP method to be used and the pre-shared key. The EAP server also
stores the peer's identity as well as additional information. This
information is typically used outside of the EAP method to determine
whether to grant access to a service. The peer stores information
necessary to choose which secret to use for which service.
If authentication is based on proof of possession of the private key
corresponding to the public key contained within a certificate, the
parties store the EAP method to be used and the trust anchors used to
validate the certificates. The EAP server also stores the peer's
identity, and the peer stores information necessary to choose which
certificate to use for which service. Based on the long-term
credential established between the peer and the server, methods
derive two types of EAP keying material:
(a) Keying material calculated locally by the EAP method but not
exported, such as the Transient EAP Keys (TEKs).
(b) Keying material exported by the EAP method: Master Session Key
(MSK), Extended Master Session Key (EMSK), Initialization
Vector (IV).
As noted in [RFC 3748] Section 7.10:
In order to provide keying material for use in a subsequently
negotiated ciphersuite, an EAP method supporting key derivation
MUST export a Master Session Key (MSK) of at least 64 octets, and
an Extended Master Session Key (EMSK) of at least 64 octets.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 10
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
EAP methods also MAY export the IV; however, the use of the IV is
deprecated. The EMSK MUST NOT be provided to an entity outside the
EAP server or peer, nor is it permitted to pass any quantity to an
entity outside the EAP server or peer from which the EMSK could be
computed without breaking some cryptographic assumption, such as
inverting a one-way function.
EAP methods supporting key derivation and mutual authentication
SHOULD export a method-specific EAP conversation identifier known as
the Session-Id, as well as one or more method-specific peer
identifiers (Peer-Id(s)) and MAY export one or more method-specific
server identifiers (Server-Id(s)). EAP methods MAY also support the
import and export of channel binding parameters. EAP method
specifications developed after the publication of this document MUST
define the Peer-Id, Server-Id, and Session-Id. The Peer-Id(s) and
Server-Id(s), when provided, identify the entities involved in
generating EAP keying material. For existing EAP methods, the
Peer-Id, Server-Id, and Session-Id are defined in Appendix A.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 11
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---+
| | ^
| EAP Method | |
| | |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| | | | | | |
| | EAP Method Key |<->| Long-Term | | |
| | Derivation | | Credential | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local to |
| | | | EAP |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Method |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| | | TEK | |MSK, EMSK | |IV | | |
| | |Derivation | |Derivation | |Derivation | | |
| | | | | | |(Deprecated) | | |
| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| | ^ | | | |
| | | | | | V
+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+ ---+
| | | | ^
| | | | Exported |
| Peer-Id(s), | channel | MSK (64+B) | IV (64B) by |
| Server-Id(s), | bindings | EMSK (64+B) | (Optional) EAP |
| Session-Id | & Result | | Method |
V V V V V
Figure 2: EAP Method Parameter Import/Export
Peer-Id
If an EAP method that generates keys authenticates one or more
method-specific peer identities, those identities are exported by
the method as the Peer-Id(s). It is possible for more than one
Peer-Id to be exported by an EAP method. Not all EAP methods
provide a method-specific peer identity; where this is not
defined, the Peer-Id is the null string. In EAP methods that do
not support key generation, the Peer-Id MUST be the null string.
Where an EAP method that derives keys does not provide a Peer-Id,
the EAP server will not authenticate the identity of the EAP peer
with which it derived keying material.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 12
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Server-Id
If an EAP method that generates keys authenticates one or more
method-specific server identities, those identities are exported
by the method as the Server-Id(s). It is possible for more than
one Server-Id to be exported by an EAP method. Not all EAP
methods provide a method-specific server identity; where this is
not defined, the Server-Id is the null string. If the EAP method
does not generate keying material, the Server-Id MUST be the null
string. Where an EAP method that derives keys does not provide a
Server-Id, the EAP peer will not authenticate the identity of the
EAP server with which it derived EAP keying material.
Session-Id
The Session-Id uniquely identifies an EAP session between an EAP
peer (as identified by the Peer-Id) and server (as identified by
the Server-Id). Where non-expanded EAP Type Codes are used (EAP
Type Code not equal to 254), the EAP Session-Id is the
concatenation of the single octet EAP Type Code and a temporally
unique identifier obtained from the method (known as the
Method-Id):
Session-Id = Type-Code || Method-Id
Where expanded EAP Type Codes are used, the EAP Session-Id
consists of the Expanded Type Code (including the Type, Vendor-Id
(in network byte order) and Vendor-Type fields (in network byte
order) defined in [RFC 3748] Section 5.7), concatenated with a
temporally unique identifier obtained from the method (Method-Id):
Session-Id = 0xFE || Vendor-Id || Vendor-Type || Method-Id
The Method-Id is typically constructed from nonces or counters
used within the EAP method exchange. The inclusion of the Type
Code or Expanded Type Code in the EAP Session-Id ensures that each
EAP method has a distinct Session-Id space. Since an EAP session
is not bound to a particular authenticator or specific ports on
the peer and authenticator, the authenticator port or identity are
not included in the Session-Id.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 13
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Channel Binding
Channel binding is the process by which lower-layer parameters are
verified for consistency between the EAP peer and server. In
order to avoid introducing media dependencies, EAP methods that
transport channel binding parameters MUST treat this data as
opaque octets. See Section 5.3.3 for further discussion.
1.4.1. Key Naming
Each key created within the EAP key management framework has a name
(a unique identifier), as well as a scope (the parties to whom the
key is available). The scope of exported keying material and TEKs is
defined by the authenticated method-specific peer identities
(Peer-Id(s)) and the authenticated server identities (Server-Id(s)),
where available.
MSK and EMSK Names
The MSK and EMSK are exported by the EAP peer and EAP server,
and MUST be named using the EAP Session-Id and a binary or
textual indication of the EAP keying material being referred to.
PMK Name
This document does not specify a naming scheme for the Pairwise
Master Key (PMK). The PMK is only identified by the name of the
key from which it is derived.
Note: IEEE 802.11 names the PMK for the purposes of being able
to refer to it in the Secure Association Protocol; the PMK name
(known as the PMKID) is based on a hash of the PMK itself as
well as some other parameters (see [IEEE-802.11] Section
8.5.1.2).
TEK Name
Transient EAP Keys (TEKs) MAY be named; their naming is
specified in the EAP method specification.
TSK Name
Transient Session Keys (TSKs) are typically named. Their naming
is specified in the lower layer so that the correct set of TSKs
can be identified for processing a given packet.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 14
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
1.5. Security Goals
The goal of the EAP conversation is to derive fresh session keys
between the EAP peer and authenticator that are known only to those
parties, and for both the EAP peer and authenticator to demonstrate
that they are authorized to perform their roles either by each other
or by a trusted third party (the backend authentication server).
Completion of an EAP method exchange (phase 1a) supporting key
derivation results in the derivation of EAP keying material (MSK,
EMSK, TEKs) known only to the EAP peer (identified by the Peer-Id(s))
and EAP server (identified by the Server-Id(s)). Both the EAP peer
and EAP server know this keying material to be fresh. The Peer-Id
and Server-Id are discussed in Sections 1.4, 2.4, and 2.5 as well as
in Appendix A. Key freshness is discussed in Sections 3.4, 3.5, and
5.7.
Completion of the AAA exchange (phase 1b) results in the transport of
keying material from the EAP server (identified by the Server-Id(s))
to the EAP authenticator (identified by the NAS-Identifier) without
disclosure to any other party. Both the EAP server and EAP
authenticator know this keying material to be fresh. Disclosure
issues are discussed in Sections 3.8 and 5.3; security properties of
AAA protocols are discussed in Sections 5.1 - 5.9.
The backend authentication server is trusted to transport keying
material only to the authenticator that was established with the
peer, and it is trusted to transport that keying material to no other
parties. In many systems, EAP keying material established by the EAP
peer and EAP server are combined with publicly available data to
derive other keys. The backend authentication server is trusted to
refrain from deriving these same keys or acting as a
man-in-the-middle even though it has access to the keying material
that is needed to do so.
The authenticator is also a trusted party. The authenticator is
trusted not to distribute keying material provided by the backend
authentication server to any other parties. If the authenticator
uses a key derivation function to derive additional keying material,
the authenticator is trusted to distribute the derived keying
material only to the appropriate party that is known to the peer, and
no other party. When this approach is used, care must be taken to
ensure that the resulting key management system meets all of the
principles in [RFC 4962], confirming that keys used to protect data
are to be known only by the peer and authenticator.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 15
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Completion of the Secure Association Protocol (phase 2) results in
the derivation or transport of Transient Session Keys (TSKs) known
only to the EAP peer (identified by the Peer-Id(s)) and authenticator
(identified by the NAS-Identifier). Both the EAP peer and
authenticator know the TSKs to be fresh. Both the EAP peer and
authenticator demonstrate that they are authorized to perform their
roles. Authorization issues are discussed in Sections 4.3.2 and 5.5;
security properties of Secure Association Protocols are discussed in
Section 3.1.
1.6. EAP Invariants
Certain basic characteristics, known as "EAP Invariants", hold true
for EAP implementations:
Mode independence
Media independence
Method independence
Ciphersuite independence
1.6.1. Mode Independence
EAP is typically deployed to support extensible network access
authentication in situations where a peer desires network access via
one or more authenticators. Where authenticators are deployed
standalone, the EAP conversation occurs between the peer and
authenticator, and the authenticator locally implements one or more
EAP methods. However, when utilized in "pass-through" mode, EAP
enables the deployment of new authentication methods without
requiring the development of new code on the authenticator.
While the authenticator can implement some EAP methods locally and
use those methods to authenticate local users, it can at the same
time act as a pass-through for other users and methods, forwarding
EAP packets back and forth between the backend authentication server
and the peer. This is accomplished by encapsulating EAP packets
within the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)
protocol spoken between the authenticator and backend authentication
server. AAA protocols supporting EAP include RADIUS [RFC 3579] and
Diameter [RFC 4072].
It is a fundamental property of EAP that at the EAP method layer, the
conversation between the EAP peer and server is unaffected by whether
the EAP authenticator is operating in "pass-through" mode. EAP
methods operate identically in all aspects, including key derivation
and parameter import/export, regardless of whether or not the
authenticator is operating as a pass-through.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 16
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
The successful completion of an EAP method that supports key
derivation results in the export of EAP keying material and
parameters on the EAP peer and server. Even though the EAP peer or
server can import channel binding parameters that can include the
identity of the EAP authenticator, this information is treated as
opaque octets. As a result, within EAP, the only relevant identities
are the Peer-Id(s) and Server-Id(s). Channel binding parameters are
only interpreted by the lower layer.
Within EAP, the primary function of the AAA protocol is to maintain
the principle of mode independence. As far as the EAP peer is
concerned, its conversation with the EAP authenticator, and all
consequences of that conversation, are identical, regardless of the
authenticator mode of operation.
1.6.2. Media Independence
One of the goals of EAP is to allow EAP methods to function on any
lower layer meeting the criteria outlined in [RFC 3748] Section 3.1.
For example, as described in [RFC 3748], EAP authentication can be run
over PPP [RFC 1661], IEEE 802 wired networks [IEEE-802.1X], and
wireless networks such as 802.11 [IEEE-802.11] and 802.16
[IEEE-802.16e].
In order to maintain media independence, it is necessary for EAP to
avoid consideration of media-specific elements. For example, EAP
methods cannot be assumed to have knowledge of the lower layer over
which they are transported, and cannot be restricted to identifiers
associated with a particular usage environment (e.g., Medium Access
Control (MAC) addresses).
Note that media independence can be retained within EAP methods that
support channel binding or method-specific identification. An EAP
method need not be aware of the content of an identifier in order to
use it. This enables an EAP method to use media-specific identifiers
such as MAC addresses without compromising media independence.
Channel binding parameters are treated as opaque octets by EAP
methods so that handling them does not require media-specific
knowledge.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 17
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
1.6.3. Method Independence
By enabling pass-through, authenticators can support any method
implemented on the peer and server, not just locally implemented
methods. This allows the authenticator to avoid having to implement
the EAP methods configured for use by peers. In fact, since a
pass-through authenticator need not implement any EAP methods at all,
it cannot be assumed to support any EAP method-specific code. As
noted in [RFC 3748] Section 2.3:
Compliant pass-through authenticator implementations MUST by
default forward EAP packets of any Type.
This is useful where there is no single EAP method that is both
mandatory to implement and offers acceptable security for the media
in use. For example, the [RFC 3748] mandatory-to-implement EAP method
(MD5-Challenge) does not provide dictionary attack resistance, mutual
authentication, or key derivation, and as a result, is not
appropriate for use in Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)
authentication [RFC 4017]. However, despite this, it is possible for
the peer and authenticator to interoperate as long as a suitable EAP
method is supported both on the EAP peer and server.
1.6.4. Ciphersuite Independence
Ciphersuite Independence is a requirement for media independence.
Since lower-layer ciphersuites vary between media, media independence
requires that exported EAP keying material be large enough (with
sufficient entropy) to handle any ciphersuite.
While EAP methods can negotiate the ciphersuite used in protection of
the EAP conversation, the ciphersuite used for the protection of the
data exchanged after EAP authentication has completed is negotiated
between the peer and authenticator within the lower layer, outside of
EAP.
For example, within PPP, the ciphersuite is negotiated within the
Encryption Control Protocol (ECP) defined in [RFC 1968], after EAP
authentication is completed. Within [IEEE-802.11], the AP
ciphersuites are advertised in the Beacon and Probe Responses prior
to EAP authentication and are securely verified during a 4-way
handshake exchange.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 18
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Since the ciphersuites used to protect data depend on the lower
layer, requiring that EAP methods have knowledge of lower-layer
ciphersuites would compromise the principle of media independence.
As a result, methods export EAP keying material that is ciphersuite
independent. Since ciphersuite negotiation occurs in the lower
layer, there is no need for lower-layer ciphersuite negotiation
within EAP.
In order to allow a ciphersuite to be usable within the EAP keying
framework, the ciphersuite specification needs to describe how TSKs
suitable for use with the ciphersuite are derived from exported EAP
keying material. To maintain method independence, algorithms for
deriving TSKs MUST NOT depend on the EAP method, although algorithms
for TEK derivation MAY be specific to the EAP method.
Advantages of ciphersuite-independence include:
Reduced update requirements
Ciphersuite independence enables EAP methods to be used with new
ciphersuites without requiring the methods to be updated. If
EAP methods were to specify how to derive transient session keys
for each ciphersuite, they would need to be updated each time a
new ciphersuite is developed. In addition, backend
authentication servers might not be usable with all EAP-capable
authenticators, since the backend authentication server would
also need to be updated each time support for a new ciphersuite
is added to the authenticator.
Reduced EAP method complexity
Ciphersuite independence enables EAP methods to avoid having to
include ciphersuite-specific code. Requiring each EAP method to
include ciphersuite-specific code for transient session key
derivation would increase method complexity and result in
duplicated effort.
