path: root/doc/protocol/draft-funk-tls-inner-application-extension-02.txt

TLS Working Group                                             Paul Funk 
Internet-Draft                                         Juniper Networks 
Category: Standards Track                            Simon Blake-Wilson 
<draft-funk-tls-inner-application-extension-02.txt>    Basic Commerce &  
                                                       Industries, Inc. 
                                                              Ned Smith 
                                                            Intel Corp. 
                                                      Hannes Tschofenig 
                                                             Siemens AG 
                                                        Thomas Hardjono 
                                                          VeriSign Inc. 
                                                             March 2006 

                                     

                    TLS Inner Application Extension 
                               (TLS/IA) 

                                     

Status of this Memo 

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that 
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts. 

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 

Copyright Notice 

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). All Rights Reserved. 

Abstract 

   This document defines a new TLS extension called "Inner 
   Application". When TLS is used with the Inner Application extension 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   (TLS/IA), additional messages are exchanged after completion of the 
   TLS handshake, in effect providing an extended handshake prior to 
   the start of upper layer data communications. Each TLS/IA message 
   contains an encrypted sequence of Attribute-Value-Pairs (AVPs) from 
   the RADIUS/Diameter namespace. Hence, the AVPs defined in RADIUS and 
   Diameter have the same meaning in TLS/AI; that is, each attribute 
   code point refers to the same logical attribute in any of these 
   protocols. Arbitrary "applications" may be implemented using the AVP 
   exchange. Possible applications include EAP or other forms of user 
   authentication, client integrity checking, provisioning of 
   additional tunnels, and the like. Use of the RADIUS/Diameter 
   namespace provides natural compatibility between TLS/IA applications 
   and widely deployed AAA infrastructures. 

   It is anticipated that TLS/IA will be used with and without 
   subsequent protected data communication within the tunnel 
   established by the handshake. For example, TLS/IA may be used to 
   secure an HTTP data connection, allowing more robust password-based 
   user authentication to occur than would otherwise be possible using 
   mechanisms available in HTTP. TLS/IA may also be used for its 
   handshake portion alone; for example, EAP-TTLSv1 encapsulates a 
   TLS/IA handshake in EAP as a means to mutually authenticate a client 
   and server and establish keys for a separate data connection. 

Table of Contents 

1   Introduction......................................................3 
1.1    A Bit of History..............................................4 
1.2    TLS With or Without Upper Layer Data Communications...........5 
2   The Inner Application Extension to TLS............................5 
2.1    TLS/IA Message Exchange.......................................7 
2.2    Inner Secret..................................................9 
2.2.1      Application Session Key Material.........................10 
2.3    Session Resumption...........................................11 
2.4    Error Termination............................................12 
2.5    Negotiating the Inner Application Extension..................12 
2.6    InnerApplication Protocol....................................12 
2.6.1      InnerApplicationExtension................................12 
2.6.2      InnerApplication Message.................................13 
2.6.3      IntermediatePhaseFinished and FinalPhaseFinished Messages13 
2.6.4      The ApplicationPayload Message...........................14 
2.7    Alerts .......................................................14 
3   Encapsulation of AVPs within ApplicationPayload Messages.........15 
3.1    AVP Format...................................................15 
3.2    AVP Sequences................................................17 
3.3    Guidelines for Maximum Compatibility with AAA Servers........17 
4   Tunneled Authentication within Application Phases................17 
4.1    Implicit challenge...........................................18 
4.2    Tunneled Authentication Protocols............................18 
4.2.1      EAP ......................................................19 
4.2.2      CHAP .....................................................20 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006                [Page 2] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


4.2.3      MS-CHAP..................................................20 
4.2.4      MS-CHAP-V2...............................................21 
4.2.5      PAP ......................................................22 
4.3    Performing Multiple Authentications..........................23 
5   Example Message Sequences........................................23 
5.1    Full Initial Handshake with Intermediate and Final Application 
Phases 23 
5.2    Resumed Session with Single Application Phase................24 
5.3    Resumed Session with No Application Phase....................25 
6   Security Considerations..........................................25 
7   References.......................................................28 
7.1    Normative References.........................................28 
7.2    Informative References.......................................29 
8   Authors' Addresses...............................................30 
9   Intellectual Property Statement..................................31 
    

1  Introduction 

   This specification defines the TLS "Inner Application" extension. 
   The term "TLS/IA" refers to the TLS protocol when used with the 
   Inner Application extension. 

   In TLS/IA, the setup portion of TLS is extended to allow an 
   arbitrary exchange of information between client and server within a 
   protected tunnel established during the TLS handshake and prior to 
   the start of upper layer TLS data communications. The TLS handshake 
   itself is unchanged; the subsequent Inner Application exchange is 
   conducted under the confidentiality and integrity protection that is 
   afforded by the TLS handshake. 

   The primary motivation for providing this facility is to allow 
   robust user authentication to occur as part of an "extended" 
   handshake, in particular, user authentication that is based on 
   password credentials, which is best conducted under the protection 
   of an encrypted tunnel to preclude dictionary attack by 
   eavesdroppers. For example, the Extensible Authentication Protocol 
   (EAP) may be used for authentication using any of a wide variety of 
   methods as part of this extended handshake. The multi-layer approach 
   of TLS/IA, in which a strong authentication, typically based on a 
   server certificate, is used to protected a password-based 
   authentication, distinguishes it from other TLS variants that rely 
   entirely on a pre-shared key or password for security (such as [TLS-
   PSK]). 

   The protected exchange accommodates any type of client-server 
   application, not just authentication, though authentication may 
   often be the prerequisite for other applications to proceed. For 
   example, TLS/IA may be used to set up HTTP connections, establish 
   IPsec security associations (as an alternative to IKE), obtain 




Paul Funk               expires September 2006                [Page 3] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   credentials for single sign-on, provide client integrity 
   verification, and so on. 

   The new messages that are exchanged between client and server are 
   encoded as sequences of Attribute-Value-Pairs (AVPs) from the 
   RADIUS/Diameter namespace. Use of the RADIUS/Diameter namespace 
   provides natural compatibility between TLS/IA applications and 
   widely deployed AAA infrastructures. This namespace is extensible, 
   allowing new AVPs and, thus, new applications to be defined as 
   needed, either by standards bodies or by vendors wishing to define 
   proprietary applications. 

   The TLS/IA exchange comprises one or more "phases", each of which 
   consists of an arbitrary number of AVP exchanges followed by a 
   confirmation exchange. Authentications occurring in any phase must 
   be confirmed prior to continuing to the next phase. This allows 
   applications to implement security dependencies in which particular 
   assurances are required prior to the exchange of additional 
   information. 

1.1  A Bit of History 

   The TLS protocol has its roots in the Netscape SSL protocol, which 
   was originally intended to protect HTTP traffic. It provides either 
   one-way or mutual certificate-based authentication of client and 
   server. In its most typical use in HTTP, the client authenticates 
   the server based on the server's certificate and establishes a 
   tunnel through which HTTP traffic is passed.  

   For the server to authenticate the client within the TLS handshake, 
   the client must have its own certificate. In cases where the client 
   must be authenticated without a certificate, HTTP, not TLS, 
   mechanisms would have to be employed. For example, HTTP headers have 
   been defined to perform user authentications. However, these 
   mechanisms are primitive compared to other mechanisms, most notably 
   EAP, that have been defined for contexts other than HTTP. 
   Furthermore, any mechanisms defined for HTTP cannot be utilized when 
   TLS is used to protect non-HTTP traffic. 

