<- RFC Index (7101..7200)
RFC 7171
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) N. Cam-Winget
Request for Comments: 7171 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track P. Sangster
ISSN: 2070-1721 Symantec Corporation
May 2014
PT-EAP: Posture Transport (PT) Protocol
for Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Tunnel Methods
Abstract
This document specifies PT-EAP, a Posture Transport (PT) protocol
based on the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) and designed to
be used only inside an EAP tunnel method protected by Transport Layer
Security (TLS). The document also describes the intended
applicability of PT-EAP.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7171.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Message Diagram Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5. Compatibility with Other Specifications . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Use of PT-EAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definition of PT-EAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Version Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. PT-EAP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Preventing MITM Attacks with Channel Bindings . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Trust Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.1. Posture Transport Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2. Posture Transport Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Threats and Countermeasures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. Message Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.2. Message Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.3. Message Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.4. Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.5. NEA Asokan Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Candidate EAP Tunnel Method Protections . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. Security Claims for PT-EAP as per RFC 3748 . . . . . . . 14
5. Requirements for EAP Tunnel Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Registry for PT-EAP Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
This document specifies PT-EAP, a Posture Transport (PT) protocol
protected by a TLS-protected EAP tunnel method. The PT protocol in
the Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) architecture is responsible for
transporting Posture Broker (PB-TNC [RFC5793]) batches, often
containing Posture Attributes (PA-TNC [RFC5792]), across the network
between the NEA Client and NEA Server. The PT-EAP protocol must be
protected by an outer TLS-based EAP tunnel method to ensure the
exchanged messages are protected from a variety of threats from
hostile intermediaries.
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
NEA protocols are intended to be used both for pre-admission
assessment of endpoints joining the network and assessment of
endpoints already present on the network. In order to support both
usage models, two types of PT protocols are needed. One type of PT,
PT-TLS [RFC6876], operates after the endpoint has an assigned IP
address, layering on top of the IP protocol to carry a NEA exchange.
The other type of PT operates before the endpoint gains any access to
the IP network. This specification defines PT-EAP, the PT protocol
used to assess endpoints before they gain access to the network.
PT-EAP is an inner EAP [RFC3748] method designed to be used inside a
protected tunnel such as Tunnel EAP (TEAP) [RFC7170], EAP Flexible
Authentication via Secure Tunneling (EAP-FAST) [RFC4851], or EAP
Tunneled Transport Layer Security (EAP-TTLS) [RFC5281]. That is, an
outer EAP method is typically a TLS-based EAP method that first
establishes a protected tunnel by which other conversations, such as
other EAP methods (e.g., "inner" EAP methods) can ensue under the
tunnel protection.
1.1. Prerequisites
This document does not define an architecture or reference model.
Instead, it defines a protocol that works within the reference model
described in the NEA Requirements specification [RFC5209]. The
reader is assumed to be thoroughly familiar with that document.
1.2. Message Diagram Conventions
This specification defines the syntax of PT-EAP messages using
diagrams. Each diagram depicts the format and size of each field in
bits. Implementations MUST send the bits in each diagram as they are
shown, traversing the diagram from top to bottom and then from left
to right within each line (which represents a 32-bit quantity).
Multi-byte fields representing numeric values MUST be sent in network
(big-endian) byte order.
Descriptions of bit field (e.g., flag) values are described referring
to the position of the bit within the field. These bit positions are
numbered from the most significant bit through the least significant
bit so a one octet field with only bit 0 set has the value 0x80.
1.3. Terminology
This document reuses many terms defined in the NEA Requirements
document [RFC5209], such as "Posture Transport Client" and "Posture
Transport Server". The reader is assumed to have read that document
and understood it.
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
When defining the PT-EAP method, this specification does not use the
terms "EAP peer" and "EAP authenticator". Instead, it uses the terms
"NEA Client" and "NEA Server" since those are considered to be more
familiar to NEA WG participants. However, these terms are equivalent
for the purposes of this specification. The part of the NEA Client
that terminates PT-EAP (generally in the Posture Transport Client) is
the EAP peer for PT-EAP. The part of the NEA Server that terminates
PT-EAP (generally in the Posture Transport Server) is the EAP
authenticator for PT-EAP.
