分享
 
 
 

RFC2808 - The SecurID(r) SASL Mechanism

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group M. Nystrom

Request for Comments: 2808 RSA Laboratories

Category: Informational April 2000

The SecurID(r) SASL Mechanism

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does

not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this

memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

SecurID is a hardware token card prodUCt (or software emulation

thereof) produced by RSA Security Inc., which is used for end-user

authentication. This document defines a SASL [RFC2222] authentication

mechanism using these tokens, thereby providing a means for such

tokens to be used in SASL environments. This mechanism is only for

authentication, and has no effect on the protocol encoding and is not

designed to provide integrity or confidentiality services.

This memo assumes the reader has basic familiarity with the SecurID

token, its associated authentication protocol and SASL.

How to read this document

The key Words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHOULD" and "MAY" in this

document are to be interpreted as defined in [RFC2119].

In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate messages sent by the client and

server respectively.

1. Introduction

The SECURID SASL mechanism is a good choice for usage scenarios where

a client, acting on behalf of a user, is untrusted, as a one-time

passcode will only give the client a single opportunity to act

maliciously. This mechanism provides authentication only.

The SECURID SASL mechanism provides a formal way to integrate the

existing SecurID authentication method into SASL-enabled protocols

including IMAP [RFC2060], ACAP [RFC2244], POP3 [RFC1734] and LDAPv3

[RFC2251].

2. Authentication Model

The SECURID SASL mechanism provides two-factor based user

authentication as defined below.

There are basically three entities in the authentication mechanism

described here: A user, possessing a SecurID token, an application

server, to which the user wants to connect, and an authentication

server, capable of authenticating the user. Even though the

application server in practice may function as a client with respect

to the authentication server, relaying authentication credentials

etc. as needed, both servers are, unless eXPlicitly mentioned,

collectively termed "the server" here. The protocol used between the

application server and the authentication server is outside the scope

of this memo. The application client, acting on behalf of the user,

is termed "the client".

The mechanism is based on the use of a shared secret key, or "seed",

and a personal identification number (PIN), which is known both by

the user and the authentication server. The secret seed is stored on

a token that the user possesses, as well as on the authentication

server. Hence the term "two-factor authentication", a user needs not

only physical Access to the token but also knowledge about the PIN in

order to perform an authentication. Given the seed, current time of

day, and the PIN, a "PASSCODE(r)" is generated by the user's token

and sent to the server.

The SECURID SASL mechanism provides one service:

- User authentication where the user provides information to the

server, so that the server can authenticate the user.

This mechanism is identified with the SASL key "SECURID".

3. Authentication Procedure

a) The client generates the credentials using local information

(seed, current time and user PIN/password).

b) If the underlying protocol permits, the client sends credentials

to the server in an initial response message. Otherwise, the

client sends a request to the server to initiate the

authentication mechanism, and sends credentials after the server's

response (see [RFC2222] section 5.1 for more information regarding

the initial response option).

Unless the server requests a new PIN (see below), the contents of

the client's initial response SHALL be as follows:

(1) An authorization identity. When this field is empty, it

defaults to the authentication identity. This field MAY be used

by system administrators or proxy servers to login with a

different user identity. This field MUST NOT be longer than 255

octets, SHALL be terminated by a NUL (0) octet, and MUST consist

of UTF-8-encoded [RFC2279] printable characters only (US-ASCII

[X3.4] is a subset of UTF-8).

(2) An authentication identity. The identity whose passcode will

be used. If this field is empty, it is assumed to have been

transferred by other means (e.g. if the underlying protocol has

support for this, like [RFC2251]). This field MUST NOT be longer

than 255 octets, SHALL be terminated by a NUL (0) octet, and MUST

consist of UTF-8-encoded printable characters only.

(3) A passcode. The one-time password that will be used to grant

access. This field MUST NOT be shorter than 4 octets, MUST NOT be

longer than 32 octets, SHALL be terminated by a NUL (0) octet, and

MUST consist of UTF-8-encoded printable characters only.

Passcodes usually consist of 4-8 digits.

The ABNF [RFC2234] form of this message is as follows:

credential-pdu = authorization-id authentication-id passcode [pin]

authorization-id = 0*255VUTF8 %x00

authentication-id = 0*255VUTF8 %x00

passcode = 4*32VUTF8 %x00

pin ::= 4*32VUTF8 %x00

VUTF8 = <Visible (printable) UTF8-encoded characters>

Regarding the <pin> rule, see d) below.

c) The server verifies these credentials using its own information.