   The TLS protocol has also found an important use in authentication 
   for network access, originally within PPP for dial-up access and 
   later for wireless and wired 802.1X access. Several EAP types have 
   been defined that utilize TLS to perform mutual client-server 
   authentication. The first to appear, EAP-TLS, uses the TLS handshake 
   to authenticate both client and server based on their certificates.  

   Subsequently proposed protocols, such EAP-TTLSv0 and EAP-PEAP, 
   utilize the TLS handshake to allow the client to authenticate the 
   server based on the latter's certificate, and then use the protected 
   channel established by the TLS handshake to perform user 
   authentication, typically based on a password. Such protocols are 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006                [Page 4] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   called "tunneled" EAP protocols. The authentication mechanism used 
   inside the tunnel may itself be EAP, and the tunnel may also be used 
   to convey additional information between client and server. 

   While tunneled authentication would be useful in other contexts 
   besides EAP, the tunneled protocols mentioned above cannot be 
   employed in a more general use of TLS, since the outermost protocol 
   is EAP, not TLS. Furthermore, these protocols use the TLS tunnel to 
   carry authentication exchanges, and thus preclude use of the TLS 
   tunnel for other purposes such as carrying HTTP traffic. 

   TLS/IA provides a means to perform user authentication and other 
   message exchanges between client and server strictly within TLS. 
   TLS/IA can thus be used both for flexible user authentication within 
   a TLS session and as a basis for tunneled authentication within EAP.  

   The TLS/IA approach is to insert an additional message exchange 
   between the TLS handshake and the subsequent data communications 
   phase. This message exchange is carried in a new record type, which 
   is distinct from the record type that carries upper layer data. 
   Thus, the data portion of the TLS exchange becomes available for 
   HTTP or another protocol that needs to be secured. 

1.2  TLS With or Without Upper Layer Data Communications 

   It is anticipated that TLS/IA will be used with and without 
   subsequent protected data communication within the tunnel 
   established by the handshake.  

   For example, TLS/IA may be used to protect an HTTP connection, 
   allowing more robust password-based user authentication to occur 
   within the TLS/IA extended handshake than would otherwise be 
   possible using mechanisms available in HTTP.  

   TLS/IA may also be used for its handshake portion alone. For 
   example, EAP-TTLSv1 encapsulates a TLS/IA extended handshake in EAP 
   as a means to mutually authenticate a client and server and 
   establish keys for a separate data connection; no subsequent TLS 
   data portion is required. Another example might be the use of TLS/IA 
   directly over TCP in order to provide a user with credentials for 
   single sign-on. 

2  The Inner Application Extension to TLS 

   The Inner Application extension to TLS follows the guidelines of 
   [RFC3546].  

   A new extension type is defined for negotiating use of TLS/IA: 

   -  The InnerApplicationExtension extension type. The client proposes 
      use of this extension by including a InnerApplicationExtension 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006                [Page 5] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


      message in its ClientHello handshake message, and the server 
      confirms its use by including a InnerApplicationExtension message 
      in its ServerHello handshake message.  

   A new record type (ContentType) is defined for use in TLS/IA: 

   -  The InnerApplication record type. This record type carries all 
      messages that are exchanged after the TLS handshake and prior to 
      exchange of data. 

   A new message type is defined for use within the InnerApplication 
   record type: 

   -  The InnerApplication message. This message may encapsulate any of 
      the three following subtypes: 

       -  The ApplicationPayload message. This message is used to carry 
         AVP (Attribute-Value Pair) sequences within the TLS/IA 
         extended handshake, in support of client-server applications 
         such as authentication. 

       -  The IntermediatePhaseFinished message. This message confirms 
         session keys established during the current TLS/IA phase, and 
         indicates that at least one additional phase is to follow. 

       -  The FinalPhaseFinished message. This message confirms session 
         keys established during the current TLS/IA phase, and 
         indicates that no further phases are to follow. 

   Two new alert codes are defined for use in TLS/IA: 

   -  The InnerApplicationFailure alert. This error alert allows either 
      party to terminate the TLS/IA extended handshake due to a failure 
      in an application implemented via AVP sequences carried in 
      ApplicationPayload messages. 

   -  The InnerApplicationVerification alert. This error alert allows 
      either party to terminate the TLS/IA extended handshake due to 
      incorrect verification data in a received 
      IntermediatePhaseFinished or FinalPhaseFinished message. 

   The following new assigned numbers are used in TLS/IA: 

   -  "InnerApplicationExtension" extension type:      37703 

   -  "InnerApplication" record type:                 24 

   -  "InnerApplicationFailure" alert code:           208 

   -  "InnerApplicationVerification" alert code:      209 




Paul Funk               expires September 2006                [Page 6] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   [Editor's note: I have not checked these types yet against types 
   defined in RFCs or drafts. The TLS RFC specifies that new record 
   types use the next number after ones already defined; hence I used 
   24, though I don't know if that is already taken.] 

2.1  TLS/IA Message Exchange 

   In TLS/IA, zero or more "application phases are inserted after the 
   TLS handshake and prior to ordinary data exchange. The last such 
   application phase is called the "final phase"; any application 
   phases prior to the final phase are called "intermediate phases". 

   Intermediate phases are only necessary if interim confirmation of 
   session keys generated during an application phase is desired.  

   Each application phase consists of ApplicationPayload handshake 
   messages exchanged by client and server to implement applications 
   such as authentication, plus concluding messages for cryptographic 
   confirmation. These messages are encapsulated in records with 
   ContentType of InnerApplication. 

   All application phases prior to the final phase conclude with an 
   exchange of  IntermediatePhaseFinished messages, or conclude with a 
   FinalPhaseFinished message from the server and an 
   IntermediatePhaseFinished message from the client, by which the 
   client indicates its desire to keep the handshake open for one or 
   more additional phases. The final phase concludes with an exchange 
   of FinalPhaseFinished messages.  

   Application phases may be omitted entirely only when session 
   resumption is used, provided both client and server agree that no 
   application phase is required. The client indicates in its 
   ClientHello whether it is willing to omit application phases in a 
   resumed session, and the server indicates in its ServerHello whether 
   any application phases are to ensue. 

   In each application phase, the client sends the first 
   ApplicationPayload message. ApplicationPayload messages are traded 
   one at a time between client and server, until the server concludes 
   the phase by sending, in response to an ApplicationPayload message 
   from the client, an IntermediatePhaseFinished or FinalPhaseFinished 
   sequence to conclude the phase. The client then responds with its 
   own IntermediatePhaseFinished or FinalPhaseFinished message.  

   The server determines which type of concluding message it wants to 
   use, either IntermediatePhaseFinished or FinalPhaseFinished. If the 
   server sent an IntermediatePhaseFinished, the client MUST respond 
   with an IntermediatePhaseFinished. If the server sent a 
   FinalPhaseFinished, the client MAY respond with a FinalPhaseFinished 
   to complete the handshake, or MAY respond with an 
   IntermediatePhaseFinished to cause the handshake to continue. Thus, 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006                [Page 7] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   conclusion of the entire handshake occurs only when both client and 
   server have been satisfied. 

   Note that the server MUST NOT send an IntermediatePhaseFinished or 
   FinalPhaseFinished message immediately after sending an 
   ApplicationPayload message. It must allow the client to send an 
   ApplicationPayload message prior to concluding the phase. Thus, 
   within any application phase, there will be one more 
   ApplicationPayload message sent by the client than sent by the 
   server. 