1.4. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.5. Compatibility with Other Specifications
One of the goals of the NEA effort is to deliver a single set of
endpoint assessment standards, agreed upon by all parties. For this
reason, the authors understand that the Trusted Computing Group (TCG)
will be replacing its existing posture transport protocols with new
versions that are equivalent to and interoperable with the NEA
specifications.
2. Use of PT-EAP
PT-EAP is designed to encapsulate PB-TNC batches in a simple EAP
method that can be carried within EAP tunnel methods. The EAP tunnel
methods provide confidentiality and message integrity, so PT-EAP does
not have to do so. Therefore, PT-EAP MUST be used inside a TLS-based
EAP tunnel method that provides strong cryptographic authentication
(possibly server only), message integrity, and confidentiality
services.
3. Definition of PT-EAP
The PT-EAP protocol operates between a Posture Transport Client and a
Posture Transport Server, allowing them to send PB-TNC batches to
each other over an EAP tunnel method. When PT-EAP is used, the
Posture Transport Client in the NEA reference model acts as an EAP
peer (terminating the PT-EAP method on the endpoint), and the Posture
Transport Server acts as an EAP authenticator (terminating the PT-EAP
method on the NEA Server).
This section describes and defines the PT-EAP method. First, it
provides a protocol overview. Second, it describes specific features
like version negotiation. Third, it gives a detailed packet
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
description. Finally, it describes how the tls-unique channel
binding [RFC5929] may be used to bind PA-TNC exchanges to the EAP
tunnel method, defeating man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks such as the
Asokan attack [Asokan].
3.1. Protocol Overview
PT-EAP has two phases that follow each other in strict sequence:
negotiation and data transport.
The PT-EAP method begins with the negotiation phase. The NEA Server
starts this phase by sending a PT-EAP Start message: an EAP Request
message of type PT-EAP with the S (Start) flag set. The NEA Server
also sets the Version field as described in Section 3.2. This is the
only message in the negotiation phase.
The data transport phase is the only phase of PT-EAP where PB-TNC
batches are allowed to be exchanged. This phase always starts with
the NEA Client sending a PB-TNC batch to the NEA Server. The NEA
Client and NEA Server then take turns sending a PB-TNC batch. The
data transport phase always ends with an EAP Response message from
the NEA Client to the NEA Server. The Data field of this message may
have zero length if the NEA Server has just sent the last PB-TNC
batch in the PB-TNC exchange.
Note that the success of PT-EAP does not mean the overall
authentication (using the outer EAP tunnel method) will succeed.
Neither does the failure of PT-EAP mean that the overall
authentication will fail. Success of the overall authentication
depends on the policy configured by the administrator.
At the end of the PT-EAP method, the NEA Server will indicate success
or failure to the EAP tunnel method. Some EAP tunnel methods may
provide explicit confirmation of inner method success; others may
not. This is out of scope for the PT-EAP method specification.
Successful completion of PT-EAP does not imply successful completion
of the overall authentication nor does PT-EAP failure imply overall
failure. This depends on the administrative policy in place.
The NEA Server and NEA Client may engage in an abnormal termination
of the PT-EAP exchange at any time by simply stopping the exchange.
This may also require terminating the EAP tunnel method, depending on
the capabilities of the EAP tunnel method.
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
3.2. Version Negotiation
PT-EAP version negotiation takes place in the first PT-EAP message
sent by the NEA Server (the Start message) and the first PT-EAP
message sent by the NEA Client (the response to the Start message).
The NEA Server MUST set the Version field in the Start message to the
maximum PT-EAP version that the NEA Server supports and is willing to
accept.