If the verification succeeds, the server sends back a response

indicating success to the client. After receiving this response,

the client is authenticated. Otherwise, the verification either

failed or the server needs an additional set of credentials from

the client in order to authenticate the user.

d) If the server needs an additional set of credentials, it requests

them now. This request has the following format, described in ABNF

notation:

server-request = passcode pin

passcode = "passcode" %x00

pin = "pin" %x00 [suggested-pin]

suggested-pin = 4*32VUTF8 %x00 ; Between 4 and 32 UTF-8 characters

The 'passcode' choice will be sent when the server requests

another passcode. The 'pin' choice will be sent when the server

requests a new user PIN. The server will either send an empty

string or suggest a new user PIN in this message.

e) The client generates a new set of credentials using local

information and depending on the server's request and sends them

to the server. Authentication now continues as in c) above.

Note 1: Case d) above may occur e.g. when the clocks on which the

server and the client relies are not synchronized.

Note 2: If the server requests a new user PIN, the client MUST

respond with a new user PIN (together with a passcode), encoded as a

UTF-8 string. If the server supplies the client with a suggested PIN,

the client accepts this by replying with the same PIN, but MAY

replace it with another one. The length of the PIN is application-

dependent as are any other requirements for the PIN, e.g. allowed

characters. If the server for some reason does not accept the

received PIN, the client MUST be prepared to receive either a message

indicating the failure of the authentication or a repeated request

for a new PIN. Mechanisms for transferring knowledge about PIN

requirements from the server to the client are outside the scope of

this memo. However, some information MAY be provided in error

messages transferred from the server to the client when applicable.

4. Examples

4.1 IMAP4

The following example shows the use of the SECURID SASL mechanism

with IMAP4. The example is only designed to illustrate the protocol

interaction but do provide valid encoding examples.

The base64 encoding of the last client response, as well as the "+ "

preceding the response, is part of the IMAP4 profile, and not a part

of this specification itself.

S: * OK IMAP4 server ready

C: A001 CAPABILITY

S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4 AUTH=CRAM-MD5 AUTH=SECURID

S: A001 OK done

C: A002 AUTHENTICATE SECURID

S: +

C: AG1hZ251cwAxMjM0NTY3OAA=

S: A002 OK Welcome, SECURID authenticated user: magnus

4.2 LDAPv3

The following examples show the use of the SECURID SASL mechanism

with LDAPv3. The examples are only designed to illustrate the

protocol interaction, but do provide valid encoding examples.

Usernames, passcodes and PINs are of course fictitious. For

readability, all messages are shown in the value-notation defined in

[X680]. <credential-pdu> values are shown hex-encoded in the

'credentials' field of LDAP's 'BindRequest' and <server-request>

values are shown hex-encoded in the 'serverSaslCreds' field of LDAP's

'BindResponse'.

4.2.1 LDAPv3 Example 1

Initial response message, successful authentication.

C: { messageID 1,

protocolOp bindRequest :

{ version 1,

name '434E3D4D41474E5553'H, -- "CN=MAGNUS"

authentication sasl :

{ mechanism '53454355524944'H, -- "SECURID"

credentials '006d61676e757300313233343536373800'H

}

}

}

S: { messageID 1,

protocolOp bindResponse :

{ resultCode success,

matchedDN ''H,

errorMessage ''H,

}

}

4.2.2 LDAPv3 Example 2

Initial response message, server requires second passcode.

C: {

messageID 1,

protocolOp bindRequest : {

version 1,

name '434E3D4D41474E5553'H, -- "CN=MAGNUS"

authentication sasl : {

mechanism '53454355524944'H, -- "SECURID"

credentials '006d61676e757300313233343536373800'H

}

}

}

S: {

messageID 1,

protocolOp bindResponse : {

resultCode saslBindInProgress,

matchedDN ''H,

errorMessage ''H,

serverSaslCreds '70617373636f646500'H

}

}

C: {

messageID 1,

protocolOp bindRequest : {

version 1,

name '434E3D4D41474E5553'H, -- "CN=MAGNUS"

authentication sasl : {

mechanism '53454355524944'H, -- "SECURID"

credentials '006d61676e757300383736353433323100'H

}

}

}

S: {

messageID 1,

protocolOp bindResponse : {

resultCode success,

matchedDN ''H,

errorMessage ''H,

}

}

4.2.3 LDAPv3 Example 3

Initial response message, server requires new PIN and passcode, and

supplies client with a suggested new PIN (which the client accepts).