   At the start of each application phase, the server MUST wait for the 
   client's opening ApplicationPayload message before it sends its own 
   ApplicationPayload message to the client. The client MUST NOT 
   initiate conclusion of an application phase by sending the first 
   IntermediatePhaseFinished or FinalPhaseFinished message; it MUST 
   allow the server to initiate the conclusion of the phase. 

   Each IntermediatePhaseFinished or FinalPhaseFinished message 
   provides cryptographic confirmation of any session keys generated 
   during the current and any prior applications phases. 

   Each ApplicationPayload message contains opaque data interpreted as 
   an AVP (Attribute-Value Pair) sequence. Each AVP in the sequence 
   contains a typed data element. The exchanged AVPs allow client and 
   server to implement "applications" within a secure tunnel. An 
   application may be any procedure that someone may usefully define. A 
   typical application might be authentication; for example, the server 
   may authenticate the client based on password credentials using EAP. 
   Other possible applications include distribution of keys, validating 
   client integrity, setting up IPsec parameters, setting up SSL VPNs, 
   and so on. 

   Note that it is perfectly acceptable for either client or server to 
   send an ApplicationPayload message containing no AVPs. The client, 
   for example, may have no AVPs to send in its first or last 
   ApplicationPayload message during an application phase.  

   An "inner secret" is computed during each application phase that 
   cryptographically combines the TLS master secret with any session 
   keys that have been generated during the current and any previous 
   application phases. At the conclusion of each application phase, a 
   new inner secret is computed and is used to create verification data 
   that is exchanged via the IntermediatePhaseFinished or 
   FinalPhaseFinished messages. By mixing session keys of inner 
   authentications with the TLS master secret, certain man-in-the-
   middle attacks are thwarted [MITM]. 







Paul Funk               expires September 2006                [Page 8] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


2.2  Inner Secret  

   The inner secret is a 48-octet value used to confirm that the 
   endpoints of the TLS handshake are the same entities as the 
   endpoints of the inner authentications that may have been performed 
   during each application phase. 

   The inner secret is initialized to the master secret at the 
   conclusion of the TLS handshake. At the conclusion of each 
   application phase, prior to computing verification data for 
   inclusion in the IntermediatePhaseFinished or FinalPhaseFinished 
   message, each party permutes the inner secret using a PRF that 
   includes session keys produced during the current application phase. 
   The value that results replaces the current inner secret and is used 
   to compute the verification data. 

      inner_secret = PRF(inner_secret,  
                         "inner secret permutation",  
                         SecurityParameters.server_random + 
                         SecurityParameters.client_random +  
                          session_key_material) [0..48]; 

   session_key_material is the concatenation of session_key vectors, 
   one for each session key generated during the current phase, where: 

      opaque session_key<1..2^16-1>; 

   In other words, each session key is prefixed by a 2-octet length to 
   produce the session_key vector. 

   Since multiple session keys may be produced during a single 
   application phase, the following method is used to determine the 
   order of concatenation: Each session key is treated as an unsigned 
   big-endian numeric value, and the set of session keys is ordered 
   from lowest to highest. The session keys are then converted to 
   session_key vectors and concatenated in the determined order to form 
   session_key_material. 

   If no session keys were generated during the current phase, 
   session_key_material will be null. 

   Note that session_key_material itself is not a vector and therefore 
   not prefixed with the length of the entire collection of session_key 
   vectors. 

   Note that, within TLS itself, the inner secret is used for 
   verification only, not for encryption. However, the inner secret 
   resulting from the final application phase may be exported for use 
   as a key from which additional session keys may be derived for 
   arbitrary purposes, including encryption of data communications 
   separate from TLS. 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006                [Page 9] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   An exported inner secret should not be used directly for any 
   cryptographic purpose. Instead, additional keys should be derived 
   from the inner secret, for example by using a PRF. This ensures 
   cryptographic separation between use of the inner secret for session 
   key confirmation and additional use of the inner secret outside 
   TLS/IA. 

2.2.1 Application Session Key Material 

   Many authentication protocols used today generate session keys that 
   are bound to the authentication. Such keying material is normally 
   intended for use in a subsequent data connection for encryption and 
   validation. For example, EAP-TLS, MS-CHAP-V2, and EAP-MS-CHAP-V2 
   generate session keys. 

   Any session keys generated during an application phase MUST be used 
   to permute the TLS/IA inner secret between one phase and the next, 
   and MUST NOT be used for any other purpose.  

   Each authentication protocol may define how the session key it 
   generates is mapped to an octet sequence of some length for the 
   purpose of TLS/IA mixing. However, for protocols which do not 
   specify this (including the multitude of protocols that pre-date 
   TLS/IA) the following rules are defined. The first rule that applies 
   SHALL be the method for determining the session key. 

   -  If the authentication protocol produces an MSK (as defined in 
      [RFC3784]), the MSK is used as the session key.  Note that an MSK 
      is 64 octets. 

   -  If the authentication protocol maps its keying material to the 
      RADIUS attributes MS-MPPE-Recv-Key and MS-MPPE-Send-Key 
      [RFC2548], then the keying material for those attributes are 
      concatenated, with MS-MPPE-Recv-Key first  (Note that this rule 
      applies to MS-CHAP-V2 and EAP-MS-CHAP-V2.) 

   -  If the authentication protocol uses a pseudo-random function to 
      generate keying material, that function is used to generate 64 
      octets for use as keying material. 

   Providing verification of the binding of session keys to the TLS 
   master secret is necessary to preclude man-in-the-middle attacks 
   against tunneled authentication protocols, as described in [MITM]. 
   In such an attack, an unsuspecting client is induced to perform an 
   untunneled authentication with an attacker posing as a server; the 
   attacker then introduces the authentication protocol into a tunneled 
   authentication protocol, fooling an authentic server into believing 
   that the attacker is the authentic user. 

   By mixing both the TLS master secret and session keys generated 
   during application phase authentication into the inner secret used 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 10] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   for application phase verification, such attacks are thwarted, as it 
   guarantees that the same client acted as the endpoint for both the 
   TLS handshake and the application phase authentication. Note that 
   the session keys generated during authentication must be 
   cryptographically bound to the authentication and not derivable from 
   data exchanged during authentication in order for the keying 
   material to be useful in thwarting such attacks. 

   In addition, the fact that the inner secret cryptographically 
   incorporates session keys from application phase authentications 
   provides additional protection when the inner secret is exported for 
   the purpose of generating additional keys for use outside of the TLS 
   exchange. If such an exported secret did not include keying material 
   from inner authentications, an eavesdropper who somehow knew the 
   server's private key could, in an RSA-based handshake, determine the 
   exported secret and hence would be able to compute the additional 
   keys that are based on it. When inner authentication keying 
   material, unknown to the attacker, is incorporated into the exported 
   secret, such an attack becomes infeasible. 

2.3  Session Resumption 

   A TLS/IA initial handshake phase may be resumed using standard 
   mechanisms defined in [RFC2246]. When the TLS session is resumed, 
   client and server may not deem it necessary to exchange AVPs in one 
   or more additional application phases, as the resumption itself may 
   provide the necessary security. 

   The client indicates within the InnerApplicationExtension message in 
   ClientHello whether it requires AVP exchange when session resumption 
   occurs. If it indicates that it does not, then the server may at its 
   option omit application phases and the two parties proceed to upper 
   layer data communications immediately upon completion of the TLS 
   handshake. The server indicates whether application phases are to 
   follow the TLS handshake in its InnerApplication extension message 
   in ServerHello. 