The NEA Client chooses the PT-EAP version to be used for the exchange
and places this value in the Version field in its response to the
Start message. The NEA Client SHOULD choose the value sent by the
NEA Server if the NEA Client supports it. However, the NEA Client
MAY set the Version field to a value less than the value sent by the
NEA Server (for example, if the NEA Client only supports lesser
PT-EAP versions). If the NEA Client only supports PT-EAP versions
greater than the value sent by the NEA Server, the NEA Client MUST
abnormally terminate the EAP negotiation.
If the version sent by the NEA Client is not acceptable to the NEA
Server, the NEA Server MUST terminate the PT-EAP session immediately.
Otherwise, the version sent by the NEA Client is the version of
PT-EAP that MUST be used. Both the NEA Client and the NEA Server
MUST set the Version field to the chosen version number in all
subsequent PT-EAP messages in this exchange.
This specification defines version 1 of PT-EAP. Version 0 is
reserved and MUST never be sent. New versions of PT-EAP (values 2-7)
may be defined by Standards Action, as defined in [RFC5226].
3.3. PT-EAP Message Format
This section provides a detailed description of the fields in a
PT-EAP message. For a description of the diagram conventions used
here, see Section 1.2. Since PT-EAP is an EAP method, the first four
fields (e.g., Code, Identifier, Length, and Type as shown in
Figure 1) in each message are mandated by and defined in EAP. The
other fields, e.g., Flags, Version, and Data are specific to PT-EAP.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Identifier | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Flags | Ver | Data ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: PT-EAP Message Format
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
Code
The Code field is one octet and identifies the type of the EAP
message. The only values used for PT-EAP are:
1 Request
2 Response
Identifier
The Identifier field is one octet and aids in matching Responses
with Requests.
Length
The Length field is two octets and indicates the length in octets
of this PT-EAP message, starting from the Code field.
Type
54 (EAP Method Type [RFC3748] assignment for PT-EAP).
Flags
+-+-+-+-+-+
|S R R R R|
+-+-+-+-+-+
S: Start
Indicates the beginning of a PT-EAP exchange. This flag MUST be
set only for the first message from the NEA Server. If the S flag
is set, the EAP message MUST NOT contain Data.
R: Reserved
This flag MUST be set to 0 and ignored upon receipt.
Version
This field is used for version negotiation, as described in
Section 3.2.
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
Data
Variable length data. This field is processed by the PB layer and
MUST include PB-TNC messages. For more information see PB-TNC
[RFC5793].
The length of the Data field in a particular PT-EAP message may be
determined by subtracting the length of the PT-EAP header fields
from the value of the two-octet Length field.
3.4. Preventing MITM Attacks with Channel Bindings
As described in the NEA Asokan Attack Analysis [RFC6813], a
sophisticated MITM attack can be mounted against NEA systems. The
attacker forwards PA-TNC messages from a healthy machine through an
unhealthy one so that the unhealthy machine can gain network access.
Because there are easier attacks on NEA systems, like having the
unhealthy machine lie about its configuration, this attack is
generally only mounted against machines with an External Measurement
Agent (EMA). The EMA is a separate entity, difficult to compromise,
that measures and attests to the configuration of the endpoint.
To protect against NEA Asokan attacks, it is necessary for the
Posture Broker on an EMA-equipped endpoint to pass the tls-unique
channel binding [RFC5929] from PT-EAP's tunnel method to the EMA.
This value can then be included in the EMA's attestation so that the
Posture Validator responsible may then confirm that the value matches
the tls-unique channel binding for its end of the tunnel. If the
tls-unique values of the NEA Client and NEA Server match and this is
confirmed by the EMA, then the posture sent by a trustworthy EMA (and
thus the NEA Client) is from the same endpoint as the client side of
the TLS connection (since the endpoint knows the tls-unique value) so
no MITM is forwarding posture. If they differ, an attack has been
detected, and the Posture Validator SHOULD fail its verification.