Simplified configuration
Ciphersuite independence enables EAP method implementations on
the peer and server to avoid having to configure
ciphersuite-specific parameters. The ciphersuite is negotiated
between the peer and authenticator outside of EAP. Where the
authenticator operates in "pass-through" mode, the EAP server is
not a party to this negotiation, nor is it involved in the data
flow between the EAP peer and authenticator. As a result, the
EAP server does not have knowledge of the ciphersuites and
negotiation policies implemented by the peer and authenticator,
nor is it aware of the ciphersuite negotiated between them. For
example, since Encryption Control Protocol (ECP) negotiation
occurs after authentication, when run over PPP, the EAP peer and
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 19
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
server cannot anticipate the negotiated ciphersuite, and
therefore, this information cannot be provided to the EAP
method.
2. Lower-Layer Operation
On completion of EAP authentication, EAP keying material and
parameters exported by the EAP method are provided to the lower layer
and AAA layer (if present). These include the Master Session Key
(MSK), Extended Master Session Key (EMSK), Peer-Id(s), Server-Id(s),
and Session-Id. The Initialization Vector (IV) is deprecated, but
might be provided.
In order to preserve the security of EAP keying material derived
within methods, lower layers MUST NOT export keys passed down by EAP
methods. This implies that EAP keying material passed down to a
lower layer is for the exclusive use of that lower layer and MUST NOT
be used within another lower layer. This prevents compromise of one
lower layer from compromising other applications using EAP keying
material.
EAP keying material provided to a lower layer MUST NOT be transported
to another entity. For example, EAP keying material passed down to
the EAP peer lower layer MUST NOT leave the peer; EAP keying
material passed down or transported to the EAP authenticator lower
layer MUST NOT leave the authenticator.
On the EAP server, keying material and parameters requested by and
passed down to the AAA layer MAY be replicated to the AAA layer on
the authenticator (with the exception of the EMSK). On the
authenticator, the AAA layer provides the replicated keying material
and parameters to the lower layer over which the EAP authentication
conversation took place. This enables mode independence to be
maintained.
The EAP layer, as well as the peer and authenticator layers, MUST NOT
modify or cache keying material or parameters (including channel
bindings) passing in either direction between the EAP method layer
and the lower layer or AAA layer.
2.1. Transient Session Keys
Where explicitly supported by the lower layer, lower layers MAY cache
keying material, including exported EAP keying material and/or TSKs;
the structure of this key cache is defined by the lower layer. So as
to enable interoperability, new lower-layer specifications MUST
describe key caching behavior. Unless explicitly specified by the
lower layer, the EAP peer, server, and authenticator MUST assume that
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 20
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
peers and authenticators do not cache keying material. Existing EAP
lower layers and AAA layers handle the generation of transient
session keys and caching of EAP keying material in different ways:
IEEE 802.1X-2004
When used with wired networks, IEEE 802.1X-2004 [IEEE-802.1X]
does not support link-layer ciphersuites, and as a result, it
does not provide for the generation of TSKs or caching of EAP
keying material and parameters. Once EAP authentication
completes, it is assumed that EAP keying material and parameters
are discarded; on IEEE 802 wired networks, there is no
subsequent Secure Association Protocol exchange. Perfect
Forward Secrecy (PFS) is only possible if the negotiated EAP
method supports this.
PPP
PPP, defined in [RFC 1661], does not include support for a Secure
Association Protocol, nor does it support caching of EAP keying
material or parameters. PPP ciphersuites derive their TSKs
directly from the MSK, as described in [RFC 2716] Section 3.5.
This is NOT RECOMMENDED, since if PPP were to support caching of
EAP keying material, this could result in TSK reuse. As a
result, once the PPP session is terminated, EAP keying material
and parameters MUST be discarded. Since caching of EAP keying
material is not permitted within PPP, there is no way to handle
TSK re-key without EAP re-authentication. Perfect Forward
Secrecy (PFS) is only possible if the negotiated EAP method
supports this.
IKEv2
IKEv2, defined in [RFC 4306], only uses the MSK for
authentication purposes and not key derivation. The EMSK, IV,
Peer-Id, Server-Id or Session-Id are not used. As a result, the
TSKs derived by IKEv2 are cryptographically independent of the
EAP keying material and re-key of IPsec SAs can be handled
without requiring EAP re-authentication. Within IKEv2, it is
possible to negotiate PFS, regardless of which EAP method is
negotiated. IKEv2 as specified in [RFC 4306] does not cache EAP
keying material or parameters; once IKEv2 authentication
completes, it is assumed that EAP keying material and parameters
are discarded. The Session-Timeout Attribute is therefore
interpreted as a limit on the VPN session time, rather than an
indication of the MSK key lifetime.
IEEE 802.11
IEEE 802.11 enables caching of the MSK, but not the EMSK, IV,
Peer-Id, Server-Id, or Session-Id. More details about the
structure of the cache are available in [IEEE-802.11]. In IEEE
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 21
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
802.11, TSKs are derived from the MSK using a Secure Association
Protocol known as the 4-way handshake, which includes a nonce
exchange. This guarantees TSK freshness even if the MSK is
reused. The 4-way handshake also enables TSK re-key without EAP
re-authentication. PFS is only possible within IEEE 802.11 if
caching is not enabled and the negotiated EAP method supports
PFS.
IEEE 802.16e
IEEE 802.16e, defined in [IEEE-802.16e], supports caching of the
MSK, but not the EMSK, IV, Peer-Id, Server-Id, or Session-Id.
IEEE 802.16e supports a Secure Association Protocol in which
TSKs are chosen by the authenticator without any contribution by
the peer. The TSKs are encrypted, authenticated, and integrity
protected using the MSK and are transported from the
authenticator to the peer. TSK re-key is possible without EAP
re-authentication. PFS is not possible even if the negotiated
EAP method supports it.
AAA
Existing implementations and specifications for RADIUS/EAP
[RFC 3579] or Diameter EAP [RFC 4072] do not support caching of
keying material or parameters. In existing AAA clients, proxy
and server implementations, exported EAP keying material (MSK,
EMSK, and IV), as well as parameters and derived keys are not
cached and MUST be presumed lost after the AAA exchange
completes.
In order to avoid key reuse, the AAA layer MUST delete
transported keys once they are sent. The AAA layer MUST NOT
retain keys that it has previously sent. For example, a AAA
layer that has transported the MSK MUST delete it, and keys MUST
NOT be derived from the MSK from that point forward.
2.2. Authenticator and Peer Architecture
This specification does not impose constraints on the architecture of
the EAP authenticator or peer. For example, any of the authenticator
architectures described in [RFC 4118] can be used. As a result, lower
layers need to identify EAP peers and authenticators unambiguously,
without incorporating implicit assumptions about peer and
authenticator architectures.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 22
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
For example, it is possible for multiple base stations and a
"controller" (e.g., WLAN switch) to comprise a single EAP
authenticator. In such a situation, the "base station identity" is
irrelevant to the EAP method conversation, except perhaps as an
opaque blob to be used in channel binding. Many base stations can
share the same authenticator identity. An EAP authenticator or peer:
(a) can contain one or more physical or logical ports;
(b) can advertise itself as one or more "virtual" authenticators
or peers;
(c) can utilize multiple CPUs;
(d) can support clustering services for load balancing or
failover.
Both the EAP peer and authenticator can have more than one physical
or logical port. A peer can simultaneously access the network via
multiple authenticators, or via multiple physical or logical ports on
a given authenticator. Similarly, an authenticator can offer network
access to multiple peers, each via a separate physical or logical
port. When a single physical authenticator advertises itself as
multiple virtual authenticators, it is possible for a single physical
port to belong to multiple virtual authenticators.
An authenticator can be configured to communicate with more than one
EAP server, each of which is configured to communicate with a subset
of the authenticators. The situation is illustrated in Figure 3.
2.3. Authenticator Identification
The EAP method conversation is between the EAP peer and server. The
authenticator identity, if considered at all by the EAP method, is
treated as an opaque blob for the purpose of channel binding (see
Section 5.3.3). However, the authenticator identity is important in
two other exchanges - the AAA protocol exchange and the Secure
Association Protocol conversation.
The AAA conversation is between the EAP authenticator and the backend
authentication server. From the point of view of the backend
authentication server, keying material and parameters are transported
to the EAP authenticator identified by the NAS-Identifier Attribute.
Since an EAP authenticator MUST NOT share EAP keying material or
parameters with another party, if the EAP peer or backend
authentication server detects use of EAP keying material and
parameters outside the scope defined by the NAS-Identifier, the
keying material MUST be considered compromised.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 23
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
The Secure Association Protocol conversation is between the peer and
the authenticator. For lower layers that support key caching, it is
particularly important for the EAP peer, authenticator, and backend
server to have a consistent view of the usage scope of the
transported keying material. In order to enable this, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Secure Association Protocol explicitly
communicate the usage scope of the EAP keying material passed down to
the lower layer, rather than implicitly assuming that this is defined
by the authenticator and peer endpoint addresses.
+-+-+-+-+
| EAP |
| Peer |
+-+-+-+-+
| | | Peer Ports
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \ Authenticator
| | | | | | | | | Ports
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
| | | | | |
| Auth1 | | Auth2 | | Auth3 |
| | | | | |
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
\ | \ |
\ | \ |
\ | \ |
EAP over AAA \ | \ |
(optional) \ | \ |
\ | \ |
\ | \ |
\ | \ |
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+ Backend
| EAP | | EAP | Authentication
| Server1 | | Server2 | Servers
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Relationship between EAP Peer, Authenticator, and Server
Since an authenticator can have multiple ports, the scope of the
authenticator key cache cannot be described by a single endpoint
address. Similarly, where a peer can have multiple ports and sharing
of EAP keying material and parameters between peer ports of the same
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 24
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
link type is allowed, the extent of the peer key cache cannot be
communicated by using a single endpoint address. Instead, it is
RECOMMENDED that the EAP peer and authenticator consistently identify
themselves utilizing explicit identifiers, rather than endpoint
addresses or port identifiers.
AAA protocols such as RADIUS [RFC 3579] and Diameter [RFC 4072] provide
a mechanism for the identification of AAA clients; since the EAP
authenticator and AAA client MUST be co-resident, this mechanism is
applicable to the identification of EAP authenticators.
RADIUS [RFC 2865] requires that an Access-Request packet contain one
or more of the NAS-Identifier, NAS-IP-Address, and NAS-IPv6-Address
attributes. Since a NAS can have more than one IP address, the
NAS-Identifier Attribute is RECOMMENDED for explicit identification
of the authenticator, both within the AAA protocol exchange and the
Secure Association Protocol conversation.
Problems that can arise where the peer and authenticator implicitly
identify themselves using endpoint addresses include the following:
(a) It is possible that the peer will not be able to determine which
authenticator ports are associated with which authenticators.
As a result, the EAP peer will be unable to utilize the
authenticator key cache in an efficient way, and will also be
unable to determine whether EAP keying material has been shared
outside its authorized scope, and therefore needs to be
considered compromised.
(b) It is possible that the authenticator will not be able to
determine which peer ports are associated with which peers,
preventing the peer from communicating with it utilizing
multiple peer ports.
(c) It is possible that the peer will not be able to determine with
which virtual authenticator it is communicating. For example,
multiple virtual authenticators can share a MAC address, but
utilize different NAS-Identifiers.
(d) It is possible that the authenticator will not be able to
determine with which virtual peer it is communicating. Multiple
virtual peers can share a MAC address, but utilize different
Peer-Ids.
(e) It is possible that the EAP peer and server will not be able to
verify the authenticator identity via channel binding.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 25
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
For example, problems (a), (c), and (e) occur in [IEEE-802.11], which
utilizes peer and authenticator MAC addresses within the 4-way
handshake. Problems (b) and (d) do not occur since [IEEE-802.11]
only allows a virtual peer to utilize a single port.
The following steps enable lower-layer identities to be securely
verified by all parties:
(f) Specify the lower-layer parameters used to identify the
authenticator and peer. As noted earlier, endpoint or port
identifiers are not recommended for identification of the
authenticator or peer when it is possible for them to have
multiple ports.
(g) Communicate the lower-layer identities between the peer and
authenticator within phase 0. This allows the peer and
authenticator to determine the key scope if a key cache is
utilized.
(h) Communicate the lower-layer authenticator identity between the
authenticator and backend authentication server within the NAS-
Identifier Attribute.
(i) Include the lower-layer identities within channel bindings (if
supported) in phase 1a, ensuring that they are communicated
between the EAP peer and server.
(j) Support the integrity-protected exchange of identities within
phase 2a.
(k) Utilize the advertised lower-layer identities to enable the peer
and authenticator to verify that keys are maintained within the
advertised scope.
2.3.1. Virtual Authenticators
When a single physical authenticator advertises itself as multiple
virtual authenticators, if the virtual authenticators do not maintain
logically separate key caches, then by authenticating to one virtual
authenticator, the peer can gain access to the other virtual
authenticators sharing a key cache.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 26
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
For example, where a physical authenticator implements "Guest" and
"Corporate Intranet" virtual authenticators, an attacker acting as a
peer could authenticate with the "Guest" virtual authenticator and
derive EAP keying material. If the "Guest" and "Corporate Intranet"
virtual authenticators share a key cache, then the peer can utilize
the EAP keying material derived for the "Guest" network to obtain
access to the "Corporate Intranet" network.
The following steps can be taken to mitigate this vulnerability:
(a) Authenticators are REQUIRED to cache associated authorizations
along with EAP keying material and parameters and to apply
authorizations to the peer on each network access, regardless of
which virtual authenticator is being accessed. This ensures
that an attacker cannot obtain elevated privileges even where
the key cache is shared between virtual authenticators, and a
peer obtains access to one virtual authenticator utilizing a key
cache entry created for use with another virtual authenticator.
(b) It is RECOMMENDED that physical authenticators maintain separate
key caches for each virtual authenticator. This ensures that a
cache entry created for use with one virtual authenticator
cannot be used for access to another virtual authenticator.
Since a key cache entry can no longer be shared between virtual
authentications, this step provides protection beyond that
offered in (a). This is valuable in situations where
authorizations are not used to enforce access limitations. For
example, where access is limited using a filter installed on a
router rather than using authorizations provided to the
authenticator, a peer can gain unauthorized access to resources
by exploiting a shared key cache entry.
(c) It is RECOMMENDED that each virtual authenticator identify
itself consistently to the peer and to the backend
authentication server, so as to enable the peer to verify the
authenticator identity via channel binding (see Section 5.3.3).
(d) It is RECOMMENDED that each virtual authenticator identify
itself distinctly, in order to enable the peer and backend
authentication server to tell them apart. For example, this can
be accomplished by utilizing a distinct value of the NAS-
Identifier Attribute.
2.4. Peer Identification
As described in [RFC 3748] Section 7.3, the peer identity provided in
the EAP-Response/Identity can be different from the peer identities
authenticated by the EAP method. For example, the identity provided
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 27
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
in the EAP-Response/Identity can be a privacy identifier as described
in "The Network Access Identifier" [RFC 4282] Section 2. As noted in
[RFC 4284], it is also possible to utilize a Network Access Identifier
(NAI) for the purposes of source routing; an NAI utilized for source
routing is said to be "decorated" as described in [RFC 4282] Section
2.7.