   Note that [RFC3546] specifically states that when session resumption 
   is used, the server MUST ignore any extensions in the ClientHello. 
   However, it is not possible to comply with this requirement for the 
   Inner Application extension, since even in a resumed session it may 
   be necessary to include application phases, and whether they must be 
   included is negotiated in the extension message itself. Therefore, 
   the [RFC3546] provision is explicitly overridden for the single case 
   of the Inner Application extension, which is considered an exception 
   to this rule.  

   A TLS/IA session MAY NOT be resumed if an application phase resulted 
   in failure, even though the TLS handshake itself succeeded. Both 
   client and server MUST NOT save session state for possible future 




Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 11] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   resumption unless the TLS handshake and all subsequent application 
   phases have been successfully executed. 

2.4  Error Termination 

   The TLS/IA handshake may be terminated by either party sending a 
   fatal alert, following standard TLS procedures.  

2.5  Negotiating the Inner Application Extension 

   Use of the InnerApplication extension follows [RFC3546]. The client 
   proposes use of this extension by including the 
   InnerApplicationExtension message in the client_hello_extension_list 
   of the extended ClientHello. If this message is included in the 
   ClientHello, the server MAY accept the proposal by including the 
   InnerApplicationExtension message in the server_hello_extension_list 
   of the extended ServerHello. If use of this extension is either not 
   proposed by the client or not confirmed by the server, the 
   InnerApplication record type MUST NOT be used. 

2.6  InnerApplication Protocol 

   All specifications of TLS/IA messages follow the usage defined in 
   [RFC2246]. 

2.6.1 InnerApplicationExtension 

      enum { 
         no(0), yes(1), (255) 
      } AppPhaseOnResumption; 

      struct { 
         AppPhaseOnResumption app_phase_on_resumption; 
      } InnerApplicationExtension; 

   If the client wishes to propose use of the Inner Application 
   extension, it must include the InnerApplicationExtension message in 
   the extension_data vector in the Extension structure in its extended 
   ClientHello message. 

   If the server wishes to confirm use of the Inner Application 
   extension that has been proposed by the client, it must include the 
   InnerApplicationExtension message in the extension_data vector in 
   the Extension structure in its extended ServerHello message. 

   The AppPhaseOnResumption enumeration allow client and server to 
   negotiate an abbreviated, single-phase handshake when session 
   resumption is employed. If the client sets app_phase_on_resumption 
   to "no", and if the server resumes the previous session, then the 
   server MAY set app_phase_on_resumption to "no" in the 
   InnerApplication message it sends to the client. If the server sets 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 12] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   app_phase_on_resumption to "no", no application phases occur and the 
   TLS connection proceeds to upper layer data exchange immediately 
   upon conclusion of the TLS handshake. 

   The server MUST set app_phase_on_resumption to "yes" if the client 
   set app_phase_on_resumption to "yes" or if the server does not 
   resume the session. The server MAY set app_phase_on_resumption to 
   "yes" for a resumed session even if the client set 
   app_phase_on_resumption to "no", as the server may have reason to 
   proceed with one or more application phases. 

   If the server sets app_phase_on_resumption to "yes" for a resumed 
   session, then the client MUST initiate an application phase at the 
   conclusion of the TLS handshake. 

   The value of app_phase_on_resumption applies to the current 
   handshake only; that is, it is possible for app_phase_on_resumption 
   to have different values in two handshakes that are both resumed 
   from the same original TLS session. 

2.6.2 InnerApplication Message 

      enum { 
         application_payload(0), intermediate_phase_finished(1), 
         final_phase_finished(2), (255) 
      } InnerApplicationType; 

      struct { 
         InnerApplicationType msg_type; 
         uint24 length; 
         select (InnerApplicationType) { 
            case application_payload:       ApplicationPayload; 
            case intermediate_phase_finished:
         IntermediatePhaseFinished; 
            case final_phase_finished:      FinalPhaseFinished; 
            } body; 
         } InnerApplication; 

   The InnerApplication message carries any of the message types 
   defined for the InnerApplication protocol. 

2.6.3 IntermediatePhaseFinished and FinalPhaseFinished Messages 

      struct { 
         opaque verify_data[12]; 
      } PhaseFinished; 

      PhaseFinished IntermediatePhaseFinished; 

      PhaseFinished FinalPhaseFinished; 




Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 13] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


      verify_data 
         PRF(inner_secret, finished_label) [0..11]; 

      finished_label 
         when sent by the client, the string "client phase finished" 
         when sent by the server, the string "server phase finished" 

   The IntermediatePhaseFinished and FinalPhaseFinished messages have 
   the same structure and include verification data based on the 
   current inner secret. IntermediatePhaseFinished is sent by the 
   server and echoed by the client to conclude an intermediate 
   application phase, and FinalPhaseFinished is used in the same manner 
   to conclude the final application phase. 

2.6.4 The ApplicationPayload Message 

   The ApplicationPayload message carries an AVP sequence during an 
   application handshake phase. It is defined as follows: 

      struct { 
         opaque avps[InnerApplication.length]; 
      } ApplicationPayload; 

      avps 
         The AVP sequence, treated as an opaque sequence of octets. 

      InnerApplication.length 
         The length field in the encapsulating InnerApplication 
      message. 

   Note that the "avps" element has its length defined in square 
   bracket rather than angle bracket notation, implying a fixed rather 
   than variable length vector. This avoids having the length of the 
   AVP sequence specified redundantly both in the encapsulating 
   InnerApplication message and as a length prefix in the avps element 
   itself. 

2.7  Alerts 

   Two new alert codes are defined for use during an application phase. 
   The AlertLevel for either of these alert codes MUST be set to 
   "fatal". 

   InnerApplicationFailure  
      An InnerApplicationFailure error alert may be sent by either 
      party during an application phase. This indicates that the 
      sending party considers the negotiation to have failed due to an 
      application carried in the AVP sequences, for example, a failed 
      authentication. 





Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 14] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   InnerApplicationVerification  
      An InnerApplicationVerification error alert is sent by either 
      party during an application phase to indicate that the received 
      IntermediatePhaseFinished or FinalPhaseFinished is invalid. 

   Note that other alerts are possible during an application phase; for 
   example, decrypt_error. The InnerApplicationFailure alert relates 
   specifically to the failure of an application implemented via AVP 
   sequences; for example, failure of an EAP or other authentication 
   method, or information passed within the AVP sequence that is found 
   unsatisfactory. 

3  Encapsulation of AVPs within ApplicationPayload Messages 

   During application phases of the TLS handshake, information is 
   exchanged between client and server through the use of attribute-
   value pairs (AVPs). This data is encrypted using the current cipher 
   state. 

   The AVP format chosen for TLS/IA is compatible with the Diameter AVP 
   format. This does not in any way represent a requirement that 
   Diameter be supported by any of the devices or servers participating 
   in the TLS/IA conversation, whether directly as client or server or 
   indirectly as a backend authenticator. Use of this format is merely 
   a convenience. Diameter is a superset of RADIUS and includes the 
   RADIUS attribute namespace by definition, though it does not limit 
   the size of an AVP as does RADIUS. RADIUS, in turn, is a widely 
   deployed AAA protocol and attribute definitions exist for the 
   encapsulation of EAP as well as all commonly used non-EAP password 
   authentication protocols. 