Note that tls-unique, as opposed to invoking a mutual cryptographic
binding, is used as there is no keying material being generated by
PT-EAP (the method is defined to facilitate the transport of posture
data and is not an authentication method). However, the NEA Client
may host an EMA that can be used as the means to cryptographically
bind the tls-unique content that may be validated by the Posture
Validator interfacing with the EAP Server. The binding of the
tls-unique to the client authentication prevents the client's message
from being used in another context. This prevents a poorly
configured client from unintentionally compromising the NEA system.
Strong mutual authentication of the NEA Server and Client is still
REQUIRED to prevent the disclosure of possibly sensitive NEA Client
information to an attacker.
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
4. Security Considerations
This section discusses the major threats and countermeasures provided
by PT-EAP. As discussed throughout the document, the PT-EAP method
is designed to run inside an EAP tunnel method that is capable of
protecting the PT-EAP protocol from many threats. Since the EAP
tunnel method will be specified separately, this section describes
the considerations on the EAP tunnel method but does not evaluate its
ability to meet those requirements. The security considerations and
requirements for NEA can be found in [RFC5209].
4.1. Trust Relationships
In order to understand where security countermeasures are necessary,
this section starts with a discussion of where the NEA architecture
envisions some trust relationships between the processing elements of
the PT-EAP protocol. The following sub-sections discuss the trust
properties associated with each portion of the NEA reference model
directly involved with the processing of the PT-EAP protocol flowing
inside an EAP tunnel.
4.1.1. Posture Transport Client
The Posture Transport Client is trusted by the Posture Broker Client
to:
o Not disclose to unauthorized parties, fabricate, or alter the
contents of the PB-TNC batches received from the network.
o Not observe, fabricate, or alter the PB-TNC batches passed down
from the Posture Broker Client for transmission on the network.
o Transmit on the network any PB-TNC batches passed down from the
Posture Broker Client.
o Provide configured security protections (e.g., authentication,
integrity, and confidentiality) for the Posture Broker Client's
PB-TNC batches sent on the network.
o Expose the authenticated identity of the Posture Transport Server
to the Posture Broker Client.
o Verify the security protections placed upon messages received from
the network to ensure the messages are authentic and protected
from attacks on the network.
o Deliver to the Posture Broker Client the PB-TNC batches received
from the network so long as they are properly security protected.
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
o Provide a secure, reliable, "in-order delivery", full-duplex
transport for the Posture Broker Client's messages.
Since the Posture Transport Server can not validate the
trustworthiness of the Posture Transport Client, the Posture
Transport Server should protect itself appropriately.
4.1.2. Posture Transport Server
The Posture Transport Server is trusted by the Posture Broker Server
to:
o Not observe, fabricate, or alter the contents of the PB-TNC
batches received from the network.
o Not observe, fabricate, or alter the PB-TNC batches passed down
from the Posture Broker Server for transmission on the network.
o Transmit on the network any PB-TNC batches passed down from the
Posture Broker Server.
o Ensure PB-TNC batches received from the network are properly
protected from a security perspective.
o Provide configured security protections (e.g., authentication,
integrity, and confidentiality) for the Posture Broker Server's
messages sent on the network.
o Expose the authenticated identity of the Posture Transport Client
to the Posture Broker Server.
o Verify the security protections placed upon messages received from
the network to ensure the messages are authentic and protected
from attacks on the network.
Since the Posture Transport Client can not validate the
trustworthiness of the Posture Transport Server, the Posture
Transport Client should protect itself appropriately.
4.2. Threats and Countermeasures
Beyond the trusted relationships assumed in Section 4.1, the PT-EAP
EAP method faces a number of potential security attacks that could
require security countermeasures.
Generally, the PT protocol is responsible for providing strong
security protections for all of the NEA protocols so any threats to
PT's ability to protect NEA protocol messages could be very damaging
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
to deployments. For the PT-EAP method, most of the cryptographic
security is provided by the outer EAP tunnel method, and PT-EAP is
encapsulated within the protected tunnel. Therefore, this section
highlights the cryptographic requirements that need to be met by the
EAP tunnel method carrying PT-EAP in order to meet the NEA PT
requirements.