When the EAP peer provides the Network Access Identity (NAI) within
the EAP-Response/Identity, as described in [RFC 3579], the
authenticator copies the NAI included in the EAP-Response/Identity
into the User-Name Attribute included within the Access-Request. As
the Access-Request is forwarded toward the backend authentication
server, AAA proxies remove decoration from the NAI included in the
User-Name Attribute; the NAI included within the
EAP-Response/Identity encapsulated in the Access-Request remains
unchanged. As a result, when the Access-Request arrives at the
backend authentication server, the EAP-Response/Identity can differ
from the User-Name Attribute (which can have some or all of the
decoration removed). In the absence of a Peer-Id, the backend
authentication server SHOULD use the contents of the User-Name
Attribute, rather than the EAP-Response/Identity, as the peer
identity.
It is possible for more than one Peer-Id to be exported by an EAP
method. For example, a peer certificate can contain more than one
peer identity; in a tunnel method, peer identities can be
authenticated within both an outer and inner exchange, and these
identities could be different in type and contents. For example, an
outer exchange could provide a Peer-Id in the form of a Relative
Distinguished Name (RDN), whereas an inner exchange could identify
the peer via its NAI or MAC address. Where EAP keying material is
determined solely from the outer exchange, only the outer Peer-Id(s)
are exported; where the EAP keying material is determined from both
the inner and outer exchanges, then both the inner and outer
Peer-Id(s) are exported by the tunnel method.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 28
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
2.5. Server Identification
It is possible for more than one Server-Id to be exported by an EAP
method. For example, a server certificate can contain more than one
server identity; in a tunnel method, server identities could be
authenticated within both an outer and inner exchange, and these
identities could be different in type and contents. For example, an
outer exchange could provide a Server-Id in the form of an IP
address, whereas an inner exchange could identify the server via its
Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) or hostname. Where EAP keying
material is determined solely from the outer exchange, only the outer
Server-Id(s) are exported by the EAP method; where the EAP keying
material is determined from both the inner and outer exchanges, then
both the inner and outer Server-Id(s) are exported by the EAP method.
As shown in Figure 3, an authenticator can be configured to
communicate with multiple EAP servers; the EAP server that an
authenticator communicates with can vary according to configuration
and network and server availability. While the EAP peer can assume
that all EAP servers within a realm have access to the credentials
necessary to validate an authentication attempt, it cannot assume
that all EAP servers share persistent state.
Authenticators can be configured with different primary or secondary
EAP servers, in order to balance the load. Also, the authenticator
can dynamically determine the EAP server to which requests will be
sent; in the event of a communication failure, the authenticator can
fail over to another EAP server. For example, in Figure 3,
Authenticator2 can be initially configured with EAP server1 as its
primary backend authentication server, and EAP server2 as the backup,
but if EAP server1 becomes unavailable, EAP server2 can become the
primary server.
In general, the EAP peer cannot direct an authentication attempt to a
particular EAP server within a realm, this decision is made by AAA
clients, nor can the peer determine with which EAP server it will be
communicating, prior to the start of the EAP method conversation.
The Server-Id is not included in the EAP-Request/Identity, and since
the EAP server may be determined dynamically, it typically is not
possible for the authenticator to advertise the Server-Id during the
discovery phase. Some EAP methods do not export the Server-Id so
that it is possible that the EAP peer will not learn with which
server it was conversing after the EAP conversation completes
successfully.
As a result, an EAP peer, on connecting to a new authenticator or
reconnecting to the same authenticator, can find itself communicating
with a different EAP server. Fast reconnect, defined in [RFC 3748]
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 29
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Section 7.2, can fail if the EAP server with which the peer
communicates is not the same one with which it initially established
a security association. For example, an EAP peer attempting an
EAP-TLS session resume can find that the new EAP-TLS server will not
have access to the TLS Master Key identified by the TLS Session-Id,
and therefore the session resumption attempt will fail, requiring
completion of a full EAP-TLS exchange.
EAP methods that export the Server-Id MUST authenticate the server.
However, not all EAP methods supporting mutual authentication provide
a non-null Server-Id; some methods only enable the EAP peer to verify
that the EAP server possesses a long-term secret, but do not provide
the identity of the EAP server. In this case, the EAP peer will know
that an authenticator has been authorized by an EAP server, but will
not confirm the identity of the EAP server. Where the EAP method
does not provide a Server-Id, the peer cannot identify the EAP server
with which it generated keying material. This can make it difficult
for the EAP peer to identify the location of a key possessed by that
EAP server.
As noted in [RFC 5216] Section 5.2, EAP methods supporting
authentication using server certificates can determine the Server-Id
from the subject or subjectAltName fields in the server certificate.
Validating the EAP server identity can help the EAP peer to decide
whether a specific EAP server is authorized. In some cases, such as
where the certificate extensions defined in [RFC 4334] are included in
the server certificate, it can even be possible for the peer to
verify some channel binding parameters from the server certificate.
It is possible for problems to arise in situations where the EAP
server identifies itself differently to the EAP peer and
authenticator. For example, it is possible that the Server-Id
exported by EAP methods will not be identical to the Fully Qualified
Domain Name (FQDN) of the backend authentication server. Where
certificate-based authentication is used within RADIUS or Diameter,
it is possible that the subjectAltName used in the backend
authentication server certificate will not be identical to the
Server-Id or backend authentication server FQDN. This is not
normally an issue in EAP, as the authenticator will be unaware of the
identities used between the EAP peer and server. However, this can
be an issue for key caching, if the authenticator is expected to
locate a backend authentication server corresponding to a Server-Id
provided by an EAP peer.
Where the backend authentication server FQDN differs from the
subjectAltName in the backend authentication server certificate, it
is possible that the AAA client will not be able to determine whether
it is talking to the correct backend authentication server. Where
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 30
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
the Server-Id and backend authentication server FQDN differ, it is
possible that the combination of the key scope (Peer-Id(s), Server-
Id(s)) and EAP conversation identifier (Session-Id) will not be
sufficient to determine where the key resides. For example, the
authenticator can identify backend authentication servers by their IP
address (as occurs in RADIUS), or using a Fully Qualified Domain Name
(as in Diameter). If the Server-Id does not correspond to the IP
address or FQDN of a known backend authentication server, then it may
not be possible to locate which backend authentication server
possesses the key.
3. Security Association Management
EAP, as defined in [RFC 3748], supports key derivation, but does not
provide for the management of lower-layer security associations.
Missing functionality includes:
(a) Security Association negotiation. EAP does not negotiate
lower-layer unicast or multicast security associations,
including cryptographic algorithms or traffic profiles. EAP
methods only negotiate cryptographic algorithms for their own
use, not for the underlying lower layers. EAP also does not
negotiate the traffic profiles to be protected with the
negotiated ciphersuites; in some cases the traffic to be
protected can have lower-layer source and destination addresses
different from the lower-layer peer or authenticator addresses.
(b) Re-key. EAP does not support the re-keying of exported EAP
keying material without EAP re-authentication, although EAP
methods can support "fast reconnect" as defined in [RFC 3748]
Section 7.2.1.
(c) Key delete/install semantics. EAP does not synchronize
installation or deletion of keying material on the EAP peer and
authenticator.
(d) Lifetime negotiation. EAP does not support lifetime negotiation
for exported EAP keying material, and existing EAP methods also
do not support key lifetime negotiation.
(e) Guaranteed TSK freshness. Without a post-EAP handshake, TSKs
can be reused if EAP keying material is cached.
These deficiencies are typically addressed via a post-EAP handshake
known as the Secure Association Protocol.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 31
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
3.1. Secure Association Protocol
Since neither EAP nor EAP methods provide for establishment of
lower-layer security associations, it is RECOMMENDED that these
facilities be provided within the Secure Association Protocol,
including:
(a) Entity Naming. A basic feature of a Secure Association Protocol
is the explicit naming of the parties engaged in the exchange.
Without explicit identification, the parties engaged in the
exchange are not identified and the scope of the EAP keying
parameters negotiated during the EAP exchange is undefined.
(b) Mutual proof of possession of EAP keying material. During the
Secure Association Protocol, the EAP peer and authenticator MUST
demonstrate possession of the keying material transported
between the backend authentication server and authenticator
(e.g., MSK), in order to demonstrate that the peer and
authenticator have been authorized. Since mutual proof of
possession is not the same as mutual authentication, the peer
cannot verify authenticator assertions (including the
authenticator identity) as a result of this exchange.
Authenticator identity verification is discussed in Section 2.3.
(c) Secure capabilities negotiation. In order to protect against
spoofing during the discovery phase, ensure selection of the
"best" ciphersuite, and protect against forging of negotiated
security parameters, the Secure Association Protocol MUST
support secure capabilities negotiation. This includes the
secure negotiation of usage modes, session parameters (such as
security association identifiers (SAIDs) and key lifetimes),
ciphersuites and required filters, including confirmation of
security-relevant capabilities discovered during phase 0. The
Secure Association Protocol MUST support integrity and replay
protection of all capability negotiation messages.
(d) Key naming and selection. Where key caching is supported, it is
possible for the EAP peer and authenticator to share more than
one key of a given type. As a result, the Secure Association
Protocol MUST explicitly name the keys used in the proof of
possession exchange, so as to prevent confusion when more than
one set of keying material could potentially be used as the
basis for the exchange. Use of the key naming mechanism
described in Section 1.4.1 is RECOMMENDED.
In order to support the correct processing of phase 2 security
associations, the Secure Association (phase 2) protocol MUST
support the naming of phase 2 security associations and
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 32
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
associated transient session keys so that the correct set of
transient session keys can be identified for processing a given
packet. The phase 2 Secure Association Protocol also MUST
support transient session key activation and SHOULD support
deletion so that establishment and re-establishment of transient
session keys can be synchronized between the parties.
(e) Generation of fresh transient session keys (TSKs). Where the
lower layer supports caching of keying material, the EAP peer
lower layer can initiate a new session using keying material
that was derived in a previous session. Were the TSKs to be
derived solely from a portion of the exported EAP keying
material, this would result in reuse of the session keys that
could expose the underlying ciphersuite to attack.
In lower layers where caching of keying material is supported,
the Secure Association Protocol phase is REQUIRED, and MUST
support the derivation of fresh unicast and multicast TSKs, even
when the transported keying material provided by the backend
authentication server is not fresh. This is typically supported
via the exchange of nonces or counters, which are then mixed
with the keying material in order to generate fresh unicast
(phase 2a) and possibly multicast (phase 2b) session keys. By
not using exported EAP keying material directly to protect data,
the Secure Association Protocol protects it against compromise.
(f) Key lifetime management. This includes explicit key lifetime
negotiation or seamless re-key. EAP does not support the
re-keying of EAP keying material without re-authentication, and
existing EAP methods do not support key lifetime negotiation.
As a result, the Secure Association Protocol MAY handle the
re-key and determination of the key lifetime. Where key caching
is supported, secure negotiation of key lifetimes is
RECOMMENDED. Lower layers that support re-key, but not key
caching, may not require key lifetime negotiation. For example,
a difference between IKEv1 [RFC 2409] and IKEv2 [RFC 4306] is that
in IKEv1 SA lifetimes were negotiated; in IKEv2, each end of the
SA is responsible for enforcing its own lifetime policy on the
SA and re-keying the SA when necessary.
(g) Key state resynchronization. It is possible for the peer or
authenticator to reboot or reclaim resources, clearing portions
or all of the key cache. Therefore, key lifetime negotiation
cannot guarantee that the key cache will remain synchronized,
and it may not be possible for the peer to determine before
attempting to use a key whether it exists within the
authenticator cache. It is therefore RECOMMENDED for the EAP
lower layer to provide a mechanism for key state
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 33
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
resynchronization, either via the SAP or using a lower layer
indication (see [RFC 3748] Section 3.4). Where the peer and
authenticator do not jointly possess a key with which to protect
the resynchronization exchange, secure resynchronization is not
possible, and alternatives (such as an initiation of EAP
re-authentication after expiration of a timer) are needed to
ensure timely resynchronization.
(h) Key scope synchronization. To support key scope determination,
the Secure Association Protocol SHOULD provide a mechanism by
which the peer can determine the scope of the key cache on each
authenticator and by which the authenticator can determine the
scope of the key cache on a peer. This includes negotiation of
restrictions on key usage.
(i) Traffic profile negotiation. The traffic to be protected by a
lower-layer security association will not necessarily have the
same lower-layer source or destination address as the EAP peer
and authenticator, and it is possible for the peer and
authenticator to negotiate multiple security associations, each
with a different traffic profile. Where this is the case, the
profile of protected traffic SHOULD be explicitly negotiated.
For example, in IKEv2 it is possible for an Initiator and
Responder to utilize EAP for authentication, then negotiate a
Tunnel Mode Security Association (SA), which permits passing of
traffic originating from hosts other than the Initiator and
Responder. Similarly, in IEEE 802.16e, a Subscriber Station
(SS) can forward traffic to the Base Station (BS), which
originates from the Local Area Network (LAN) to which it is
attached. To enable this, Security Associations within IEEE
802.16e are identified by the Connection Identifier (CID), not
by the EAP peer and authenticator MAC addresses. In both IKEv2
and IEEE 802.16e, multiple security associations can exist
between the EAP peer and authenticator, each with their own
traffic profile and quality of service parameters.
(j) Direct operation. Since the phase 2 Secure Association Protocol
is concerned with the establishment of security associations
between the EAP peer and authenticator, including the derivation
of transient session keys, only those parties have "a need to
know" the transient session keys. The Secure Association
Protocol MUST operate directly between the peer and
authenticator and MUST NOT be passed-through to the backend
authentication server or include additional parties.
(k) Bi-directional operation. While some ciphersuites only require
a single set of transient session keys to protect traffic in
both directions, other ciphersuites require a unique set of
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 34
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
transient session keys in each direction. The phase 2 Secure
Association Protocol SHOULD provide for the derivation of
unicast and multicast keys in each direction, so as not to
require two separate phase 2 exchanges in order to create a
bi-directional phase 2 security association. See [RFC 3748]
Section 2.4 for more discussion.
3.2. Key Scope
Absent explicit specification within the lower layer, after the
completion of phase 1b, transported keying material, and parameters
are bound to the EAP peer and authenticator, but are not bound to a
specific peer or authenticator port.
While EAP keying material passed down to the lower layer is not
intrinsically bound to particular authenticator and peer ports, TSKs
MAY be bound to particular authenticator and peer ports by the Secure
Association Protocol. However, a lower layer MAY also permit TSKs to
be used on multiple peer and/or authenticator ports, provided that
TSK freshness is guaranteed (such as by keeping replay counter state
within the authenticator).
In order to further limit the key scope, the following measures are
suggested:
(a) The lower layer MAY specify additional restrictions on key
usage, such as limiting the use of EAP keying material and
parameters on the EAP peer to the port over which the EAP
conversation was conducted.