C: {

messageID 1,

protocolOp bindRequest : {

version 1,

name '434E3D4D41474E5553'H, -- "CN=MAGNUS"

authentication sasl : {

mechanism '53454355524944'H, -- "SECURID"

credentials '006d61676e757300313233343536373800'H

}

}

}

S: {

messageID 1,

protocolOp bindResponse : {

resultCode saslBindInProgress,

matchedDN ''H,

errorMessage ''H,

serverSaslCreds '70696e006b616c6c6500'H

}

}

C: {

messageID 1,

protocolOp bindRequest : {

version 1,

name '434E3D4D41474E5553'H, -- "CN=MAGNUS"

authentication sasl : {

mechanism '53454355524944'H, -- "SECURID"

credentials '006d61676e7573003837343434363734006b616c6c6500'H

}

}

}

S: {

messageID 1,

protocolOp bindResponse : {

resultCode success,

matchedDN ''H,

errorMessage ''H,

}

}

5. Security Considerations

This mechanism only provides protection against passive eavesdropping

attacks. It does not provide session privacy, server authentication

or protection from active attacks. In particular, man-in-the-middle

attacks, were an attacker acts as an application server in order to

acquire a valid passcode are possible.

In order to protect against such attacks, the client SHOULD make sure

that the server is properly authenticated. When user PINs are

transmitted, user authentication SHOULD take place on a server-

authenticated and confidentiality-protected connection.

Server implementations MUST protect against replay attacks, since an

attacker could otherwise gain access by replaying a previous, valid

request. Clients MUST also protect against replay of PIN-change

messages.

5.1 The Race Attack

It is possible for an attacker to listen to most of a passcode, guess

the remainder, and then race the legitimate user to complete the

authentication. As for OTP [RFC2289], conforming server

implementations MUST protect against this race condition. One defense

against this attack is outlined below and borrowed from [RFC2289];

implementations MAY use this approach or MAY select an alternative

defense.

One possible defense is to prevent a user from starting multiple

simultaneous authentication sessions. This means that once the

legitimate user has initiated authentication, an attacker would be

blocked until the first authentication process has completed. In

this approach, a timeout is necessary to thwart a denial of service

attack.

6. IANA Considerations

By registering the SecurID protocol as a SASL mechanism, implementers

will have a well-defined way of adding this authentication mechanism

to their product. Here is the registration template for the SECURID

SASL mechanism:

SASL mechanism name: SECURID

Security Considerations: See corresponding section of this memo

Published specification: This memo

Person & email address to

contact for further

information: See author's address section below

Intended usage: COMMON

Author/Change controller: See author's address section below

7. Intellectual Property Considerations

RSA Security Inc. does not make any claims on the general

constructions described in this memo, although underlying techniques

may be covered. Among the underlying techniques, the SecurID

technology is covered by a number of US patents (and foreign

counterparts), in particular US patent no. 4,885,778, no. 5,097,505,

no. 5,168,520, and 5,657,388.

SecurID is a registered trademark, and PASSCODE is a trademark, of

RSA Security Inc.

8. References

[RFC1734] Myers, J., "POP3 AUTHentication command", RFC1734,

December 1994.

[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision

3", BCP 9, RFC2026, October 1996.

[RFC2060] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version

4rev1", RFC2060, December 1996.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate

Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.

[RFC2222] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer", RFC

2222, October 1997.

[RFC2234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax

Specifications: ABNF", RFC2234, November 1997.

[RFC2244] Newman, C. and J. Myers, "ACAP -- Application Configuration

Access Protocol", RFC2244, November 1997.

[RFC2251] Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory

Access Protocol (v3)", RFC2251, December 1997.

[RFC2279] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646",

RFC2279, January 1998.

[RFC2289] Haller, N., Metz, C., Nesser, P. and M. Straw, "A One-Time

Password System", RFC2289, February 1998.

[X3.4] ANSI, "ANSI X3.4: Information Systems - Coded Character

Sets - 7-Bit American National Standard Code for

Information Interchange (7-Bit ASCII)," American National

Standards Institute.

[X680] ITU-T, "Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation

One (ASN.1): Specification of Basic Notation,"

International Telecommunication Union, 1997.

9. Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of various

reviewers of this memo, in particular the ones from John Myers. They

have significantly clarified and improved the utility of this

specification.

10. Author's Address

Magnus Nystrom

RSA Laboratories

Box 10704

121 29 Stockholm

Sweden

Phone: +46 8 725 0900

EMail: magnus@rsasecurity.com

11. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to

others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it

or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published

and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any

kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are

included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this

document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of

developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be

followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be

revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING

TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFCEditor function is currently provided by the

Internet Society.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有