Once the message is delivered to the Posture Broker Client or Posture
Broker Server, the Posture Brokers are trusted to properly and safely
process the messages.
4.2.1. Message Confidentiality
When PT-EAP messages are sent over unprotected network links or span
local software stacks that are not trusted, the contents of the
messages may be subject to information theft by an intermediary
party. This theft could result in information being recorded for
future use or analysis by an adversary. Messages observed by
eavesdroppers could contain information that exposes potential
weaknesses in the security of the endpoint or system fingerprinting
information easing the ability of the attacker to employ attacks more
likely to be successful against the endpoint. The eavesdropper might
also learn information about the endpoint or network policies that
either singularly or collectively is considered sensitive
information. For example, if PT-EAP is carried by an EAP tunnel
method that does not provide confidentiality protection, an adversary
could observe the PA-TNC attributes included in the PB-TNC batch and
determine that the endpoint is lacking patches or that particular
sub-networks have more lenient policies.
In order to protect against NEA assessment message theft, the EAP
tunnel method carrying PT-EAP must provide strong cryptographic
authentication, integrity, and confidentiality protection. The use
of bidirectional authentication in the EAP tunnel method carrying
PT-EAP ensures that only properly authenticated and authorized
parties may be involved in an assessment message exchange. When
PT-EAP is carried within a cryptographically protected EAP tunnel
method like EAP-FAST or EAP-TTLS, all of the contents of PB-TNC and
PA-TNC protocol messages are hidden from potential theft by
intermediaries lurking on the network.
4.2.2. Message Fabrication
Attackers on the network or present within the NEA system could
introduce fabricated PT-EAP messages intending to trick or create a
denial of service against aspects of an assessment. For example, an
adversary could attempt to insert a PT-EAP message to tell a NEA
Server that the endpoint is totally infected. This could cause the
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
device to be blocked from accessing a critical resource, which would
be a denial of service.
The EAP tunnel method carrying a PT-EAP method needs to provide
strong security protections for the complete message exchange over
the network. These security protections prevent an intermediary from
being able to insert fake messages into the assessment. See
Section 5 for more details on the EAP tunnel requirements.
4.2.3. Message Modification
This attack could allow an active attacker capable of intercepting a
message to modify a PT-EAP message or transported PA-TNC attribute to
a desired value to ease the compromise of an endpoint. Without the
ability for message recipients to detect whether a received message
contains the same content as what was originally sent, active
attackers can stealthily modify the attribute exchange.
PT-EAP leverages the EAP tunnel method (e.g., TEAP, EAP-FAST, or EAP-
TTLS) to provide strong authentication and integrity protections as a
countermeasure to this threat. The bidirectional authentication
prevents the attacker from acting as an active MITM to the protocol
that could be used to modify the message exchange. The strong
integrity protections offered by the TLS-based EAP tunnel method
allow the PT-EAP message recipients to detect message alterations by
other types of network-based adversaries. Because PT-EAP does not
itself provide explicit integrity protection for the PT-EAP payload,
an EAP tunnel method that offers strong integrity protection is
needed to mitigate this threat.
4.2.4. Denial of Service
A variety of types of denial-of-service attacks are possible against
PT-EAP if the message exchange is left unprotected while traveling
over the network. The Posture Transport Client and Posture Transport
Server are trusted not to participate in the denial of service of the
assessment session, leaving the threats to come from the network.
The PT-EAP method primarily relies on the outer EAP tunnel method to
provide strong authentication (at least of one party), and deployers
are expected to leverage other EAP methods to authenticate the other
party (typically the client) within the protected tunnel. The use of
a protected bidirectional authentication will prevent unauthorized
parties from participating in a PT-EAP exchange.
After the cryptographic authentication by the EAP tunnel method, the
session can be protected cryptographically to provide confidentiality
and source authenticity. Such protection prevents undetected
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
modification that could create a denial-of-service situation.
However, it is possible for an adversary to alter the message flows,
causing each message to be rejected by the recipient because it fails
the integrity checking.