(b) The backend authentication server and authenticator MAY
implement additional attributes in order to further restrict the
scope of keying material. For example, in IEEE 802.11, the
backend authentication server can provide the authenticator with
a list of authorized Called or Calling-Station-Ids and/or SSIDs
for which keying material is valid.
(c) Where the backend authentication server provides attributes
restricting the key scope, it is RECOMMENDED that restrictions
be securely communicated by the authenticator to the peer. This
can be accomplished using the Secure Association Protocol, but
also can be accomplished via the EAP method or the lower layer.
3.3. Parent-Child Relationships
When an EAP re-authentication takes place, new EAP keying material is
exported by the EAP method. In EAP lower layers where EAP
re-authentication eventually results in TSK replacement, the maximum
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 35
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
lifetime of derived keying material (including TSKs) can be less than
or equal to that of EAP keying material (MSK/EMSK), but it cannot be
greater.
Where TSKs are derived from or are wrapped by exported EAP keying
material, compromise of that exported EAP keying material implies
compromise of TSKs. Therefore, if EAP keying material is considered
stale, not only SHOULD EAP re-authentication be initiated, but also
replacement of child keys, including TSKs.
Where EAP keying material is used only for entity authentication but
not for TSK derivation (as in IKEv2), compromise of exported EAP
keying material does not imply compromise of the TSKs. Nevertheless,
the compromise of EAP keying material could enable an attacker to
impersonate an authenticator, so that EAP re-authentication and TSK
re-key are RECOMMENDED.
With respect to IKEv2, Section 5.2 of [RFC 4718], "IKEv2
Clarifications and Implementation Guidelines", states:
Rekeying the IKE_SA and reauthentication are different concepts in
IKEv2. Rekeying the IKE_SA establishes new keys for the IKE_SA
and resets the Message ID counters, but it does not authenticate
the parties again (no AUTH or EAP payloads are involved)... This
means that reauthentication also establishes new keys for the
IKE_SA and CHILD_SAs. Therefore while rekeying can be performed
more often than reauthentication, the situation where
"authentication lifetime" is shorter than "key lifetime" does not
make sense.
Child keys that are used frequently (such as TSKs that are used for
traffic protection) can expire sooner than the exported EAP keying
material on which they are dependent, so that it is advantageous to
support re-key of child keys prior to EAP re-authentication. Note
that deletion of the MSK/EMSK does not necessarily imply deletion of
TSKs or child keys.
Failure to mutually prove possession of exported EAP keying material
during the Secure Association Protocol exchange need not be grounds
for deletion of keying material by both parties; rate-limiting Secure
Association Protocol exchanges could be used to prevent a brute force
attack.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 36
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
3.4. Local Key Lifetimes
The Transient EAP Keys (TEKs) are session keys used to protect the
EAP conversation. The TEKs are internal to the EAP method and are
not exported. TEKs are typically created during an EAP conversation,
used until the end of the conversation and then discarded. However,
methods can re-key TEKs during an EAP conversation.
When using TEKs within an EAP conversation or across conversations,
it is necessary to ensure that replay protection and key separation
requirements are fulfilled. For instance, if a replay counter is
used, TEK re-key MUST occur prior to wrapping of the counter.
Similarly, TSKs MUST remain cryptographically separate from TEKs
despite TEK re-keying or caching. This prevents TEK compromise from
leading directly to compromise of the TSKs and vice versa.
EAP methods MAY cache local EAP keying material (TEKs) that can
persist for multiple EAP conversations when fast reconnect is used
[RFC 3748]. For example, EAP methods based on TLS (such as EAP-TLS
[RFC 5216]) derive and cache the TLS Master Secret, typically for
substantial time periods. The lifetime of other local EAP keying
material calculated within the EAP method is defined by the method.
Note that in general, when using fast reconnect, there is no
guarantee that the original long-term credentials are still in the
possession of the peer. For instance, a smart-card holding the
private key for EAP-TLS may have been removed. EAP servers SHOULD
also verify that the long-term credentials are still valid, such as
by checking that certificate used in the original authentication has
not yet expired.
3.5. Exported and Calculated Key Lifetimes
The following mechanisms are available for communicating the lifetime
of keying material between the EAP peer, server, and authenticator:
AAA protocols (backend authentication server and authenticator)
Lower-layer mechanisms (authenticator and peer)
EAP method-specific negotiation (peer and server)
Where the EAP method does not support the negotiation of the lifetime
of exported EAP keying material, and a key lifetime negotiation
mechanism is not provided by the lower layer, it is possible that
there will not be a way for the peer to learn the lifetime of keying
material. This can leave the peer uncertain of how long the
authenticator will maintain keying material within the key cache. In
this case the lifetime of keying material can be managed as a system
parameter on the peer and authenticator; a default lifetime of 8
hours is RECOMMENDED.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 37
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
3.5.1. AAA Protocols
AAA protocols such as RADIUS [RFC 2865] and Diameter [RFC 4072] can be
used to communicate the maximum key lifetime from the backend
authentication server to the authenticator.
The Session-Timeout Attribute is defined for RADIUS in [RFC 2865] and
for Diameter in [RFC 4005]. Where EAP is used for authentication,
[RFC 3580] Section 3.17, indicates that a Session-Timeout Attribute
sent in an Access-Accept along with a Termination-Action value of
RADIUS-Request specifies the maximum number of seconds of service
provided prior to EAP re-authentication.
However, there is also a need to be able to specify the maximum
lifetime of cached keying material. Where EAP pre-authentication is
supported, cached keying material can be pre-established on the
authenticator prior to session start and will remain there until
expiration. EAP lower layers supporting caching of keying material
MAY also persist that material after the end of a session, enabling
the peer to subsequently resume communication utilizing the cached
keying material. In these situations it can be desirable for the
backend authentication server to specify the maximum lifetime of
cached keying material.
To accomplish this, [IEEE-802.11] overloads the Session-Timeout
Attribute, assuming that it represents the maximum time after which
transported keying material will expire on the authenticator,
regardless of whether transported keying material is cached.
An IEEE 802.11 authenticator receiving transported keying material is
expected to initialize a timer to the Session-Timeout value, and once
the timer expires, the transported keying material expires. Whether
this results in session termination or EAP re-authentication is
controlled by the value of the Termination-Action Attribute. Where
EAP re-authentication occurs, the transported keying material is
replaced, and with it, new calculated keys are put in place. Where
session termination occurs, transported and derived keying material
is deleted.
Overloading the Session-Timeout Attribute is problematic in
situations where it is necessary to control the maximum session time
and key lifetime independently. For example, it might be desirable
to limit the lifetime of cached keying material to 5 minutes while
permitting a user once authenticated to remain connected for up to an
hour without re-authenticating. As a result, in the future,
additional attributes can be specified to control the lifetime of
cached keys; these attributes MAY modify the meaning of the
Session-Timeout Attribute in specific circumstances.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 38
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Since the TSK lifetime is often determined by authenticator
resources, and the backend authentication server has no insight into
the TSK derivation process by the principle of ciphersuite
independence, it is not appropriate for the backend authentication
server to manage any aspect of the TSK derivation process, including
the TSK lifetime.
3.5.2. Lower-Layer Mechanisms
Lower-layer mechanisms can be used to enable the lifetime of keying
material to be negotiated between the peer and authenticator. This
can be accomplished either using the Secure Association Protocol or
within the lower-layer transport.
Where TSKs are established as the result of a Secure Association
Protocol exchange, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secure Association
Protocol include support for TSK re-key. Where the TSK is taken
directly from the MSK, there is no need to manage the TSK lifetime as
a separate parameter, since the TSK lifetime and MSK lifetime are
identical.
3.5.3. EAP Method-Specific Negotiation
As noted in [RFC 3748] Section 7.10:
In order to provide keying material for use in a subsequently
negotiated ciphersuite, an EAP method supporting key derivation
MUST export a Master Session Key (MSK) of at least 64 octets, and
an Extended Master Session Key (EMSK) of at least 64 octets. EAP
Methods deriving keys MUST provide for mutual authentication
between the EAP peer and the EAP Server.
However, EAP does not itself support the negotiation of lifetimes for
exported EAP keying material such as the MSK, EMSK, and IV.
While EAP itself does not support lifetime negotiation, it would be
possible to specify methods that do. However, systems that rely on
key lifetime negotiation within EAP methods would only function with
these methods. Also, there is no guarantee that the key lifetime
negotiated within the EAP method would be compatible with backend
authentication server policy. In the interest of method independence
and compatibility with backend authentication server implementations,
management of the lifetime of keying material SHOULD NOT be provided
within EAP methods.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 39
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
3.6. Key Cache Synchronization
Key lifetime negotiation alone cannot guarantee key cache
synchronization. Even where a lower-layer exchange is run
immediately after EAP in order to determine the lifetime of keying
material, it is still possible for the authenticator to purge all or
part of the key cache prematurely (e.g., due to reboot or need to
reclaim memory).
The lower layer can utilize the Discovery phase 0 to improve key
cache synchronization. For example, if the authenticator manages the
key cache by deleting the oldest key first, the relative creation
time of the last key to be deleted could be advertised within the
Discovery phase, enabling the peer to determine whether keying
material had been prematurely expired from the authenticator key
cache.
3.7. Key Strength
As noted in Section 2.1, EAP lower layers determine TSKs in different
ways. Where exported EAP keying material is utilized in the
derivation, encryption or authentication of TSKs, it is possible for
EAP key generation to represent the weakest link.
In order to ensure that methods produce EAP keying material of an
appropriate symmetric key strength, it is RECOMMENDED that EAP
methods utilizing public key cryptography choose a public key that
has a cryptographic strength providing the required level of attack
resistance. This is typically provided by configuring EAP methods,
since there is no coordination between the lower layer and EAP method
with respect to minimum required symmetric key strength.
Section 5 of BCP 86 [RFC 3766] offers advice on the required RSA or DH
module and DSA subgroup size in bits, for a given level of attack
resistance in bits. The National Institute for Standards and
Technology (NIST) also offers advice on appropriate key sizes in
[SP800-57].
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 40
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
3.8. Key Wrap
The key wrap specified in [RFC 2548], which is based on an MD5-based
stream cipher, has known problems, as described in [RFC 3579] Section
4.3. RADIUS uses the shared secret for multiple purposes, including
per-packet authentication and attribute hiding, considerable
information is exposed about the shared secret with each packet.
This exposes the shared secret to dictionary attacks. MD5 is used
both to compute the RADIUS Response Authenticator and the
Message-Authenticator Attribute, and concerns exist relating to the
security of this hash [MD5Collision].
As discussed in [RFC 3579] Section 4.3, the security vulnerabilities
of RADIUS are extensive, and therefore development of an alternative
key wrap technique based on the RADIUS shared secret would not
substantially improve security. As a result, [RFC 3579] Section 4.2
recommends running RADIUS over IPsec. The same approach is taken in
Diameter EAP [RFC 4072], which in Section 4.1.3 defines the
EAP-Master-Session-Key Attribute-Value Pair (AVP) in clear-text, to
be protected by IPsec or TLS.
4. Handoff Vulnerabilities
A handoff occurs when an EAP peer moves to a new authenticator.
Several mechanisms have been proposed for reducing handoff latency
within networks utilizing EAP. These include:
EAP pre-authentication
In EAP pre-authentication, an EAP peer pre-establishes EAP keying
material with an authenticator prior to arrival. EAP
pre-authentication only affects the timing of EAP authentication,
but does not shorten or eliminate EAP (phase 1a) or AAA (phase 1b)
exchanges; Discovery (phase 0) and Secure Association Protocol
(phase 2) exchanges occur as described in Section 1.3. As a
result, the primary benefit is to enable EAP authentication to be
removed from the handoff critical path, thereby reducing latency.
Use of EAP pre-authentication within IEEE 802.11 is described in
[IEEE-802.11] and [8021XPreAuth].
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 41
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Proactive key distribution
In proactive key distribution, keying material and authorizations
are transported from the backend authentication server to a
candidate authenticator in advance of a handoff. As a result, EAP
(phase 1a) is not needed, but the Discovery (phase 0), and Secure
Association Protocol exchanges (phase 2) are still necessary.
Within the AAA exchange (phase 1b), authorization and key
distribution functions are typically supported, but not
authentication. Proactive key distribution is described in
[MishraPro], [IEEE-03-084], and [HANDOFF].
Key caching
Caching of EAP keying material enables an EAP peer to re-attach to
an authenticator without requiring EAP (phase 1a) or AAA (phase
1b) exchanges. However, Discovery (phase 0) and Secure
Association Protocol (phase 2) exchanges are still needed. Use of
key caching within IEEE 802.11 is described in [IEEE-802.11].
Context transfer
In context transfer schemes, keying material and authorizations
are transferred between a previous authenticator and a new
authenticator. This can occur in response to a handoff request by
the EAP peer, or in advance, as in proactive key distribution. As
a result, EAP (phase 1a) is eliminated, but not the Discovery
(phase 0) or Secure Association Protocol exchanges (phase 2). If
a secure channel can be established between the new and previous
authenticator without assistance from the backend authentication
server, then the AAA exchange (phase 1b) can be eliminated;
otherwise, it is still needed, although it can be shortened.
Context transfer protocols are described in [IEEE-802.11F] (now
deprecated) and "Context Transfer Protocol (CXTP)" [RFC 4067].
"Fast Authentication Methods for Handovers between IEEE 802.11
Wireless LANs" [Bargh] analyzes fast handoff techniques, including
context transfer mechanisms.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 42
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Token distribution
In token distribution schemes, the EAP peer is provided with a
credential, subsequently enabling it to authenticate with one or
more additional authenticators. During the subsequent
authentications, EAP (phase 1a) is eliminated or shortened; the
Discovery (phase 0) and Secure Association Protocol exchanges
(phase 2) still occur, although the latter can be shortened. If
the token includes authorizations and can be validated by an
authenticator without assistance from the backend authentication
server, then the AAA exchange (phase 1b) can be eliminated;
otherwise, it is still needed, although it can be shortened.
Token-based schemes, initially proposed in early versions of IEEE
802.11i [IEEE-802.11i], are described in [Token], [Tokenk], and
[SHORT-TERM].
The sections that follow discuss the security vulnerabilities
introduced by the above schemes.
4.1. EAP Pre-Authentication
EAP pre-authentication differs from a normal EAP conversation
primarily with respect to the lower-layer encapsulation. For
example, in [IEEE-802.11], EAP pre-authentication frames utilize a
distinct Ethertype, but otherwise conforms to the encapsulation
described in [IEEE-802.1X]. As a result, an EAP pre-authentication
conversation differs little from the model described in Section 1.3,
other than the introduction of a delay between phase 1 and phase 2.
EAP pre-authentication relies on lower-layer mechanisms for discovery
of candidate authenticators. Where discovery can provide information
on candidate authenticators outside the immediate listening range,
and the peer can determine whether it already possesses valid EAP
keying material with candidate authenticators, the peer can avoid
unnecessary EAP pre-authentications and can establish EAP keying
material well in advance, regardless of the coverage overlap between
authenticators. However, if the peer can only discover candidate
authenticators within listening range and cannot determine whether it
can reuse existing EAP keying material, then it is possible that the
peer will not be able to complete EAP pre-authentication prior to
connectivity loss or that it can pre-authenticate multiple times with
the same authenticator, increasing backend authentication server
load.