   Thus, Diameter is not considered normative except as specified in 
   this document. Specifically, the AVP Codes used in TLS/IA are 
   semantically equivalent to those defined for Diameter, and, by 
   extension, RADIUS.  

   Use of the RADIUS/Diameter namespace allows a TLS/IA server to 
   translate between AVPs it uses to communicate with clients and the 
   protocol requirements of AAA servers that are widely deployed. 
   Additionally, it provides a well-understood mechanism to allow 
   vendors to extend that namespace for their particular requirements. 

3.1  AVP Format 

   The format of an AVP is shown below. All items are in network, or 
   big-endian, order; that is, they have most significant octet first. 








Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 15] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


    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 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |                           AVP Code                            | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |V M r r r r r r|                  AVP Length                   | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |                        Vendor-ID (opt)                        | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |    Data ... 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

   AVP Code 

      The AVP Code is four octets and, combined with the Vendor-ID 
      field if present, identifies the attribute uniquely. The first 
      256 AVP numbers represent attributes defined in RADIUS. AVP 
      numbers 256 and above are defined in Diameter. 

   AVP Flags 

      The AVP Flags field is one octet, and provides the receiver with 
      information necessary to interpret the AVP.  

      The 'V' (Vendor-Specific) bit indicates whether the optional 
      Vendor-ID field is present. When set to 1, the Vendor-ID field is 
      present and the AVP Code is interpreted according to the 
      namespace defined by the vendor indicated in the Vendor-ID field. 

      The 'M' (Mandatory) bit indicates whether support of the AVP is 
      required. When set to 0, this indicates that the AVP may be 
      safely ignored if the receiving party does not understand or 
      support it. When set to 1, if the receiving party does not 
      understand or support the AVP it MUST fail the negotiation by 
      sending an InnerApplicationFailure error alert. 

      The 'r' (reserved) bits are unused and must be set to 0. 

   AVP Length 

      The AVP Length field is three octets, and indicates the length of 
      this AVP including the AVP Code, AVP Length, AVP Flags, Vendor-ID 
      (if present) and Data. 

   Vendor-ID 

      The Vendor-ID field is present if and only if the 'V' bit is set 
      in the AVP Flags field. It is four octets, and contains the 
      vendor's IANA-assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise 
      Codes" [RFC1700] value. Vendors defining their own AVPs must 




Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 16] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


      maintain a consistent namespace for use of those AVPs within 
      RADIUS, Diameter and TLS/IA. 

      A Vendor-ID value of zero is semantically equivalent to absence 
      of the Vendor-ID field altogether. 

3.2  AVP Sequences 

   Data encapsulated within the TLS Record Layer must consist entirely 
   of a sequence of zero or more AVPs. Each AVP must begin on a 4-octet 
   boundary relative to the first AVP in the sequence. If an AVP is not 
   a multiple of 4 octets, it must be padded with 0s to the next 4-
   octet boundary. 

   Note that the AVP Length does not include the padding. 

3.3  Guidelines for Maximum Compatibility with AAA Servers 

   When maximum compatibility with AAA servers is desired, the 
   following guidelines for AVP usage are suggested: 

   -  Non-vendor-specific AVPs should be selected from the set of 
      attributes defined for RADIUS; that is, attributes with codes 
      less than 256. This provides compatibility with both RADIUS and 
      Diameter. 

   -  Vendor-specific AVPs should be defined in terms of RADIUS. 
      Vendor-specific RADIUS attributes translate to Diameter 
      automatically; the reverse is not true. RADIUS vendor-specific 
      attributes use RADIUS attribute 26 and include vendor ID, vendor-
      specific attribute code and length; see [RFC2865] for details. 

4  Tunneled Authentication within Application Phases 

   TLS/IA permits user authentication information to be tunneled within 
   an application phase between client and server, protecting the 
   authentication information against active and passive attack.  

   Any type of authentication method may be tunneled. Also, multiple 
   tunneled authentications may be performed. Normally, tunneled 
   authentication is used when the TLS handshake provides only one-way 
   authentication of the server to the client; however, in certain 
   cases it may be desirable to perform certificate authentication of 
   the client during the initial handshake phase as well as tunneled 
   user authentication in a subsequent application phase. 

   This section establishes rules for using well known authentication 
   mechanisms within TLS/IA. Any new authentication mechanism should, 
   in general, be covered by these rules if it is defined as an EAP 
   type. Authentication mechanisms whose use within TLS/IA is not 
   covered within this specification may require separate 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 17] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   standardization, preferably within the standard that describes the 
   authentication mechanism in question. 

4.1  Implicit challenge 

   Certain authentication protocols that use a challenge/response 
   mechanism rely on challenge material that is not generated by the 
   authentication server, and therefore require special handling. 

   In PPP protocols such CHAP, MS-CHAP and MS-CHAP-V2, for example, the 
   Network Access Server (NAS) issues a challenge to the client, the 
   client then hashes the challenge with the password and forwards the 
   response to the NAS. The NAS then forwards both challenge and 
   response to a AAA server. But because the AAA server did not itself 
   generate the challenge, such protocols are susceptible to replay 
   attack.  

   Since within TLS/IA the client also plays the role of NAS, the 
   replay problem is exacerbated. If the client were able to create 
   both challenge and response, anyone able to observe a CHAP or MS-
   CHAP exchange could pose as that user by replaying that challenge 
   and response into a TLS/IA conversation.  

   To make these protocols secure in TLS/IA, it is necessary to provide 
   a mechanism that produces a challenge that the client cannot control 
   or predict.  

   When a challenge-based authentication mechanism is used, both client 
   and server use the TLS PRF function to generate as many octets as 
   are required for the challenge, using the constant string "inner 
   application challenge", based on the master secret and random values 
   established during the TLS handshake, as follows. 

      IA_challenge = PRF(SecurityParameters.master_secret, 
                             "inner application challenge", 
                             SecurityParameters.server_random + 
                             SecurityParameters.client_random); 

4.2  Tunneled Authentication Protocols 

   This section describes the rules for tunneling specific 
   authentication protocols within TLS/IA.  

   For each protocol, the RADIUS RFC that defines the relevant 
   attribute formats is cited. Note that these attributes are 
   encapsulated as described in section 3.1; that is, as Diameter 
   attributes, not as RADIUS attributes. In other words, the AVP Code, 
   Length, Flags and optional Vendor-ID are formatted as described in 
   section 3.1, while the Data is formatted as described by the cited 
   RADIUS RFC. 




Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 18] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   All tunneled authentication protocols except EAP must be initiated 
   by the client in the first ApplicationPayload message of an 
   application phase. EAP may be initiated by the client in the first 
   ApplicationPayload message of an application phase; it may also be 
   initiated by the server in any ApplicationPayload message. 

   The authentication protocols described below may be performed 
   directly by the TLS/IA server or may be forwarded to a backend AAA 
   server. For authentication protocols that generate session keys, the 
   backend server must return those session keys to the TLS/IA server 
   in order to allow the protocol to succeed within TLS/IA. RADIUS or 
   Diameter servers are suitable backend AAA servers for this purpose. 
   RADIUS servers typically return session keys in MS-MPPE-Recv-Key and 
   MS-MPPE-Send-Key attributes [RFC2548]; Diameter servers return 
   session keys in the EAP-Master-Session-Key AVP [AAA-EAP]. 

4.2.1 EAP 

   EAP is described in [RFC3784]; RADIUS attribute formats are 
   described in [RFC3579]. 

   When EAP is the tunneled authentication protocol, each tunneled EAP 
   packet between the client and server is encapsulated in an EAP-
   Message AVP. 

