Subject: Re: IPSEC and user vs machine authentication
To: Greg Troxel <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/16/2005 17:45:55
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 04:12:42PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Daniel Carosone <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 07:48:01AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > You're absolutely right that this fits very well with Kerberos
> > identity handling, and that that's pretty much what I want even
> > without the certificate or tokencode cases.
> True, but what I meant was that kerberos has a model (generalized from
> rsh) of taking a "network identity", or external name,
> principal/instance@REALM, and asking if that is authorized for a
> particular local uid (kuserok). Even if IPsec doesn't use Kerberos at
> all, this mapping (or authorization check) of IPsec identity to local
> uids is essentiall to making per-user keying to applications work.
Why do you want to map IPsec identities to local IDs?
> > > racoon being able to negotiate multiple Phase 1s with a given peer
> > > racoon being able to present an identity to a program and have it
> > > map it a locally meaningful name
> > To which program?
> To the program on the server side (responder, really - I don't mean
> server) that owns the socket which will receive data over the SA to be
> created, so that it can map the IPsec identity to whatever local
> credentials it wants. But I think we might have suggested having the
> program able to get the IPsec identity with the data, and then be able
> to do the mappin somehow. One of the problems is how to deal with
> sockets that can receive data from multiple places. Putting identity
> on each packet solves this, although it can get verbose.
Is this wise? If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting skipping=20
application-level authentication and just using the IPsec identities for=20
I think that's dangerous as you have no reliable way to tell if the IPsec=
is end-to-end. So you open yourself up to MITM attacks where you establish=
IPsec with the attacker who in turn establishes it with the client.
> > > storing more complex identities, including user names in SPD
> > > storing more complex identities, including user names in SA
> > > checking identities when doing SPD/SA matches
> > > conveying identities to programs via some setsockopt a la IP_RECVIF
> > Yeah, pretty much. While we're adding identity info, the name of the
> > application/executable, as well as the user running it, should be part
> > of the identity carried by the socket. A listening server process (or
> I view each identity as some name defined by an authentication
> protocol, and proved by credentials. I was thinking of program names
> and uids as a local matter.
Maybe you're trying to solve a different problem. But I think applications=
really shouldn't care about the specifics of the identities used to=20
establish IPsec to the extent that successful IPsec -> successful=20
applicaiton authentication. Sorry, I'm repeating myself. :-) But it sounds=
I suggest you look at the channel binding work. It's not done AFAIK, but=20
it takes a slightly different approach. Rather than look at the IPsec IDs,=
it just requires that both ends of an application authentication are using=
the same end-to-end IPsec negotiation; specifically they agree on a hash=20
of the data. Doesn't matter what the IDs are, or even if they are=20
expressable in terms of the application's ID space. It just matters that=20
My gut instinct is that channel binding will be easier and safer in the=20
long run than say using IPsec IDs for application level authentication.
Combine it with a way to require SAs for a TCP connection to be=20
renegotiated with the same identities as initially, and we get a rather=20
secure binding. All we need to add is a way to get the channel bindings=20
and a way to requre the IDs not change.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----