4.2.5. NEA Asokan Attacks
As described in Section 3.4 and in the NEA Asokan Attack Analysis
[RFC6813], a sophisticated MITM attack can be mounted against NEA
systems. The attacker forwards PA-TNC messages from a healthy
machine through an unhealthy one so that the unhealthy machine can
gain network access. Section 3.4 and [RFC6813] provide a detailed
description of this attack and of the countermeasures that can be
employed against it.
Because lying endpoint attacks are much easier than Asokan attacks
and an effective countermeasure against lying endpoint attacks is the
use of an External Measurement Agent (EMA), countermeasures against
an Asokan attack are not necessary unless an EMA is in use. However,
PT-EAP implementers may not know whether an EMA will be used with
their implementation. Therefore, PT-EAP implementers SHOULD support
these countermeasures by providing the value of the tls-unique
channel binding to higher layers in the NEA reference model: Posture
Broker Clients, Posture Broker Servers, Posture Collectors, and
Posture Validators. If the tls-unique channel binding is
implemented, it must be verified before any other attestations are
evaluated.
4.3. Candidate EAP Tunnel Method Protections
This section discusses how PT-EAP is used within various EAP tunnel
methods to meet the PT requirements in Section 5.
TEAP [RFC7170], EAP-FAST [RFC4851], and EAP-TTLS [RFC5281] make use
of TLS [RFC5246] to protect the transport of information between the
NEA Client and NEA Server. Each of these EAP tunnel methods has two
phases. In the first phase, a TLS tunnel is established between the
NEA Client and NEA Server. In the second phase, the tunnel is used
to pass other information. PT-EAP requires that establishing this
tunnel include at least an authentication of the NEA Server by the
NEA Client.
The phase two dialog may include authentication of the user by doing
other EAP methods or, in the case of EAP-TTLS, by using EAP or non-
EAP authentication dialogs. PT-EAP is also carried by the phase two
tunnel, allowing the NEA assessment to be within an encrypted and
integrity-protected transport.
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
With all these methods (e.g., TEAP [RFC7170], EAP-FAST [RFC4851], and
EAP-TTLS [RFC5281]), a cryptographic key is derived from the
authentication that may be used to secure later transmissions. Each
of these methods employs at least a NEA Server authentication using
an X.509 certificate. Within each EAP tunnel method will exist a set
of inner EAP methods. These inner methods may perform additional
security handshakes including more granular authentications or
exchanges of integrity information (such as PT-EAP). At some point
after the conclusion of each inner EAP method, some of the methods
will export the established secret keys to the outer tunnel method.
It's expected that the outer method will cryptographically mix these
keys into any keys it is currently using to protect the session and
perform a final operation to determine whether both parties have
arrived at the same mixed key. This cryptographic binding of the
inner method results to the outer method's keys is essential for
detection of conventional (non-NEA) Asokan attacks.
TEAP [RFC7170] is the mandatory-to-implement EAP tunnel method.
4.4. Security Claims for PT-EAP as per RFC 3748
This section summarizes the security claims for this specification,
as required by [RFC3748], Section 7.2:
Auth. mechanism: None
Ciphersuite negotiation: No
Mutual authentication: No
Integrity protection: No
Replay protection: No
Confidentiality: No
Key derivation: No
Key strength: N/A
Dictionary attack resistant: N/A
Fast reconnect: No
Crypt. binding: N/A
Session independence: N/A
Fragmentation: No
Channel binding: No
5. Requirements for EAP Tunnel Methods
Because the PT-EAP inner method described in this specification
relies on the outer EAP tunnel method for a majority of its security
protections, this section reiterates the PT requirements that MUST be
met by the IETF standard EAP tunnel method for use with PT-EAP.
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
TEAP [RFC7170] is a Standards Track EAP tunnel method that satisfies
NEA's requirements and is the mandatory-to-implement EAP tunnel
method.