Since a peer can complete EAP pre-authentication with an
authenticator without eventually attaching to it, it is possible that
phase 2 will not occur. In this case, an Accounting-Request
signifying the start of service will not be sent, or will only be
sent with a substantial delay after the completion of authentication.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 43
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
As noted in "IEEE 802.1X RADIUS Usage Guidelines" [RFC 3580], the AAA
exchange resulting from EAP pre-authentication differs little from an
ordinary exchange described in "RADIUS Support for EAP" [RFC 3579].
For example, since in IEEE 802.11 [IEEE-802.11] an Association
exchange does not occur prior to EAP pre-authentication, the SSID is
not known by the authenticator at authentication time, so that an
Access-Request cannot include the SSID within the Called-Station-Id
attribute as described in [RFC 3580] Section 3.20.
Since only the absence of an SSID in the Called-Station-Id attribute
distinguishes an EAP pre-authentication attempt, if the authenticator
does not always include the SSID for a normal EAP authentication
attempt, it is possible that the backend authentication server will
not be able to determine whether a session constitutes an EAP
pre-authentication attempt, potentially resulting in authorization or
accounting problems. Where the number of simultaneous sessions is
limited, the backend authentication server can refuse to authorize a
valid EAP pre-authentication attempt or can enable the peer to engage
in more simultaneous sessions than they are authorized for. Where
EAP pre-authentication occurs with an authenticator which the peer
never attaches to, it is possible that the backend accounting server
will not be able to determine whether the absence of an
Accounting-Request was due to packet loss or a session that never
started.
In order to enable pre-authentication requests to be handled more
reliably, it is RECOMMENDED that AAA protocols explicitly identify
EAP pre-authentication. In order to suppress unnecessary EAP
pre-authentication exchanges, it is RECOMMENDED that authenticators
unambiguously identify themselves as described in Section 2.3.
4.2. Proactive Key Distribution
In proactive key distribution schemes, the backend authentication
server transports keying material and authorizations to an
authenticator in advance of the arrival of the peer. The
authenticators selected to receive the transported key material are
selected based on past patterns of peer movement between
authenticators known as the "neighbor graph". In order to reduce
handoff latency, proactive key distribution schemes typically only
demonstrate proof of possession of transported keying material
between the EAP peer and authenticator. During a handoff, the
backend authentication server is not provided with proof that the
peer successfully authenticated to an authenticator; instead, the
authenticator generates a stream of accounting messages without a
corresponding set of authentication exchanges. As described in
[MishraPro], knowledge of the neighbor graph can be established via
static configuration or analysis of authentication exchanges. In
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 44
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
order to prevent corruption of the neighbor graph, new neighbor graph
entries can only be created as the result of a successful EAP
exchange, and accounting packets with no corresponding authentication
exchange need to be verified to correspond to neighbor graph entries
(e.g., corresponding to handoffs between neighbors).
In order to prevent compromise of one authenticator from resulting in
compromise of other authenticators, cryptographic separation needs to
be maintained between the keying material transported to each
authenticator. However, even where cryptographic separation is
maintained, an attacker compromising an authenticator can still
disrupt the operation of other authenticators. As noted in [RFC 3579]
Section 4.3.7, in the absence of spoofing detection within the AAA
infrastructure, it is possible for EAP authenticators to impersonate
each other. By forging NAS identification attributes within
authentication messages, an attacker compromising one authenticator
could corrupt the neighbor graph, tricking the backend authentication
server into transporting keying material to arbitrary authenticators.
While this would not enable recovery of EAP keying material without
breaking fundamental cryptographic assumptions, it could enable
subsequent fraudulent accounting messages, or allow an attacker to
disrupt service by increasing load on the backend authentication
server or thrashing the authenticator key cache.
Since proactive key distribution requires the distribution of derived
keying material to candidate authenticators, the effectiveness of
this scheme depends on the ability of backend authentication server
to anticipate the movement of the EAP peer. Since proactive key
distribution relies on backend authentication server knowledge of the
neighbor graph, it is most applicable to intra-domain handoff
scenarios. However, in inter-domain handoff, where there can be many
authenticators, peers can frequently connect to authenticators that
have not been previously encountered, making it difficult for the
backend authentication server to derive a complete neighbor graph.
Since proactive key distribution schemes typically require
introduction of server-initiated messages as described in [RFC 5176]
and [HANDOFF], security issues described in [RFC 5176] Section 6 are
applicable, including authorization (Section 6.1) and replay
detection (Section 6.3) problems.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 45
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
4.3. AAA Bypass
Fast handoff techniques that enable elimination of the AAA exchange
(phase 1b) differ fundamentally from typical network access scenarios
(dial-up, wired LAN, etc.) that include user authentication as well
as authorization for the offered service. Where the AAA exchange
(phase 1b) is omitted, authorizations and keying material are not
provided by the backend authentication server, and as a result, they
need to be supplied by other means. This section describes some of
the implications.
4.3.1. Key Transport
Where transported keying material is not supplied by the backend
authentication server, it needs to be provided by another party
authorized to access that keying material. As noted in Section 1.5,
only the EAP peer, authenticator, and server are authorized to
possess transported keying material. Since EAP peers do not trust
each other, if the backend authentication server does not supply
transported keying material to a new authenticator, it can only be
provided by a previous authenticator.
As noted in Section 1.5, the goal of the EAP conversation is to
derive session keys known only to the peer and the authenticator. If
keying material is replicated between a previous authenticator and a
new authenticator, then the previous authenticator can possess
session keys used between the peer and new authenticator. Also, the
new authenticator can possess session keys used between the peer and
the previous authenticator.
If a one-way function is used to derive the keying material to be
transported to the new authenticator, then the new authenticator
cannot possess previous session keys without breaking a fundamental
cryptographic assumption.
4.3.2. Authorization
As a part of the authentication process, the backend authentication
server determines the user's authorization profile and transmits the
authorizations to the authenticator along with the transported keying
material. Typically, the profile is determined based on the user
identity, but a certificate presented by the user can also provide
authorization information.
The backend authentication server is responsible for making a user
authorization decision, which requires answering the following
questions:
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 46
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
(a) Is this a legitimate user of this network?
(b) Is the user allowed to access this network?
(c) Is the user permitted to access this network on this day and at
this time?
(d) Is the user within the concurrent session limit?
(e) Are there any fraud, credit limit, or other concerns that could
lead to access denial?
(f) If access is to be granted, what are the service parameters
(mandatory tunneling, bandwidth, filters, and so on) to be
provisioned for the user?
While the authorization decision is, in principle, simple, the
distributed decision making process can add complexity. Where
brokers or proxies are involved, all of the AAA entities in the chain
from the authenticator to the home backend authentication server are
involved in the decision. For example, a broker can deny access even
if the home backend authentication server would allow it, or a proxy
can add authorizations (e.g., bandwidth limits).
Decisions can be based on static policy definitions and profiles as
well as dynamic state (e.g., time of day or concurrent session
limits). In addition to the Accept/Reject decisions made by AAA
entities, service parameters or constraints can be communicated to
the authenticator.
The criteria for Accept/Reject decisions or the reasons for choosing
particular authorizations are typically not communicated to the
authenticator, only the final result is. As a result, the
authenticator has no way to know on what the decision was based. Was
a set of authorization parameters sent because this service is always
provided to the user, or was the decision based on the time of day
and the capabilities of the authenticator?
4.3.3. Correctness
When the AAA exchange (phase 1b) is bypassed, several challenges
arise in ensuring correct authorization:
Theft of service
Bypassing the AAA exchange (phase 1b) SHOULD NOT enable a user to
extend their network access or gain access to services they are
not entitled to.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 47
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Consideration of network-wide state
Handoff techniques SHOULD NOT render the backend authentication
server incapable of keeping track of network-wide state. For
example, a backend authentication server can need to keep track of
simultaneous user sessions.
Elevation of privilege
Backend authentication servers often perform conditional
evaluation, in which the authorizations returned in an
Access-Accept message are contingent on the authenticator or on
dynamic state such as the time of day. In this situation,
bypassing the AAA exchange could enable unauthorized access unless
the restrictions are explicitly encoded within the authorizations
provided by the backend authentication server.
A handoff mechanism that provides proper authorization is said to be
"correct". One condition for correctness is as follows:
For a handoff to be "correct" it MUST establish on the new
authenticator the same authorizations as would have been created
had the new authenticator completed a AAA conversation with the
backend authentication server.
A properly designed handoff scheme will only succeed if it is
"correct" in this way. If a successful handoff would establish
"incorrect" authorizations, it is preferable for it to fail. Where
the supported services differ between authenticators, a handoff that
bypasses the backend authentication server is likely to fail.
Section 1.1 of [RFC 2865] states:
A authenticator that does not implement a given service MUST NOT
implement the RADIUS attributes for that service. For example, a
authenticator that is unable to offer ARAP service MUST NOT
implement the RADIUS attributes for ARAP. A authenticator MUST
treat a RADIUS access-accept authorizing an unavailable service as
an access-reject instead.
This behavior applies to attributes that are known, but not
implemented. For attributes that are unknown, Section 5 of [RFC 2865]
states:
A RADIUS server MAY ignore Attributes with an unknown Type. A
RADIUS client MAY ignore Attributes with an unknown Type.
In order to perform a correct handoff, if a new authenticator is
provided with RADIUS authorizations for a known but unavailable
service, then it MUST process these authorizations the same way it
would handle a RADIUS Access-Accept requesting an unavailable
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 48
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
service; this MUST cause the handoff to fail. However, if a new
authenticator is provided with authorizations including unknown
attributes, then these attributes MAY be ignored. The definition of
a "known but unsupported service" MUST encompass requests for
unavailable security services. This includes vendor-specific
attributes related to security, such as those described in [RFC 2548].
Although it can seem somewhat counter-intuitive, failure is indeed
the "correct" result where a known but unsupported service is
requested.
Presumably, a correctly configured backend authentication server
would not request that an authenticator provide a service that it
does not implement. This implies that if the new authenticator were
to complete a AAA conversation, it would be likely to receive
different service instructions. Failure of the handoff is the
desired result since it will cause the new authenticator to go back
to the backend server in order to receive the appropriate service
definition.
Handoff mechanisms that bypass the backend authentication server are
most likely to be successful when employed in a homogeneous
deployment within a single administrative domain. In a heterogeneous
deployment, the backend authentication server can return different
authorizations depending on the authenticator making the request in
order to make sure that the requested service is consistent with the
authenticator capabilities. Where a backend authentication server
would send different authorizations to the new authenticator than
were sent to a previous authenticator, transferring authorizations
between the previous authenticator and the new authenticator will
result in incorrect authorization.
Virtual LAN (VLAN) support is defined in [IEEE-802.1Q]; RADIUS
support for dynamic VLANs is described in [RFC 3580] and [RFC 4675].
If some authenticators support dynamic VLANs while others do not,
then attributes present in the Access-Request (such as the
NAS-Port-Type, NAS-IP-Address, NAS-IPv6-Address, and NAS-Identifier)
could be examined by the backend authentication server to determine
when VLAN attributes will be returned, and if so, which ones.
However, if the backend authenticator is bypassed, then a handoff
occurring between authenticators supporting different VLAN
capabilities could result in a user obtaining access to an
unauthorized VLAN (e.g., a user with access to a guest VLAN being
given unrestricted access to the network).
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 49
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Similarly, it is preferable for a handoff between an authenticator
providing confidentiality and another that does not to fail, since if
the handoff were successful, the user would be moved from a secure to
an insecure channel without permission from the backend
authentication server.
5. Security Considerations
The EAP threat model is described in [RFC 3748] Section 7.1. The
security properties of EAP methods (known as "security claims") are
described in [RFC 3748] Section 7.2.1. EAP method requirements for
applications such as Wireless LAN authentication are described in
[RFC 4017]. The RADIUS threat model is described in [RFC 3579] Section
4.1, and responses to these threats are described in [RFC 3579],
Sections 4.2 and 4.3.
However, in addition to threats against EAP and AAA, there are other
system level threats. In developing the threat model, it is assumed
that:
All traffic is visible to the attacker.
The attacker can alter, forge, or replay messages.
The attacker can reroute messages to another principal.
The attacker can be a principal or an outsider.
The attacker can compromise any key that is sufficiently old.
Threats arising from these assumptions include:
(a) An attacker can compromise or steal an EAP peer or
authenticator, in an attempt to gain access to other EAP peers
or authenticators or to obtain long-term secrets.
(b) An attacker can attempt a downgrade attack in order to exploit
known weaknesses in an authentication method or cryptographic
algorithm.
(c) An attacker can try to modify or spoof packets, including
Discovery or Secure Association Protocol frames, EAP or AAA
packets.
(d) An attacker can attempt to induce an EAP peer, authenticator, or
server to disclose keying material to an unauthorized party, or
utilize keying material outside the context that it was intended
for.
(e) An attacker can alter, forge, or replay packets.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 50
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
(f) An attacker can cause an EAP peer, authenticator, or server to
reuse a stale key. Use of stale keys can also occur
unintentionally. For example, a poorly implemented backend
authentication server can provide stale keying material to an
authenticator, or a poorly implemented authenticator can reuse
nonces.
(g) An authenticated attacker can attempt to obtain elevated
privilege in order to access information that it does not have
rights to.
(h) An attacker can attempt a man-in-the-middle attack in order to
gain access to the network.
(i) An attacker can compromise an EAP authenticator in an effort to
commit fraud. For example, a compromised authenticator can
provide incorrect information to the EAP peer and/or server via
out-of-band mechanisms (such as via a AAA or lower-layer
protocol). This includes impersonating another authenticator,
or providing inconsistent information to the peer and EAP
server.
(j) An attacker can launch a denial-of-service attack against the
EAP peer, authenticator, or backend authentication server.
In order to address these threats, [RFC 4962] Section 3 describes
required and recommended security properties. The sections that
follow analyze the compliance of EAP methods, AAA protocols, and
Secure Association Protocols with those guidelines.
5.1. Peer and Authenticator Compromise
Requirement: In the event that an authenticator is compromised or
stolen, an attacker can gain access to the network through that
authenticator, or can obtain the credentials needed for the
authenticator/AAA client to communicate with one or more backend
authentication servers. Similarly, if a peer is compromised or
stolen, an attacker can obtain credentials needed to communicate with
one or more authenticators. A mandatory requirement from [RFC 4962]
Section 3:
Prevent the Domino effect
Compromise of a single peer MUST NOT compromise keying material
held by any other peer within the system, including session keys
and long-term keys. Likewise, compromise of a single
authenticator MUST NOT compromise keying material held by any
other authenticator within the system. In the context of a key
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 51
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
hierarchy, this means that the compromise of one node in the key
hierarchy must not disclose the information necessary to
compromise other branches in the key hierarchy. Obviously, the
compromise of the root of the key hierarchy will compromise all of
the keys; however, a compromise in one branch MUST NOT result in
the compromise of other branches. There are many implications of
this requirement; however, two implications deserve highlighting.