   Either the client or the server may initiate EAP.  

   The client is the first to transmit within any application phase, 
   and it may include an EAP-Response/Identity AVP in its 
   ApplicationPayload message to begin an EAP conversation. 
   Alternatively, if the client does not initiate EAP the server may, 
   by including an EAP-Request/Identity AVP in its ApplicationPayload 
   message. 

   The client's EAP-Response/Identity provides the username, which MUST 
   be a Network Access Identifier (NAI) [RFC2486]; that is, it MUST be 
   in the following format: 

      username@realm 

   The @realm portion is optional, and is used to allow the server to 
   forward the EAP message sequence to the appropriate server in the 
   AAA infrastructure when necessary.  

   The EAP authentication between client and server proceeds normally, 
   as described in [RFC3784]. However, upon completion the server does 
   not send an EAP-Success or EAP-Failure AVP. Instead, the server 
   signals success when it concludes the application phase by issuing a 
   Finished or PhaseFinished message, or it signals failure by issuing 
   an InnerApplicationFailure alert. 




Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 19] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   Note that the client may also issue an InnerApplicationFailure 
   alert, for example, when authentication of the server fails in a 
   method providing mutual authentication. 

4.2.2 CHAP 

   The CHAP algorithm is described in [RFC1994]; RADIUS attribute 
   formats are described in [RFC2865]. 

   Both client and server generate 17 octets of challenge material, 
   using the constant string "inner application challenge" as described 
   above. These octets are used as follows: 

      CHAP-Challenge    [16 octets] 
      CHAP Identifier   [1 octet] 

   The client initiates CHAP by including User-Name, CHAP-Challenge and 
   CHAP-Password AVPs in the first ApplicationPayload message in any 
   application phase. The CHAP-Challenge value is taken from the 
   challenge material. The CHAP-Password consists of CHAP Identifier, 
   taken from the challenge material; and CHAP response, computed 
   according to the CHAP algorithm. 

   Upon receipt of these AVPs from the client, the server must verify 
   that the value of the CHAP-Challenge AVP and the value of the CHAP 
   Identifier in the CHAP-Password AVP are equal to the values 
   generated as challenge material. If either item does not match, the 
   server must reject the client. Otherwise, it validates the CHAP-
   Challenge to determine the result of the authentication. 

4.2.3 MS-CHAP 

   The MS-CHAP algorithm is described in [RFC2433]; RADIUS attribute 
   formats are described in [RFC2548]. 

   Both client and server generate 9 octets of challenge material, 
   using the constant string "inner application challenge" as described 
   above. These octets are used as follows: 

      MS-CHAP-Challenge [8 octets] 
      Ident              [1 octet] 

   The client initiates MS-CHAP by including User-Name, MS-CHAP-
   Challenge and MS-CHAP-Response AVPs in the first ApplicationPayload 
   message in any application phase. The MS-CHAP-Challenge value is 
   taken from the challenge material. The MS-CHAP-Response consists of 
   Ident, taken from the challenge material; Flags, set according the 
   client preferences; and LM-Response and NT-Response, computed 
   according to the MS-CHAP algorithm. 





Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 20] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   Upon receipt of these AVPs from the client, the server must verify 
   that the value of the MS-CHAP-Challenge AVP and the value of the 
   Ident in the client's MS-CHAP-Response AVP are equal to the values 
   generated as challenge material. If either item does not match 
   exactly, the server must reject the client. Otherwise, it validates 
   the MS-CHAP-Challenge to determine the result of the authentication.  

4.2.4 MS-CHAP-V2 

   The MS-CHAP-V2 algorithm is described in [RFC2759]; RADIUS attribute 
   formats are described in [RFC2548]. 

   Both client and server generate 17 octets of challenge material, 
   using the constant string "inner application challenge" as described 
   above. These octets are used as follows: 

      MS-CHAP-Challenge [16 octets] 
      Ident              [1 octet] 

   The client initiates MS-CHAP-V2 by including User-Name, MS-CHAP-
   Challenge and MS-CHAP2-Response AVPs in the first ApplicationPayload 
   message in any application phase. The MS-CHAP-Challenge value is 
   taken from the challenge material. The MS-CHAP2-Response consists of 
   Ident, taken from the challenge material; Flags, set to 0; Peer-
   Challenge, set to a random value; and Response, computed according 
   to the MS-CHAP-V2 algorithm. 

   Upon receipt of these AVPs from the client, the server must verify 
   that the value of the MS-CHAP-Challenge AVP and the value of the 
   Ident in the client's MS-CHAP2-Response AVP are equal to the values 
   generated as challenge material. If either item does not match 
   exactly, the server must reject the client. Otherwise, it validates 
   the MS-CHAP2-Challenge. 

   If the MS-CHAP2-Challenge received from the client is correct, the 
   server tunnels the MS-CHAP2-Success AVP to the client. 

   Upon receipt of the MS-CHAP2-Success AVP, the client is able to 
   authenticate the server. In its next InnerApplicationPayload message 
   to the server, the client does not include any MS-CHAP-V2 AVPs. 
   (This may result in an empty InnerApplicationPayload if no other 
   AVPs need to be sent.) 

   If the MS-CHAP2-Challenge received from the client is not correct, 
   the server tunnels an MS-CHAP2-Error AVP to the client. This AVP 
   contains a new Ident and a string with additional information such 
   as error reason and whether a retry is allowed. If the error reason 
   is an expired password and a retry is allowed, the client may 
   proceed to change the user's password. If the error reason is not an 
   expired password or if the client does not wish to change the user's 
   password, it issues an InnerApplicationFailure alert. 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 21] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   If the client does wish to change the password, it tunnels MS-CHAP-
   NT-Enc-PW, MS-CHAP2-CPW, and MS-CHAP-Challenge AVPs to the server. 
   The MS-CHAP2-CPW AVP is derived from the new Ident and Challenge 
   received in the MS-CHAP2-Error AVP. The MS-CHAP-Challenge AVP simply 
   echoes the new Challenge. 

   Upon receipt of these AVPs from the client, the server must verify 
   that the value of the MS-CHAP-Challenge AVP and the value of the 
   Ident in the client's MS-CHAP2-CPW AVP match the values it sent in 
   the MS-CHAP2-Error AVP. If either item does not match exactly, the 
   server must reject the client. Otherwise, it validates the MS-CHAP2-
   CPW AVP. 

   If the MS-CHAP2-CPW AVP received from the client is correct, and the 
   server is able to change the user's password, the server tunnels the 
   MS-CHAP2-Success AVP to the client and the negotiation proceeds as 
   described above. 

   Note that additional AVPs associated with MS-CHAP-V2 may be sent by 
   the server; for example, MS-CHAP-Domain. The server must tunnel such 
   authentication-related AVPs along with the MS-CHAP2-Success. 

4.2.5 PAP 

   PAP RADIUS attribute formats are described in [RFC2865]. 

   The client initiates PAP by including User-Name and User-Password 
   AVPs in the first ApplicationPayload message in any application 
   phase. 

   In RADIUS, User-Password is padded with nulls to a multiple of 16 
   octets, then encrypted using a shared secret and other packet 
   information.  

   A TLS/IA, however, does not RADIUS-encrypt the password since all 
   application phase data is already encrypted. The client SHOULD, 
   however, null-pad the password to a multiple of 16 octets, to 
   obfuscate its length. 

   Upon receipt of these AVPs from the client, the server may be able 
   to decide whether to authenticate the client immediately, or it may 
   need to challenge the client for more information. 