The security requirements described in this specification MUST be
implemented in any product claiming to be PT-EAP compliant. The
decision of whether a particular deployment chooses to use these
protections is a deployment issue. A customer may choose to avoid
potential deployment issues or performance penalties associated with
the use of cryptography when the required protection has been
achieved through other mechanisms (e.g., physical isolation). If
security mechanisms may be deactivated by policy, an implementation
SHOULD offer an interface to query how a message will be (or was)
protected by PT so higher-layer NEA protocols can factor this into
their decisions.
RFC 5209 [RFC5209] includes the following requirement that is to be
applied during the selection of the EAP tunnel method(s) used in
conjunction with PT-EAP:
PT-2: The PT protocol MUST be capable of supporting mutual
authentication, integrity, confidentiality, and replay protection
of the PB messages between the Posture Transport Client and the
Posture Transport Server.
Note that mutual authentication could be achieved by a combination of
a strong authentication of one party (e.g., server authentication
while establishing the TLS-based tunnel) by the EAP tunnel method in
conjunction with a second authentication of the other party (e.g.,
client authentication inside the protected tunnel) by another EAP
method running prior to PT-EAP.
Having the Posture Transport Client always authenticate the Posture
Transport Server provides assurance to the NEA Client that the NEA
Server is authentic (not a rogue or MITM) prior to disclosing secret
or potentially privacy-sensitive information about what is running or
configured on the endpoint. However, the NEA Server's policy may
allow for the delay of the authentication of the NEA Client until a
suitable protected channel has been established allowing for non-
cryptographic NEA Client credentials (e.g., username/password) to be
used. Whether the communication channel is established with mutual
or server-side-only authentication, the resulting channel needs to
provide strong integrity and confidentiality protection to its
contents. These protections are to be bound to at least the
authentication of the NEA Server by the NEA Client, so the session is
cryptographically bound to a particular authentication event.
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
The EAP tunnel method carrying PT-EAP MUST provide strong
cryptographic authentication, integrity, and confidentiality
protection to protect against NEA assessment message theft as
described in Section 4.2.1. The cryptographically protected EAP
tunnel ensures that all of the PA-TNC and PB-TNC protocol messages
are hidden from intermediaries wanting to steal NEA data.
To support countermeasures against NEA Asokan attacks as described in
Section 3.4, the EAP tunnel method used with PT-EAP will need to
support generation of the tls-unique value to be used with the higher
layers of the NEA reference model. This should not be a high bar
since all EAP tunnel methods currently support this, but not all
implementations of those methods may do so.
6. Privacy Considerations
The role of PT-EAP is to act as a secure transport for PB-TNC over a
network before the endpoint has been admitted to the network. As a
transport protocol, PT-EAP does not directly utilize or require
direct knowledge of any personally identifiable information (PII).
PT-EAP will typically be used in conjunction with other EAP methods
that provide for the user authentication (if bidirectional
authentication is used), so the user's credentials are not directly
seen by the PT-EAP inner method.
While PT-EAP does not provide cryptographic protection for the PB-TNC
batches, it is designed to operate within an EAP tunnel method that
provides strong authentication, integrity, and confidentiality
services. Therefore, it is important for deployers to leverage these
protections in order to prevent disclosure of PII potentially
contained within PA-TNC or PB-TNC within the PT-EAP payload.
7. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the
PT-EAP protocol, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC5226].
The EAP Method type for PT-EAP has been assigned value 54, i.e., the
assignment for Type in Section 3.3.
+-------+----------------------------+-----------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+----------------------------+-----------+
| 54 | EAP Method Type for PT-EAP | [RFC7171] |
+-------+----------------------------+-----------+
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
This document also defines one new IANA top-level registry: "PT-EAP
Versions". This section explains how this registry works. Because
only eight (8) values are available in this registry, a high bar is
set for new assignments. The only way to register new values in this
registry is through Standards Action (via an approved Standards Track
RFC).
7.1. Registry for PT-EAP Versions
The name for this registry is "PT-EAP Versions". Each entry in this
registry includes a decimal integer value between 1 and 7 identifying
the version and also includes a reference to the RFC where the
version is defined.