First, the scope of the keying material must be defined and
understood by all parties that communicate with a party that holds
that keying material. Second, a party that holds keying material
in a key hierarchy must not share that keying material with
parties that are associated with other branches in the key
hierarchy.
Group keys are an obvious exception. Since all members of the
group have a copy of the same key, compromise of any one of the
group members will result in the disclosure of the group key.
Some of the implications of the requirement are as follows:
Key Sharing
In order to be able to determine whether keying material has
been shared, it is necessary for the identity of the EAP
authenticator (NAS-Identifier) to be defined and understood by
all parties that communicate with it. EAP lower-layer
specifications such as [IEEE-802.11], [IEEE-802.16e],
[IEEE-802.1X], IKEv2 [RFC 4306], and PPP [RFC 1661] do not involve
key sharing.
AAA Credential Sharing
AAA credentials (such as RADIUS shared secrets, IPsec pre-shared
keys or certificates) MUST NOT be shared between AAA clients,
since if one AAA client were compromised, this would enable an
attacker to impersonate other AAA clients to the backend
authentication server, or even to impersonate a backend
authentication server to other AAA clients.
Compromise of Long-Term Credentials
An attacker obtaining keying material (such as TSKs, TEKs, or
the MSK) MUST NOT be able to obtain long-term user credentials
such as pre-shared keys, passwords, or private-keys without
breaking a fundamental cryptographic assumption. The mandatory
requirements of [RFC 4017] Section 2.2 include generation of EAP
keying material, capability to generate EAP keying material with
128 bits of effective strength, resistance to dictionary
attacks, shared state equivalence, and protection against
man-in-the-middle attacks.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 52
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
5.2. Cryptographic Negotiation
Mandatory requirements from [RFC 4962] Section 3:
Cryptographic algorithm independent
The AAA key management protocol MUST be cryptographic algorithm
independent. However, an EAP method MAY depend on a specific
cryptographic algorithm. The ability to negotiate the use of a
particular cryptographic algorithm provides resilience against
compromise of a particular cryptographic algorithm. Algorithm
independence is also REQUIRED with a Secure Association Protocol
if one is defined. This is usually accomplished by including an
algorithm identifier and parameters in the protocol, and by
specifying the algorithm requirements in the protocol
specification. While highly desirable, the ability to negotiate
key derivation functions (KDFs) is not required. For
interoperability, at least one suite of mandatory-to-implement
algorithms MUST be selected. Note that without protection by
IPsec as described in [RFC 3579] Section 4.2, RADIUS [RFC 2865] does
not meet this requirement, since the integrity protection
algorithm cannot be negotiated.
This requirement does not mean that a protocol must support both
public-key and symmetric-key cryptographic algorithms. It means
that the protocol needs to be structured in such a way that
multiple public-key algorithms can be used whenever a public-key
algorithm is employed. Likewise, it means that the protocol needs
to be structured in such a way that multiple symmetric-key
algorithms can be used whenever a symmetric-key algorithm is
employed.
Confirm ciphersuite selection
The selection of the "best" ciphersuite SHOULD be securely
confirmed. The mechanism SHOULD detect attempted roll-back
attacks.
EAP methods satisfying [RFC 4017] Section 2.2 mandatory requirements
and AAA protocols utilizing transmission-layer security are capable
of addressing downgrade attacks. [RFC 3748] Section 7.2.1 describes
the "protected ciphersuite negotiation" security claim that refers to
the ability of an EAP method to negotiate the ciphersuite used to
protect the EAP method conversation, as well as to integrity protect
the ciphersuite negotiation. [RFC 4017] Section 2.2 requires EAP
methods satisfying this security claim. Since TLS v1.2 [RFC 5246] and
IKEv2 [RFC 4306] support negotiation of Key Derivation Functions
(KDFs), EAP methods based on TLS or IKEv2 will, if properly designed,
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 53
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
inherit this capability. However, negotiation of KDFs is not
required by RFC 4962 [RFC 4962], and EAP methods based on neither TLS
nor IKEv2 typically do not support KDF negotiation.
When AAA protocols utilize TLS [RFC 5246] or IPsec [RFC 4301] for
transmission layer security, they can leverage the cryptographic
algorithm negotiation support provided by IKEv2 [RFC 4306] or TLS
[RFC 5246]. RADIUS [RFC 3579] by itself does not support cryptographic
algorithm negotiation and relies on MD5 for integrity protection,
authentication, and confidentiality. Given the known weaknesses in
MD5 [MD5Collision], this is undesirable, and can be addressed via use
of RADIUS over IPsec, as described in [RFC 3579] Section 4.2.
To ensure against downgrade attacks within lower-layer protocols,
algorithm independence is REQUIRED with lower layers using EAP for
key derivation. For interoperability, at least one suite of
mandatory-to-implement algorithms MUST be selected. Lower-layer
protocols supporting EAP for key derivation SHOULD also support
secure ciphersuite negotiation as well as KDF negotiation.
As described in [RFC 1968], PPP ECP does not support secure
ciphersuite negotiation. While [IEEE-802.16e] and [IEEE-802.11]
support ciphersuite negotiation for protection of data, they do not
support negotiation of the cryptographic primitives used within the
Secure Association Protocol, such as message integrity checks (MICs)
and KDFs.
5.3. Confidentiality and Authentication
Mandatory requirements from [RFC 4962] Section 3:
Authenticate all parties
Each party in the AAA key management protocol MUST be
authenticated to the other parties with whom they communicate.
Authentication mechanisms MUST maintain the confidentiality of any
secret values used in the authentication process. When a secure
association protocol is used to establish session keys, the
parties involved in the secure association protocol MUST identify
themselves using identities that are meaningful in the lower-layer
protocol environment that will employ the session keys. In this
situation, the authenticator and peer may be known by different
identifiers in the AAA protocol environment and the lower-layer
protocol environment, making authorization decisions difficult
without a clear key scope. If the lower-layer identifier of the
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 54
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
peer will be used to make authorization decisions, then the pair
of identifiers associated with the peer MUST be authorized by the
authenticator and/or the AAA server.
AAA protocols, such as RADIUS [RFC 2865] and Diameter [RFC 3588],
provide a mechanism for the identification of AAA clients; since
the EAP authenticator and AAA client are always co-resident, this
mechanism is applicable to the identification of EAP
authenticators.
When multiple base stations and a "controller" (such as a WLAN
switch) comprise a single EAP authenticator, the "base station
identity" is not relevant; the EAP method conversation takes place
between the EAP peer and the EAP server. Also, many base stations
can share the same authenticator identity. The authenticator
identity is important in the AAA protocol exchange and the secure
association protocol conversation.
Authentication mechanisms MUST NOT employ plaintext passwords.
Passwords may be used provided that they are not sent to another
party without confidentiality protection.
Keying material confidentiality and integrity
While preserving algorithm independence, confidentiality and
integrity of all keying material MUST be maintained.
Conformance to these requirements is analyzed in the sections that
follow.
5.3.1. Spoofing
Per-packet authentication and integrity protection provides
protection against spoofing attacks.
Diameter [RFC 3588] provides support for per-packet authentication and
integrity protection via use of IPsec or TLS. RADIUS/EAP [RFC 3579]
provides for per-packet authentication and integrity protection via
use of the Message-Authenticator Attribute.
[RFC 3748] Section 7.2.1 describes the "integrity protection" security
claim and [RFC 4017] Section 2.2 requires EAP methods supporting this
claim.
In order to prevent forgery of Secure Association Protocol frames,
per-frame authentication and integrity protection is RECOMMENDED on
all messages. IKEv2 [RFC 4306] supports per-frame integrity
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 55
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
protection and authentication, as does the Secure Association
Protocol defined in [IEEE-802.16e]. [IEEE-802.11] supports per-frame
integrity protection and authentication on all messages within the
4-way handshake except the first message. An attack leveraging this
omission is described in [Analysis].
5.3.2. Impersonation
Both RADIUS [RFC 2865] and Diameter [RFC 3588] implementations are
potentially vulnerable to a rogue authenticator impersonating another
authenticator. While both protocols support mutual authentication
between the AAA client/authenticator and the backend authentication
server, the security mechanisms vary.
In RADIUS, the shared secret used for authentication is determined by
the source address of the RADIUS packet. However, when RADIUS
Access-Requests are forwarded by a proxy, the NAS-IP-Address,
NAS-Identifier, or NAS-IPv6-Address attributes received by the RADIUS
server will not correspond to the source address. As noted in
[RFC 3579] Section 4.3.7, if the first-hop proxy does not check the
NAS identification attributes against the source address in the
Access-Request packet, it is possible for a rogue authenticator to
forge NAS-IP-Address [RFC 2865], NAS-IPv6-Address [RFC 3162], or
NAS-Identifier [RFC 2865] attributes in order to impersonate another
authenticator; attributes such as the Called-Station-Id [RFC 2865] and
Calling-Station-Id [RFC 2865] can be forged as well. Among other
things, this can result in messages (and transported keying material)
being sent to the wrong authenticator.
While [RFC 3588] requires use of the Route-Record AVP, this utilizes
Fully Qualified Domain Names (FQDNs), so that impersonation detection
requires DNS A, AAAA, and PTR Resource Records (RRs) to be properly
configured. As a result, Diameter is as vulnerable to this attack as
RADIUS, if not more so. [RFC 3579] Section 4.3.7 recommends
mechanisms for impersonation detection; to prevent access to keying
material by proxies without a "need to know", it is necessary to
allow the backend authentication server to communicate with the
authenticator directly, such as via the redirect functionality
supported in [RFC 3588].
5.3.3. Channel Binding
It is possible for a compromised or poorly implemented EAP
authenticator to communicate incorrect information to the EAP peer
and/or server. This can enable an authenticator to impersonate
another authenticator or communicate incorrect information via
out-of-band mechanisms (such as via AAA or the lower layer).
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 56
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Where EAP is used in pass-through mode, the EAP peer does not verify
the identity of the pass-through authenticator within the EAP
conversation. Within the Secure Association Protocol, the EAP peer
and authenticator only demonstrate mutual possession of the
transported keying material; they do not mutually authenticate. This
creates a potential security vulnerability, described in [RFC 3748]
Section 7.15.
As described in [RFC 3579] Section 4.3.7, it is possible for a
first-hop AAA proxy to detect a AAA client attempting to impersonate
another authenticator. However, it is possible for a pass-through
authenticator acting as a AAA client to provide correct information
to the backend authentication server while communicating misleading
information to the EAP peer via the lower layer.
For example, a compromised authenticator can utilize another
authenticator's Called-Station-Id or NAS-Identifier in communicating
with the EAP peer via the lower layer. Also, a pass-through
authenticator acting as a AAA client can provide an incorrect peer
Calling-Station-Id [RFC 2865] [RFC 3580] to the backend authentication
server via the AAA protocol.
As noted in [RFC 3748] Section 7.15, this vulnerability can be
addressed by EAP methods that support a protected exchange of channel
properties such as endpoint identifiers, including (but not limited
to): Called-Station-Id [RFC 2865] [RFC 3580], Calling-Station-Id
[RFC 2865] [RFC 3580], NAS-Identifier [RFC 2865], NAS-IP-Address
[RFC 2865], and NAS-IPv6-Address [RFC 3162].
Using such a protected exchange, it is possible to match the channel
properties provided by the authenticator via out-of-band mechanisms
against those exchanged within the EAP method. Typically, the EAP
method imports channel binding parameters from the lower layer on the
peer, and transmits them securely to the EAP server, which exports
them to the lower layer or AAA layer. However, transport can occur
from EAP server to peer, or can be bi-directional. On the side of
the exchange (peer or server) where channel binding is verified, the
lower layer or AAA layer passes the result of the verification (TRUE
or FALSE) up to the EAP method. While the verification can be done
either by the peer or the server, typically only the server has the
knowledge to determine the correctness of the values, as opposed to
merely verifying their equality. For further discussion, see
[EAP-SERVICE].
It is also possible to perform channel binding without transporting
data over EAP, as described in [EAP-CHANNEL]. In this approach the
EAP method includes channel binding parameters in the calculation of
exported EAP keying material, making it impossible for the peer and
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 57
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
authenticator to complete the Secure Association Protocol if there is
a mismatch in the channel binding parameters. However, this approach
can only be applied where methods generating EAP keying material are
used along with lower layers that utilize EAP keying material. For
example, this mechanism would not enable verification of channel
binding on wired IEEE 802 networks using [IEEE-802.1X].
5.3.4. Mutual Authentication
[RFC 3748] Section 7.2.1 describes the "mutual authentication" and
"dictionary attack resistance" claims, and [RFC 4017] requires EAP
methods satisfying these claims. EAP methods complying with
[RFC 4017] therefore provide for mutual authentication between the EAP
peer and server.
[RFC 3748] Section 7.2.1 also describes the "Cryptographic binding"
security claim, and [RFC 4017] Section 2.2 requires support for this
claim. As described in [EAP-BINDING], EAP method sequences and
compound authentication mechanisms can be subject to
man-in-the-middle attacks. When such attacks are successfully
carried out, the attacker acts as an intermediary between a victim
and a legitimate authenticator. This allows the attacker to
authenticate successfully to the authenticator, as well as to obtain
access to the network.
In order to prevent these attacks, [EAP-BINDING] recommends
derivation of a compound key by which the EAP peer and server can
prove that they have participated in the entire EAP exchange. Since
the compound key MUST NOT be known to an attacker posing as an
authenticator, and yet must be derived from EAP keying material, it
MAY be desirable to derive the compound key from a portion of the
EMSK. Where this is done, in order to provide proper key hygiene, it
is RECOMMENDED that the compound key used for man-in-the-middle
protection be cryptographically separate from other keys derived from
the EMSK.
Diameter [RFC 3588] provides for per-packet authentication and
integrity protection via IPsec or TLS, and RADIUS/EAP [RFC 3579] also
provides for per-packet authentication and integrity protection.
Where the authenticator/AAA client and backend authentication server
communicate directly and credible key wrap is used (see Section 3.8),
this ensures that the AAA Key Transport (phase 1b) achieves its
security objectives: mutually authenticating the AAA
client/authenticator and backend authentication server and providing
transported keying material to the EAP authenticator and to no other
party.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 58
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
[RFC 2607] Section 7 describes the security issues occurring when the
authenticator/AAA client and backend authentication server do not
communicate directly. Where a AAA intermediary is present (such as a
RADIUS proxy or a Diameter agent), and data object security is not
used, transported keying material can be recovered by an attacker in
control of the intermediary. As discussed in Section 2.1, unless the
TSKs are derived independently from EAP keying material (as in
IKEv2), possession of transported keying material enables decryption
of data traffic sent between the peer and the authenticator to whom
the keying material was transported. It also allows the AAA
intermediary to impersonate the authenticator or the peer. Since the
peer does not authenticate to a AAA intermediary, it has no ability
to determine whether it is authentic or authorized to obtain keying
material.