   If the server wishes to issue a challenge to the client, it MUST 
   tunnel the Reply-Message AVP to the client; this AVP normally 
   contains a challenge prompt of some kind. It may also tunnel 
   additional AVPs if necessary, such the Prompt AVP. Upon receipt of 
   the Reply-Message AVPs, the client tunnels User-Name and User-
   Password AVPs again, with the User-Password AVP containing new 
   information in response to the challenge. This process continues 




Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 22] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   until the server determines the authentication has succeeded or 
   failed. 

4.3  Performing Multiple Authentications 

   In some cases, it is desirable to perform multiple user 
   authentications. For example, a server may want first to 
   authenticate the user by password, then by a hardware token. 

   The server may perform any number of additional user authentications 
   using EAP, simply by issuing a EAP-Request with a new protocol type 
   once the previous authentication has completed. 

   For example, a server wishing to perform MD5-Challenge followed by 
   Generic Token Card would first issue an EAP-Request/MD5-Challenge 
   AVP and receive a response. If the response is satisfactory, it 
   would then issue EAP-Request/Generic Token Card AVP and receive a 
   response. If that response were also satisfactory, it would consider 
   the user authenticated. 

5  Example Message Sequences 

   This section presents a variety of possible TLS/IA message 
   sequences. These examples are not meant to exhaustively depict all 
   possible scenarios.  

   Parentheses indicate optional TLS messages. Brackets indicate 
   optional message exchanges. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates optional 
   repetition of preceding messages. 

5.1  Full Initial Handshake with Intermediate and Final Application 
Phases 

   The diagram below depicts a full initial handshake phase followed by 
   two application phases. 

   Note that the client concludes the intermediate phase and starts the 
   final phase in an uninterrupted sequence of three messages: 
   ChangeCipherSpec and PhaseFinished belong to the intermediate phase, 
   and ApplicationPayload belongs to the final phase.  

         Client                                               Server 
         ------                                               ------ 
    
   *** TLS Handshake:  
         ClientHello                  --------> 
                                                         ServerHello 
                                                       (Certificate) 
                                                   ServerKeyExchange 
                                                (CertificateRequest) 
                                      <--------      ServerHelloDone 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 23] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


         (Certificate) 
         ClientKeyExchange 
         (CertificateVerify) 
         ChangeCipherSpec 
         Finished                     --------> 
                                                    ChangeCipherSpec 
                                      <--------        Finished 
    
   *** Intermediate Phase: 
         ApplicationPayload           -------->  
    
       [ 
                                      <--------   ApplicationPayload  
    
         ApplicationPayload           -------->  
    
                                         ... 
       ] 
                                      <--------        
   IntermediatePhaseFinished 
         IntermediatePhaseFinished 
   *** Final Phase: 
         ApplicationPayload           -------->  
                                          
       [ 
                                      <--------   ApplicationPayload  
    
         ApplicationPayload           -------->  
    
                                         ... 
       ] 
                                      <--------   FinalPhaseFinished 
    
         FinalPhaseFinished           --------> 
    
5.2  Resumed Session with Single Application Phase 

   The diagram below depicts a resumed session followed by a single 
   application phase. 

   Note that the client concludes the initial phase and starts the 
   final phase in an uninterrupted sequence of three messages: 
   ChangeCipherSpec and PhaseFinished belong to the initial phase, and 
   ApplicationPayload belongs to the final phase.  

         Client                                               Server 
         ------                                               ------ 
    
   *** TLS Handshake:  
         ClientHello                  --------> 
                                                         ServerHello 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 24] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


                                                    ChangeCipherSpec 
                                      <--------             Finished 
         ChangeCipherSpec 
         Finished 
   *** Final Phase: 
         ApplicationPayload           -------->  
                                          
       [ 
                                      <--------   ApplicationPayload  
    
         ApplicationPayload           -------->  
    
                                         ... 
       ] 
                                      <--------   FinalPhaseFinished 
                      
         FinalPhaseFinished           --------> 
    
5.3  Resumed Session with No Application Phase 

   The diagram below depicts a resumed session without any subsequent 
   application phase. This will occur if the client indicates in its 
   ClientInnerApplication message that no application phase is required 
   and the server concurs.  

   Note that this message sequence is identical to that of a standard 
   TLS resumed session. 

         Client                                               Server 
         ------                                               ------ 
    
   *** TLS Handshake:  
         ClientHello                  --------> 
                                                         ServerHello 
                                                    ChangeCipherSpec 
                                      <--------             Finished 
         ChangeCipherSpec 
         Finished                     --------> 
    
6  Security Considerations 

   This document introduces a new TLS extension called "Inner 
   Application". When TLS is used with the Inner Application extension 
   (TLS/IA), additional messages are exchanged during the TLS 
   handshake. Hence a number of security issues need to be taken into 
   consideration. Since the security heavily depends on the information 
   (called "applications") which are exchanged between the TLS client 
   and the TLS server as part of the TLS/IA extension we try to 
   classify them into two categories: The first category considers the 
   case where the exchange results in the generation of keying 
   material. This is, for example, the case with certain EAP methods. 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 25] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   EAP is one of the envisioned main "applications". The second 
   category focuses on cases where no session key is generated. The 
   security treatment of the latter category is discouraged since it is 
   subject to man-in-the-middle attacks if the two sessions cannot be 
   bound to each other as suggested in [MITM].  

   In the following, we investigate a number of security issues:  

   - Architecture and Trust Model 

     For many of the use cases in this document we assume that three 
     functional entities participate in the protocol exchange: TLS 
     client, TLS server and a AAA infrastructure (typically consisting 
     of a AAA server and possibly a AAA broker). The protocol exchange 
     described in this document takes place between the TLS client and 
     the TLS server. The interaction between the AAA client (which 
     corresponds to the TLS server) and the AAA server is described in 
     the respective AAA protocol documents and therefore outside the 
     scope of this document. The trust model behind this architecture 
     with respect to the authentication, authorization, session key 
     establishment and key transport within the AAA infrastructure is 
     discussed in [KEYING].  

   - Authentication 

     This document assumes that the TLS server is authenticated to the 
     TLS client as part of the authentication procedure of the initial 
     TLS Handshake. This approach is similar to the one chosen with 
     the EAP support in IKEv2 (see [IKEv2]). Typically, public key 
     based server authentication is used for this purpose. More 
     interesting is the client authentication property whereby 
     information exchanged as part of the Inner Application is used to 
     authenticate (or authorize) the client. For example, if EAP is 
     used as an inner application then EAP methods are used to perform 
     authentication and key agreement between the EAP peer (most 
     likely the TLS client) and the EAP server (i.e., AAA server).  

   - Authorization  

     Throughout this document it is assumed that the TLS server can be 
     authorized by the TLS client as a legitimate server as part of 
     the authentication procedure of the initial TLS Handshake. The 
     entity acting as TLS client can be authorized either by the TLS 
     server or by the AAA server (if the authorization decision is 
     offloaded). Typically, the authenticated identity is used to 
     compute the authorization decision but credential-based 
     authorization mechanisms may be used as well. 

   - Man-in-the-Middle Attack 





Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 26] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


     Man-in-the-middle attacks have become a concern with tunneled 
     authentication protocols because of the discovered 
     vulnerabilities (see [MITM]) of a missing cryptographic binding 
     between the independent protocol sessions. This document also 
     proposes a tunneling protocol, namely individual inner 
     application sessions are tunneled within a previously executed 
     session. The first protocol session in this exchange is the 
     initial TLS Handshake. To avoid man-in-the-middle attacks, 
     Section 2.2 addresses how to establish such a cryptographic 
     binding.  