The following entries are defined in this document and are the
initial entries in the registry. Additional entries to this registry
are added by Standards Action, as defined in RFC 5226 [RFC5226].
+-------+------------------------+
| Value | Defining Specification |
+-------+------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved |
| 1 | [RFC7171] |
+-------+------------------------+
8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to the Trusted Computing Group for contributing the initial
text upon which this document was based.
The authors of this document would like to acknowledge the following
people who have contributed to or provided substantial input on the
preparation of this document or predecessors to it: Amit Agarwal,
Morteza Ansari, Diana Arroyo, Stuart Bailey, Boris Balacheff, Uri
Blumenthal, Gene Chang, Scott Cochrane, Pasi Eronen, Aman Garg,
Sandilya Garimella, David Grawrock, Stephen Hanna, Thomas Hardjono,
Chris Hessing, Ryan Hurst, Hidenobu Ito, John Jerrim, Meenakshi
Kaushik, Greg Kazmierczak, Scott Kelly, Bryan Kingsford, PJ Kirner,
Sung Lee, Lisa Lorenzin, Mahalingam Mani, Bipin Mistry, Seiji
Munetoh, Rod Murchison, Barbara Nelson, Kazuaki Nimura, Ron Pon, Ivan
Pulleyn, Alex Romanyuk, Ravi Sahita, Joseph Salowey, Chris Salter,
Mauricio Sanchez, Dean Sheffield, Curtis Simonson, Jeff Six, Ned
Smith, Michelle Sommerstad, Joseph Tardo, Lee Terrell, Susan Thomson,
Chris Trytten, and John Vollbrecht.
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC
3748, June 2004.
[RFC5209] Sangster, P., Khosravi, H., Mani, M., Narayan, K., and J.
Tardo, "Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA): Overview and
Requirements", RFC 5209, June 2008.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC5792] Sangster, P. and K. Narayan, "PA-TNC: A Posture Attribute
(PA) Protocol Compatible with Trusted Network Connect
(TNC)", RFC 5792, March 2010.
[RFC5793] Sahita, R., Hanna, S., Hurst, R., and K. Narayan, "PB-TNC:
A Posture Broker (PB) Protocol Compatible with Trusted
Network Connect (TNC)", RFC 5793, March 2010.
[RFC5929] Altman, J., Williams, N., and L. Zhu, "Channel Bindings
for TLS", RFC 5929, July 2010.
[RFC7170] Zhou, H., Cam-Winget, N., Salowey, J., and S. Hanna,
"Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version
1", RFC 7170, May 2014.
9.2. Informative References
[Asokan] Asokan, N., Niemi, V., Nyberg, K., and Nokia Research
Center, Finland, "Man-in-the-Middle Attacks in Tunneled
Authentication Protocols", Nov 2002,
<http://eprint.iacr.org/2002/163.pdf>.
[RFC4851] Cam-Winget, N., McGrew, D., Salowey, J., and H. Zhou, "The
Flexible Authentication via Secure Tunneling Extensible
Authentication Protocol Method (EAP-FAST)", RFC 4851, May
2007.
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 7171 NEA PT-EAP May 2014
[RFC5281] Funk, P. and S. Blake-Wilson, "Extensible Authentication
Protocol Tunneled Transport Layer Security Authenticated
Protocol Version 0 (EAP-TTLSv0)", RFC 5281, August 2008.
[RFC6813] Salowey, J. and S. Hanna, "The Network Endpoint Assessment
(NEA) Asokan Attack Analysis", RFC 6813, December 2012.
[RFC6876] Sangster, P., Cam-Winget, N., and J. Salowey, "A Posture
Transport Protocol over TLS (PT-TLS)", RFC 6876, February
2013.
Authors' Addresses
Nancy Cam-Winget
Cisco Systems
80 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
EMail: ncamwing@cisco.com
Paul Sangster
Symantec Corporation
6825 Citrine Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
US
EMail: paul_sangster@symantec.com
Cam-Winget & Sangster Standards Track [Page 19]