However, as long as transported keying material or keys derived from
it are only utilized by a single authenticator, compromise of the
transported keying material does not enable an attacker to
impersonate the peer to another authenticator. Vulnerability to
compromise of a AAA intermediary can be mitigated by implementation
of redirect functionality, as described in [RFC 3588] and [RFC 4072].
The Secure Association Protocol does not provide for mutual
authentication between the EAP peer and authenticator, only mutual
proof of possession of transported keying material. In order for the
peer to verify the identity of the authenticator, mutual proof of
possession needs to be combined with impersonation prevention and
channel binding. Impersonation prevention (described in Section
5.3.2) enables the backend authentication server to determine that
the transported keying material has been provided to the correct
authenticator. When utilized along with impersonation prevention,
channel binding (described in Section 5.3.3) enables the EAP peer to
verify that the EAP server has authorized the authenticator to
possess the transported keying material. Completion of the Secure
Association Protocol exchange demonstrates that the EAP peer and the
authenticator possess the transported keying material.
5.4. Key Binding
Mandatory requirement from [RFC 4962] Section 3:
Bind key to its context
Keying material MUST be bound to the appropriate context. The
context includes the following:
o The manner in which the keying material is expected to be used.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 59
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
o The other parties that are expected to have access to the
keying material.
o The expected lifetime of the keying material. Lifetime of a
child key SHOULD NOT be greater than the lifetime of its parent
in the key hierarchy.
Any party with legitimate access to keying material can determine
its context. In addition, the protocol MUST ensure that all
parties with legitimate access to keying material have the same
context for the keying material. This requires that the parties
are properly identified and authenticated, so that all of the
parties that have access to the keying material can be determined.
The context will include the peer and NAS identities in more than
one form. One (or more) name form is needed to identify these
parties in the authentication exchange and the AAA protocol.
Another name form may be needed to identify these parties within
the lower layer that will employ the session key.
Within EAP, exported keying material (MSK, EMSK,IV) is bound to the
Peer-Id(s) and Server-Id(s), which are exported along with the keying
material. However, not all EAP methods support authenticated server
identities (see Appendix A).
Within the AAA protocol, transported keying material is destined for
the EAP authenticator identified by the NAS-Identifier Attribute
within the request, and is for use by the EAP peer identified by the
Peer-Id(s), User-Name [RFC 2865], or Chargeable User Identity (CUI)
[RFC 4372] attributes. The maximum lifetime of the transported keying
material can be provided, as discussed in Section 3.5.1. Key usage
restrictions can also be included as described in Section 3.2. Key
lifetime issues are discussed in Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5.
5.5. Authorization
Requirement: The Secure Association Protocol (phase 2) conversation
may utilize different identifiers from the EAP conversation (phase
1a), so that binding between the EAP and Secure Association Protocol
identities is REQUIRED.
Mandatory requirement from [RFC 4962] Section 3:
Peer and authenticator authorization
Peer and authenticator authorization MUST be performed. These
entities MUST demonstrate possession of the appropriate keying
material, without disclosing it. Authorization is REQUIRED
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 60
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
whenever a peer associates with a new authenticator. The
authorization checking prevents an elevation of privilege attack,
and it ensures that an unauthorized authenticator is detected.
Authorizations SHOULD be synchronized between the peer, NAS, and
backend authentication server. Once the AAA key management
protocol exchanges are complete, all of these parties should hold
a common view of the authorizations associated with the other
parties.
In addition to authenticating all parties, key management
protocols need to demonstrate that the parties are authorized to
possess keying material. Note that proof of possession of keying
material does not necessarily prove authorization to hold that
keying material. For example, within an IEEE 802.11, the 4-way
handshake demonstrates that both the peer and authenticator
possess the same EAP keying material. However, by itself, this
possession proof does not demonstrate that the authenticator was
authorized by the backend authentication server to possess that
keying material. As noted in [RFC 3579] in Section 4.3.7, where
AAA proxies are present, it is possible for one authenticator to
impersonate another, unless each link in the AAA chain implements
checks against impersonation. Even with these checks in place, an
authenticator may still claim different identities to the peer and
the backend authentication server. As described in [RFC 3748]
Section 7.15, channel binding is required to enable the peer to
verify that the authenticator claim of identity is both consistent
and correct.
Recommendation from [RFC 4962] Section 3:
Authorization restriction
If peer authorization is restricted, then the peer SHOULD be made
aware of the restriction. Otherwise, the peer may inadvertently
attempt to circumvent the restriction. For example, authorization
restrictions in an IEEE 802.11 environment include:
o Key lifetimes, where the keying material can only be used for a
certain period of time;
o SSID restrictions, where the keying material can only be used
with a specific IEEE 802.11 SSID;
o Called-Station-ID restrictions, where the keying material can
only be used with a single IEEE 802.11 BSSID; and
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 61
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
o Calling-Station-ID restrictions, where the keying material can
only be used with a single peer IEEE 802 MAC address.
As described in Section 2.3, consistent identification of the EAP
authenticator enables the EAP peer to determine the scope of keying
material provided to an authenticator, as well as to confirm with the
backend authentication server that an EAP authenticator proving
possession of EAP keying material during the Secure Association
Protocol was authorized to obtain it.
Within the AAA protocol, the authorization attributes are bound to
the transported keying material. While the AAA exchange provides the
AAA client/authenticator with authorizations relating to the EAP
peer, neither the EAP nor AAA exchanges provide authorizations to the
EAP peer. In order to ensure that all parties hold the same view of
the authorizations, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secure Association
Protocol enable communication of authorizations between the EAP
authenticator and peer.
In lower layers where the authenticator consistently identifies
itself to the peer and backend authentication server and the EAP peer
completes the Secure Association Protocol exchange with the same
authenticator through which it completed the EAP conversation,
authorization of the authenticator is demonstrated to the peer by
mutual authentication between the peer and authenticator as discussed
in the previous section. Identification issues are discussed in
Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 and key scope issues are discussed in
Section 3.2.
Where the EAP peer utilizes different identifiers within the EAP
method and Secure Association Protocol conversations, peer
authorization can be difficult to demonstrate to the authenticator
without additional restrictions. This problem does not exist in
IKEv2 where the Identity Payload is used for peer identification both
within IKEv2 and EAP, and where the EAP conversation is
cryptographically protected within IKEv2 binding the EAP and IKEv2
exchanges. However, within [IEEE-802.11], the EAP peer identity is
not used within the 4-way handshake, so that it is necessary for the
authenticator to require that the EAP peer utilize the same MAC
address for EAP authentication as for the 4-way handshake.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 62
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
5.6. Replay Protection
Mandatory requirement from [RFC 4962] Section 3:
Replay detection mechanism
The AAA key management protocol exchanges MUST be replay
protected, including AAA, EAP and Secure Association Protocol
exchanges. Replay protection allows a protocol message recipient
to discard any message that was recorded during a previous
legitimate dialogue and presented as though it belonged to the
current dialogue.
[RFC 3748] Section 7.2.1 describes the "replay protection" security
claim, and [RFC 4017] Section 2.2 requires use of EAP methods
supporting this claim.
Diameter [RFC 3588] provides support for replay protection via use of
IPsec or TLS. "RADIUS Support for EAP" [RFC 3579] protects against
replay of keying material via the Request Authenticator. According
to [RFC 2865] Section 3:
In Access-Request Packets, the Authenticator value is a 16 octet
random number, called the Request Authenticator.
However, some RADIUS packets are not replay protected. In
Accounting, Disconnect, and Care-of Address (CoA)-Request packets,
the Request Authenticator contains a keyed Message Integrity Code
(MIC) rather than a nonce. The Response Authenticator in Accounting,
Disconnect, and CoA-Response packets also contains a keyed MIC whose
calculation does not depend on a nonce in either the Request or
Response packets. Therefore, unless an Event-Timestamp attribute is
included or IPsec is used, it is possible that the recipient will not
be able to determine whether these packets have been replayed. This
issue is discussed further in [RFC 5176] Section 6.3.
In order to prevent replay of Secure Association Protocol frames,
replay protection is REQUIRED on all messages. [IEEE-802.11]
supports replay protection on all messages within the 4-way
handshake; IKEv2 [RFC 4306] also supports this.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 63
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
5.7. Key Freshness
Requirement: A session key SHOULD be considered compromised if it
remains in use beyond its authorized lifetime. Mandatory requirement
from [RFC 4962] Section 3:
Strong, fresh session keys
While preserving algorithm independence, session keys MUST be
strong and fresh. Each session deserves an independent session
key. Fresh keys are required even when a long replay counter
(that is, one that "will never wrap") is used to ensure that loss
of state does not cause the same counter value to be used more
than once with the same session key.
Some EAP methods are capable of deriving keys of varying strength,
and these EAP methods MUST permit the generation of keys meeting a
minimum equivalent key strength. BCP 86 [RFC 3766] offers advice
on appropriate key sizes. The National Institute for Standards
and Technology (NIST) also offers advice on appropriate key sizes
in [SP800-57].
A fresh cryptographic key is one that is generated specifically
for the intended use. In this situation, a secure association
protocol is used to establish session keys. The AAA protocol and
EAP method MUST ensure that the keying material supplied as an
input to session key derivation is fresh, and the secure
association protocol MUST generate a separate session key for each
session, even if the keying material provided by EAP is cached. A
cached key persists after the authentication exchange has
completed. For the AAA/EAP server, key caching can happen when
state is kept on the server. For the NAS or client, key caching
can happen when the NAS or client does not destroy keying material
immediately following the derivation of session keys.
Session keys MUST NOT be dependent on one another. Multiple
session keys may be derived from a higher-level shared secret as
long as a one-time value, usually called a nonce, is used to
ensure that each session key is fresh. The mechanism used to
generate session keys MUST ensure that the disclosure of one
session key does not aid the attacker in discovering any other
session keys.
EAP, AAA, and the lower layer each bear responsibility for ensuring
the use of fresh, strong session keys. EAP methods need to ensure
the freshness and strength of EAP keying material provided as an
input to session key derivation. [RFC 3748] Section 7.10 states:
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 64
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
EAP methods SHOULD ensure the freshness of the MSK and EMSK, even
in cases where one party may not have a high quality random number
generator. A RECOMMENDED method is for each party to provide a
nonce of at least 128 bits, used in the derivation of the MSK and
EMSK.
The contribution of nonces enables the EAP peer and server to ensure
that exported EAP keying material is fresh.
[RFC 3748] Section 7.2.1 describes the "key strength" and "session
independence" security claims, and [RFC 4017] requires EAP methods
supporting these claims as well as methods capable of providing
equivalent key strength of 128 bits or greater. See Section 3.7 for
more information on key strength.
The AAA protocol needs to ensure that transported keying material is
fresh and is not utilized outside its recommended lifetime. Replay
protection is necessary for key freshness, but an attacker can
deliver a stale (and therefore potentially compromised) key in a
replay-protected message, so replay protection is not sufficient. As
discussed in Section 3.5, the Session-Timeout Attribute enables the
backend authentication server to limit the exposure of transported
keying material.
The EAP Session-Id, described in Section 1.4, enables the EAP peer,
authenticator, and server to distinguish EAP conversations. However,
unless the authenticator keeps track of EAP Session-Ids, the
authenticator cannot use the Session-Id to guarantee the freshness of
keying material.
The Secure Association Protocol, described in Section 3.1, MUST
generate a fresh session key for each session, even if the EAP keying
material and parameters provided by methods are cached, or either the
peer or authenticator lack a high entropy random number generator. A
RECOMMENDED method is for the peer and authenticator to each provide
a nonce or counter used in session key derivation. If a nonce is
used, it is RECOMMENDED that it be at least 128 bits. While
[IEEE-802.11] and IKEv2 [RFC 4306] satisfy this requirement,
[IEEE-802.16e] does not, since randomness is only contributed from
the Base Station.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 65
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
5.8. Key Scope Limitation
Mandatory requirement from [RFC 4962] Section 3:
Limit key scope
Following the principle of least privilege, parties MUST NOT have
access to keying material that is not needed to perform their
role. A party has access to a particular key if it has access to
all of the secret information needed to derive it.
Any protocol that is used to establish session keys MUST specify
the scope for session keys, clearly identifying the parties to
whom the session key is available.
Transported keying material is permitted to be accessed by the EAP
peer, authenticator and server. The EAP peer and server derive EAP
keying material during the process of mutually authenticating each
other using the selected EAP method. During the Secure Association
Protocol exchange, the EAP peer utilizes keying material to
demonstrate to the authenticator that it is the same party that
authenticated to the EAP server and was authorized by it. The EAP
authenticator utilizes the transported keying material to prove to
the peer not only that the EAP conversation was transported through
it (this could be demonstrated by a man-in-the-middle), but that it
was uniquely authorized by the EAP server to provide the peer with
access to the network. Unique authorization can only be demonstrated
if the EAP authenticator does not share the transported keying
material with a party other than the EAP peer and server. TSKs are
permitted to be accessed only by the EAP peer and authenticator (see
Section 1.5); TSK derivation is discussed in Section 2.1. Since
demonstration of authorization within the Secure Association Protocol
exchange depends on possession of transported keying material, the
backend authentication server can obtain TSKs unless it deletes the
transported keying material after sending it.
5.9. Key Naming
Mandatory requirement from [RFC 4962] Section 3:
Uniquely named keys
AAA key management proposals require a robust key naming scheme,
particularly where key caching is supported. The key name
provides a way to refer to a key in a protocol so that it is clear
to all parties which key is being referenced. Objects that cannot
be named cannot be managed. All keys MUST be uniquely named, and
the key name MUST NOT directly or indirectly disclose the keying
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 66
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
material. If the key name is not based on the keying material,
then one can be sure that it cannot be used to assist in a search
for the key value.
EAP key names (defined in Section 1.4.1), along with the Peer-Id(s)
and Server-Id(s), uniquely identify EAP keying material, and do not
directly or indirectly expose EAP keying material.
Existing AAA server implementations do not distribute key names along
with the transported keying material. However, Diameter EAP
[RFC 4072] Section 4.1.4 defines the EAP-Key-Name AVP for the purpose
of transporting the EAP Session-Id. Since the EAP-Key-Name AVP is
defined within the RADIUS attribute space, it can be used either with
RADIUS or Diameter.
Since the authenticator is not provided with the name of the
transported keying material by existing backend authentication server
implementations, existing Secure Association Protocols do not utilize
EAP key names. For example, [IEEE-802.11] supports PMK caching; to
enable the peer and authenticator to determine the cached PMK to
utilize within the 4-way handshake, the PMK needs to be named. For
this purpose, [IEEE-802.11] utilizes a PMK naming scheme that is
based on the key. Since IKEv2 [RFC 4306] does not cache transported
keying material, it does not need to refer to transported keying
material.
5.10. Denial-of-Service Attacks
Key caching can result in vulnerability to denial-of-service attacks.