   - User Identity Confidentiality 

     The TLS/IA extension allows splitting the authentication of the 
     TLS server from the TLS client into two separate sessions. As one 
     of the advantages, this provides active user identity 
     confidentiality since the TLS client is able to authenticate the 
     TLS server and to establish a unilateral authenticated and 
     confidentiality-protected channel prior to starting the client-
     side authentication. 

   - Session Key Establishment 

     TLS [RFC2246] defines how session key material produced during 
     the TLS Handshake is generated with the help of a pseudo-random 
     function to expand it to keying material of the desired length 
     for later usage in the TLS Record Layer. Section 2.2 gives some 
     guidelines with regard to the master key generation. Since the 
     TLS/IA extension supports multiple exchanges whereby each phase 
     concludes with a generated keying material. In addition to the 
     keying material established as part of TLS itself, most inner 
     applications will produce their keying material. For example, 
     keying material established as part of an EAP method must be 
     carried from the AAA server to the AAA client. Details are 
     subject to the specific AAA protocol (for example, EAP usage in 
     Diameter [AAA-EAP].  

   - Denial of Service Attacks 

     This document does not modify the initial TLS Handshake and as 
     such, does not introduce new vulnerabilities with regard to DoS 
     attacks. Since the TLS/IA extension allows to postpone the 
     client-side authentication to a later stage in the protocol 
     phase. As such, it allows malicious TLS clients to initiate a 
     number of exchanges while remaining anonymous. As a consequence, 
     state at the server is allocated and computational efforts are 
     required at the server side. Since the TLS client cannot be 
     stateless this is not strictly a DoS attack. 

   - Confidentiality Protection and Dictionary Attack Resistance 




Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 27] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


     Similar to the user identity confidentiality property the usage 
     of the TLS/IA extension allows to establish a unilateral 
     authenticated tunnel which is confidentiality protected. This 
     tunnel protects the inner application information elements to be 
     protected against active adversaries and therefore provides 
     resistance against dictionary attacks when password-based 
     authentication protocols are used inside the tunnel. In general, 
     information exchanged inside the tunnel experiences 
     confidentiality protection.  

   - Downgrading Attacks 

     This document defines a new extension. The TLS client and the TLS 
     server indicate the capability to support the TLS/IA extension as 
     part of the client_hello_extension_list and the 
     server_hello_extension_list payload. More details can be found in 
     Section 2.5. To avoid downgrading attacks whereby an adversary 
     removes a capability from the list is avoided by the usage of the 
     IntermediatePhaseFinished or FinalPhaseFinished message as 
     described in Section 2.1. 

7  References 

7.1  Normative References 

   [RFC1700]  Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 
               1700, October 1994. 

   [RFC1994]  Simpson, W., "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication 
               Protocol (CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996. 

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
               Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 

   [RFC2246]  Dierks, T., and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 
               1.0", RFC 2246, November 1998. 

   [RFC2433]  Zorn, G., and S. Cobb, "Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions", 
               RFC 2433, October 1998. 

   [RFC2486]  Aboba, B., and M. Beadles, "The Network Access 
               Identifier", RFC 2486, January 1999. 

   [RFC2548]  Zorn, G., "Microsoft Vendor-specific RADIUS Attributes", 
               RFC 2548, March 1999. 

   [RFC2759]  Zorn, G., "Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions, Version 2", 
               RFC 2759, January 2000. 






Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 28] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   [RFC2865]  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, 
               "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", 
               RFC 2865, June 2000. 

   [RFC3546]  Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, 
               J., and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) 
               Extensions", RFC 3546, June 2003. 

   [RFC3579]  Aboba, B., and P.Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication 
               Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible 
               Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 
               2003. 

   [RFC3588]  Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. 
               Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, July 2003. 

   [RFC3784]  Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and 
               H. Levkowetz, "PPP Extensible Authentication Protocol 
               (EAP)", RFC 3784, June 2004. 

 
7.2  Informative References 

   [RFC1661]  Simpson, W. (Editor), "The Point-to-Point Protocol 
               (PPP)", STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994. 

   [RFC2716]  Aboba, B., and D. Simon, "PPP EAP TLS Authentication 
               Protocol", RFC 2716, October 1999. 

   [EAP-TTLS] Funk, P., and S. Blake-Wilson, " EAP Tunneled TLS 
               Authentication Protocol (EAP-TTLS)", draft-ietf-pppext-
               eap-ttls-05.txt, July 2004. 

   [EAP-PEAP] Palekar, A., Simon, D., Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Zorn, G., 
               and S. Josefsson, "Protected EAP Protocol (PEAP) Version 
               2", draft-josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap-08.txt, July 
               2004. 

   [TLS-PSK]  Eronen, P., and H. Tschofenig, "Pre-Shared Key 
               Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", draft-
               ietf-tls-psk-01.txt, August 2004. 

   [802.1X]   IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:  
               Port based Network Access Control, IEEE Std 802.1X-2001, 
               June 2001. 

   [MITM]     Asokan, N., Niemi, V., and K. Nyberg, "Man-in-the-Middle 
               in Tunneled Authentication", 
               http://www.saunalahti.fi/~asokan/research/mitm.html, 
               Nokia Research Center, Finland, October 24 2002. 




Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 29] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


   [KEYING]   Aboba, B., Simon, D., Arkko, J. and H. Levkowetz, "EAP 
               Key Management Framework", draft-ietf-eap-keying-01.txt 
               (work in progress), October 2003. 

   [IKEv2]    C.Kaufman, "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", 
               draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-16.txt (work in progress), 
               September 2004. 

   [AAA-EAP]  Eronen, P., Hiller, T. and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible 
               Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", draft-ietf-
               aaa-eap-03.txt (work in progress), October 2003. 

8  Authors' Addresses 

   Questions about this memo can be directed to: 

      Paul Funk 
      Juniper Networks 
      222 Third Street 
      Cambridge, MA 02142 
      USA 
      Phone: +1 617 497-6339 
      E-mail: pfunk@juniper.net 

      Simon Blake-Wilson 
      Basic Commerce & Industries, Inc. 
      96 Spadina Ave, Unit 606  
      Toronto, Ontario M5V 2J6 
      Canada 
      Phone: +1 416 214-5961 
      E-mail: sblakewilson@bcisse.com 

      Ned Smith 
      Intel Corporation 
      MS: JF1-229 
      2111 N.E. 25th Ave. 
      Hillsboro, OR 97124 
      USA 
      Phone: +1 503 264-2692  
      E-mail: ned.smith@intel.com 

      Hannes Tschofenig 
      Siemens 
      Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 
      Munich, Bayern  81739\ 
      Germany 
      Phone: +49 89 636 40390 
      E-mail: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com 

      Thomas Hardjono 
      VeriSign Inc. 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 30] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


      487 East Middlefield Road 
      M/S MV6-2-1 
      Mountain View, CA 94043 
      USA 
      Phone: +1 650 426-3204 
      E-mail: thardjono@verisign.com 

9  Intellectual Property Statement 

   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. 

Disclaimer of Validity 

   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 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. 

Copyright Statement 

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  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. 

Acknowledgment 

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 
   Internet Society. 



Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 31] 

Internet-Draft                                              March 2006         


    





















































Paul Funk               expires September 2006               [Page 32]