For example, EAP methods that create persistent state can be
vulnerable to denial-of-service attacks on the EAP server by a rogue
EAP peer.
To address this vulnerability, EAP methods creating persistent state
can limit the persistent state created by an EAP peer. For example,
for each peer an EAP server can choose to limit persistent state to a
few EAP conversations, distinguished by the EAP Session-Id. This
prevents a rogue peer from denying access to other peers.
Similarly, to conserve resources an authenticator can choose to limit
the persistent state corresponding to each peer. This can be
accomplished by limiting each peer to persistent state corresponding
to a few EAP conversations, distinguished by the EAP Session-Id.
Whether creation of new TSKs implies deletion of previously derived
TSKs depends on the EAP lower layer. Where there is no implied
deletion, the authenticator can choose to limit the number of TSKs
and associated state that can be stored for each peer.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 67
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and
H. Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP)", RFC 3748, June 2004.
[RFC 4962] Housley, R. and B. Aboba, "Guidance for
Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)
Key Management", BCP 132, RFC 4962, July 2007.
6.2. Informative References
[8021XPreAuth] Pack, S. and Y. Choi, "Pre-Authenticated Fast Handoff
in a Public Wireless LAN Based on IEEE 802.1x Model",
Proceedings of the IFIP TC6/WG6.8 Working Conference
on Personal Wireless Communications, p.175-182,
October 23-25, 2002.
[Analysis] He, C. and J. Mitchell, "Analysis of the 802.11i 4-Way
Handshake", Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Workshop on
Wireless Security, pp. 43-50, ISBN: 1-58113-925-X.
[Bargh] Bargh, M., Hulsebosch, R., Eertink, E., Prasad, A.,
Wang, H. and P. Schoo, "Fast Authentication Methods
for Handovers between IEEE 802.11 Wireless LANs",
Proceedings of the 2nd ACM international workshop on
Wireless mobile applications and services on WLAN
hotspots, October, 2004.
[GKDP] Dondeti, L., Xiang, J., and S. Rowles, "GKDP: Group
Key Distribution Protocol", Work in Progress, March
2006.
[He] He, C., Sundararajan, M., Datta, A. Derek, A. and J.
C. Mitchell, "A Modular Correctness Proof of TLS and
IEEE 802.11i", ACM Conference on Computer and
Communications Security (CCS '05), November, 2005.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 68
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
[IEEE-802.11] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
"Information technology - Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems - Local and
metropolitan area networks - Specific Requirements
Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", IEEE Standard
802.11-2007, 2007.
[IEEE-802.1X] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
"Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Port-Based
Network Access Control", IEEE Standard 802.1X-2004,
December 2004.
[IEEE-802.1Q] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Draft Standard for Virtual Bridged Local
Area Networks, P802.1Q-2003, January 2003.
[IEEE-802.11i] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
"Supplement to Standard for Telecommunications and
Information Exchange Between Systems - LAN/MAN
Specific Requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium
Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
Specifications: Specification for Enhanced Security",
IEEE 802.11i/D1, 2001.
[IEEE-802.11F] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
"Recommended Practice for Multi-Vendor Access Point
Interoperability via an Inter-Access Point Protocol
Across Distribution Systems Supporting IEEE 802.11
Operation", IEEE 802.11F, July 2003 (now deprecated).
[IEEE-802.16e] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
"IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed and Mobile
Broadband Wireless Access Systems: Amendment for
Physical and Medium Access Control Layers for Combined
Fixed and Mobile Operations in Licensed Bands" IEEE
802.16e, August 2005.
[IEEE-03-084] Mishra, A., Shin, M., Arbaugh, W., Lee, I. and K.
Jang, "Proactive Key Distribution to support fast and
secure roaming", IEEE 802.11 Working Group, IEEE-03-
084r1-I, http://www.ieee802.org/11/Documents/
DocumentHolder/3-084.zip, January 2003.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 69
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
[EAP-SERVICE] Arkko, J. and P. Eronen, "Authenticated Service
Information for the Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP)", Work in Progress, October 2005.
[SHORT-TERM] Friedman, A., Sheffer, Y., and A. Shaqed, "Short-Term
Certificates", Work in Progress, June 2007.
[HANDOFF] Arbaugh, W. and B. Aboba, "Handoff Extension to
RADIUS", Work in Progress, October 2003.
[EAP-CHANNEL] Ohba, Y., Parthasrathy, M., and M. Yanagiya, "Channel
Binding Mechanism Based on Parameter Binding in Key
Derivation", Work in Progress, June 2007.
[EAP-BINDING] Puthenkulam, J., Lortz, V., Palekar, A., and D. Simon,
"The Compound Authentication Binding Problem", Work in
Progress, October 2003.
[MD5Collision] Klima, V., "Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions
Within a Minute", Cryptology ePrint Archive, March
2006, http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105.pdf
[MishraPro] Mishra, A., Shin, M. and W. Arbaugh, "Pro-active Key
Distribution using Neighbor Graphs", IEEE Wireless
Communications, vol. 11, February 2004.
[RFC 1661] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)",
STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
[RFC 1968] Meyer, G., "The PPP Encryption Control Protocol
(ECP)", RFC 1968, June 1996.
[RFC 2230] Atkinson, R., "Key Exchange Delegation Record for the
DNS", RFC 2230, November 1997.
[RFC 2409] Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange
(IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.
[RFC 2516] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone,
D., and R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP
Over Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, February 1999.
[RFC 2548] Zorn, G., "Microsoft Vendor-specific RADIUS
Attributes", RFC 2548, March 1999.
[RFC 2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and
Policy Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June
1999.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 70
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
[RFC 2716] Aboba, B. and D. Simon, "PPP EAP TLS Authentication
Protocol", RFC 2716, October 1999.
[RFC 2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR
for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)",
RFC 2782, February 2000.
[RFC 2845] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B.
Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for
DNS (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000.
[RFC 2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RFC 3007] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS)
Dynamic Update", RFC 3007, November 2000.
[RFC 3162] Aboba, B., Zorn, G., and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6",
RFC 3162, August 2001.
[RFC 3547] Baugher, M., Weis, B., Hardjono, T., and H. Harney,
"The Group Domain of Interpretation", RFC 3547, July
2003.
[RFC 3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service) Support For
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579,
September 2003.
[RFC 3580] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., and J.
Roese, "IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User
Service (RADIUS) Usage Guidelines", RFC 3580,
September 2003.
[RFC 3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and
J. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588,
September 2003.
[RFC 3766] Orman, H. and P. Hoffman, "Determining Strengths For
Public Keys Used For Exchanging Symmetric Keys", BCP
86, RFC 3766, April 2004.
[RFC 3830] Arkko, J., Carrara, E., Lindholm, F., Naslund, M., and
K. Norrman, "MIKEY: Multimedia Internet KEYing", RFC
3830, August 2004.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 71
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
[RFC 4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton,
"Diameter Network Access Server Application", RFC
4005, August 2005.
[RFC 4017] Stanley, D., Walker, J., and B. Aboba, "Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) Method Requirements for
Wireless LANs", RFC 4017, March 2005.
[RFC 4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, March 2005.
[RFC 4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC 4067] Loughney, J., Ed., Nakhjiri, M., Perkins, C., and R.
Koodli, "Context Transfer Protocol (CXTP)", RFC 4067,
July 2005.
[RFC 4072] Eronen, P., Ed., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application",
RFC 4072, August 2005.
[RFC 4118] Yang, L., Zerfos, P., and E. Sadot, "Architecture
Taxonomy for Control and Provisioning of Wireless
Access Points (CAPWAP)", RFC 4118, June 2005.
[RFC 4186] Haverinen, H., Ed., and J. Salowey, Ed., "Extensible
Authentication Protocol Method for Global System for
Mobile Communications (GSM) Subscriber Identity
Modules (EAP-SIM)", RFC 4186, January 2006.
[RFC 4187] Arkko, J. and H. Haverinen, "Extensible Authentication
Protocol Method for 3rd Generation Authentication and
Key Agreement (EAP-AKA)", RFC 4187, January 2006.
[RFC 4282] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The
Network Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.
[RFC 4284] Adrangi, F., Lortz, V., Bari, F., and P. Eronen,
"Identity Selection Hints for the Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 4284, January
2006.
[RFC 4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 72
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
[RFC 4306] Kaufman, C., Ed., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2)
Protocol", RFC 4306, December 2005.
[RFC 4372] Adrangi, F., Lior, A., Korhonen, J., and J. Loughney,
"Chargeable User Identity", RFC 4372, January 2006.
[RFC 4334] Housley, R. and T. Moore, "Certificate Extensions and
Attributes Supporting Authentication in Point-to-Point
Protocol (PPP) and Wireless Local Area Networks
(WLAN)", RFC 4334, February 2006.
[RFC 4535] Harney, H., Meth, U., Colegrove, A., and G. Gross,
"GSAKMP: Group Secure Association Key Management
Protocol", RFC 4535, June 2006.
[RFC 4763] Vanderveen, M. and H. Soliman, "Extensible
Authentication Protocol Method for Shared-secret
Authentication and Key Establishment (EAP-SAKE)", RFC
4763, November 2006.
[RFC 4675] Congdon, P., Sanchez, M., and B. Aboba, "RADIUS
Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support", RFC
4675, September 2006.
[RFC 4718] Eronen, P. and P. Hoffman, "IKEv2 Clarifications and
Implementation Guidelines", RFC 4718, October 2006.
[RFC 4764] Bersani, F. and H. Tschofenig, "The EAP-PSK Protocol:
A Pre-Shared Key Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP) Method", RFC 4764, January 2007.
[RFC 5176] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D., and B.
Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC
5176, January 2008.
[RFC 5216] Simon, D., Aboba, B., and R. Hurst, "The EAP-TLS
Authentication Protocol", RFC 5216, March 2008.
[RFC 5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer
Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August
2008.
[SP800-57] National Institute of Standards and Technology,
"Recommendation for Key Management", Special
Publication 800-57, May 2006.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 73
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
[Token] Fantacci, R., Maccari, L., Pecorella, T., and F.
Frosali, "A secure and performant token-based
authentication for infrastructure and mesh 802.1X
networks", IEEE Conference on Computer Communications,
June 2006.
[Tokenk] Ohba, Y., Das, S., and A. Duttak, "Kerberized Handover
Keying: A Media-Independent Handover Key Management
Architecture", Mobiarch 2007.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Ashwin Palekar, Charlie Kaufman, and Tim Moore of
Microsoft, Jari Arkko of Ericsson, Dorothy Stanley of Aruba Networks,
Bob Moskowitz of TruSecure, Jesse Walker of Intel, Joe Salowey of
Cisco, and Russ Housley of Vigil Security for useful feedback.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 74
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Appendix A - Exported Parameters in Existing Methods
This Appendix specifies Session-Id, Peer-Id, Server-Id and
Key-Lifetime for EAP methods that have been published prior to this
specification. Future EAP method specifications MUST include a
definition of the Session-Id, Peer-Id and Server-Id (could be the
null string). In the descriptions that follow, all fields comprising
the Session-Id are assumed to be in network byte order.
EAP-Identity
The EAP-Identity method is defined in [RFC 3748]. It does not
derive keys, and therefore does not define the Session-Id. The
Peer-Id and Server-Id are the null string (zero length).
EAP-Notification
The EAP-Notification method is defined in [RFC 3748]. It does not
derive keys and therefore does not define the Session-Id. The
Peer-Id and Server-Id are the null string (zero length).
EAP-MD5-Challenge
The EAP-MD5-Challenge method is defined in [RFC 3748]. It does not
derive keys and therefore does not define the Session-Id. The
Peer-Id and Server-Id are the null string (zero length).
EAP-GTC
The EAP-GTC method is defined in [RFC 3748]. It does not derive
keys and therefore does not define the Session-Id. The Peer-Id
and Server-Id are the null string (zero length).
EAP-OTP
The EAP-OTP method is defined in [RFC 3748]. It does not derive
keys and therefore does not define the Session-Id. The Peer-Id
and Server-Id are the null string (zero length).
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 75
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
EAP-AKA
EAP-AKA is defined in [RFC 4187]. The EAP-AKA Session-Id is the
concatenation of the EAP Type Code (0x17) with the contents of the
RAND field from the AT_RAND attribute, followed by the contents of
the AUTN field in the AT_AUTN attribute:
Session-Id = 0x17 || RAND || AUTN
The Peer-Id is the contents of the Identity field from the
AT_IDENTITY attribute, using only the Actual Identity Length
octets from the beginning, however. Note that the contents are
used as they are transmitted, regardless of whether the
transmitted identity was a permanent, pseudonym, or fast EAP
re-authentication identity. The Server-Id is the null string
(zero length).
EAP-SIM
EAP-SIM is defined in [RFC 4186]. The EAP-SIM Session-Id is the
concatenation of the EAP Type Code (0x12) with the contents of the
RAND field from the AT_RAND attribute, followed by the contents of
the NONCE_MT field in the AT_NONCE_MT attribute:
Session-Id = 0x12 || RAND || NONCE_MT
The Peer-Id is the contents of the Identity field from the
AT_IDENTITY attribute, using only the Actual Identity Length
octets from the beginning, however. Note that the contents are
used as they are transmitted, regardless of whether the
transmitted identity was a permanent, pseudonym, or fast EAP
re-authentication identity. The Server-Id is the null string
(zero length).
EAP-PSK
EAP-PSK is defined in [RFC 4764]. The EAP-PSK Session-Id is the
concatenation of the EAP Type Code (0x2F) with the peer (RAND_P)
and server (RAND_S) nonces:
Session-Id = 0x2F || RAND_P || RAND_S
The Peer-Id is the contents of the ID_P field and the Server-Id is
the contents of the ID_S field.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 76
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
EAP-SAKE
EAP-SAKE is defined in [RFC 4763]. The EAP-SAKE Session-Id is the
concatenation of the EAP Type Code (0x30) with the contents of the
RAND_S field from the AT_RAND_S attribute, followed by the
contents of the RAND_P field in the AT_RAND_P attribute:
Session-Id = 0x30 || RAND_S || RAND_P
Note that the EAP-SAKE Session-Id is not the same as the "Session
ID" parameter chosen by the Server, which is sent in the first
message, and replicated in subsequent messages. The Peer-Id is
contained within the value field of the AT_PEERID attribute and
the Server-Id, if available, is contained in the value field of
the AT_SERVERID attribute.
EAP-TLS
For EAP-TLS, the Peer-Id, Server-Id and Session-Id are defined in
[RFC 5216].
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 77
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Authors' Addresses
Bernard Aboba
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
Phone: +1 425 706 6605
Fax: +1 425 936 7329
Dan Simon
Microsoft Research
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
EMail: dansimon@microsoft.com
Phone: +1 425 706 6711
Fax: +1 425 936 7329
Pasi Eronen
Nokia Research Center
P.O. Box 407
FIN-00045 Nokia Group
Finland
EMail: pasi.eronen@nokia.com
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 78
RFC 5247 EAP Key Management Framework August 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Aboba, et al. Standards Track PAGE 79
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Key Management Framework
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 193535 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Friday, August 15th, 2008
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
