mirror of
https://github.com/samba-team/samba.git
synced 2025-01-11 05:18:09 +03:00
7055827b8f
This makes it clearer that we always want to do heimdal changes via the lorikeet-heimdal repository. Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> Reviewed-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz> Autobuild-User(master): Joseph Sutton <jsutton@samba.org> Autobuild-Date(master): Wed Jan 19 21:41:59 UTC 2022 on sn-devel-184
7732 lines
332 KiB
Plaintext
7732 lines
332 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Network Working Group C. Neuman
|
||
Request for Comments: 4120 USC-ISI
|
||
Obsoletes: 1510 T. Yu
|
||
Category: Standards Track S. Hartman
|
||
K. Raeburn
|
||
MIT
|
||
July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)
|
||
|
||
Status of This Memo
|
||
|
||
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
|
||
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
|
||
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet
|
||
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
|
||
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
|
||
|
||
Copyright Notice
|
||
|
||
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
|
||
This document provides an overview and specification of Version 5 of
|
||
the Kerberos protocol, and it obsoletes RFC 1510 to clarify aspects
|
||
of the protocol and its intended use that require more detailed or
|
||
clearer explanation than was provided in RFC 1510. This document is
|
||
intended to provide a detailed description of the protocol, suitable
|
||
for implementation, together with descriptions of the appropriate use
|
||
of protocol messages and fields within those messages.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents
|
||
|
||
1. Introduction ....................................................5
|
||
1.1. The Kerberos Protocol ......................................6
|
||
1.2. Cross-Realm Operation ......................................8
|
||
1.3. Choosing a Principal with Which to Communicate .............9
|
||
1.4. Authorization .............................................10
|
||
1.5. Extending Kerberos without Breaking Interoperability ......11
|
||
1.5.1. Compatibility with RFC 1510 ........................11
|
||
1.5.2. Sending Extensible Messages ........................12
|
||
1.6. Environmental Assumptions .................................12
|
||
1.7. Glossary of Terms .........................................13
|
||
2. Ticket Flag Uses and Requests ..................................16
|
||
2.1. Initial, Pre-authenticated, and
|
||
Hardware-Authenticated Tickets ............................17
|
||
2.2. Invalid Tickets ...........................................17
|
||
2.3. Renewable Tickets .........................................17
|
||
2.4. Postdated Tickets .........................................18
|
||
2.5. Proxiable and Proxy Tickets ...............................19
|
||
2.6. Forwardable Tickets .......................................19
|
||
2.7. Transited Policy Checking .................................20
|
||
2.8. OK as Delegate ............................................21
|
||
2.9. Other KDC Options .........................................21
|
||
2.9.1. Renewable-OK .......................................21
|
||
2.9.2. ENC-TKT-IN-SKEY ....................................22
|
||
2.9.3. Passwordless Hardware Authentication ...............22
|
||
3. Message Exchanges ..............................................22
|
||
3.1. The Authentication Service Exchange .......................22
|
||
3.1.1. Generation of KRB_AS_REQ Message ...................24
|
||
3.1.2. Receipt of KRB_AS_REQ Message ......................24
|
||
3.1.3. Generation of KRB_AS_REP Message ...................24
|
||
3.1.4. Generation of KRB_ERROR Message ....................27
|
||
3.1.5. Receipt of KRB_AS_REP Message ......................27
|
||
3.1.6. Receipt of KRB_ERROR Message .......................28
|
||
3.2. The Client/Server Authentication Exchange .................29
|
||
3.2.1. The KRB_AP_REQ Message .............................29
|
||
3.2.2. Generation of a KRB_AP_REQ Message .................29
|
||
3.2.3. Receipt of KRB_AP_REQ Message ......................30
|
||
3.2.4. Generation of a KRB_AP_REP Message .................33
|
||
3.2.5. Receipt of KRB_AP_REP Message ......................33
|
||
3.2.6. Using the Encryption Key ...........................33
|
||
3.3. The Ticket-Granting Service (TGS) Exchange ................34
|
||
3.3.1. Generation of KRB_TGS_REQ Message ..................35
|
||
3.3.2. Receipt of KRB_TGS_REQ Message .....................37
|
||
3.3.3. Generation of KRB_TGS_REP Message ..................38
|
||
3.3.4. Receipt of KRB_TGS_REP Message .....................42
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
3.4. The KRB_SAFE Exchange .....................................42
|
||
3.4.1. Generation of a KRB_SAFE Message ...................42
|
||
3.4.2. Receipt of KRB_SAFE Message ........................43
|
||
3.5. The KRB_PRIV Exchange .....................................44
|
||
3.5.1. Generation of a KRB_PRIV Message ...................44
|
||
3.5.2. Receipt of KRB_PRIV Message ........................44
|
||
3.6. The KRB_CRED Exchange .....................................45
|
||
3.6.1. Generation of a KRB_CRED Message ...................45
|
||
3.6.2. Receipt of KRB_CRED Message ........................46
|
||
3.7. User-to-User Authentication Exchanges .....................47
|
||
4. Encryption and Checksum Specifications .........................48
|
||
5. Message Specifications .........................................50
|
||
5.1. Specific Compatibility Notes on ASN.1 .....................51
|
||
5.1.1. ASN.1 Distinguished Encoding Rules .................51
|
||
5.1.2. Optional Integer Fields ............................52
|
||
5.1.3. Empty SEQUENCE OF Types ............................52
|
||
5.1.4. Unrecognized Tag Numbers ...........................52
|
||
5.1.5. Tag Numbers Greater Than 30 ........................53
|
||
5.2. Basic Kerberos Types ......................................53
|
||
5.2.1. KerberosString .....................................53
|
||
5.2.2. Realm and PrincipalName ............................55
|
||
5.2.3. KerberosTime .......................................55
|
||
5.2.4. Constrained Integer Types ..........................55
|
||
5.2.5. HostAddress and HostAddresses ......................56
|
||
5.2.6. AuthorizationData ..................................57
|
||
5.2.7. PA-DATA ............................................60
|
||
5.2.8. KerberosFlags ......................................64
|
||
5.2.9. Cryptosystem-Related Types .........................65
|
||
5.3. Tickets ...................................................66
|
||
5.4. Specifications for the AS and TGS Exchanges ...............73
|
||
5.4.1. KRB_KDC_REQ Definition .............................73
|
||
5.4.2. KRB_KDC_REP Definition .............................81
|
||
5.5. Client/Server (CS) Message Specifications .................84
|
||
5.5.1. KRB_AP_REQ Definition ..............................84
|
||
5.5.2. KRB_AP_REP Definition ..............................88
|
||
5.5.3. Error Message Reply ................................89
|
||
5.6. KRB_SAFE Message Specification ............................89
|
||
5.6.1. KRB_SAFE definition ................................89
|
||
5.7. KRB_PRIV Message Specification ............................91
|
||
5.7.1. KRB_PRIV Definition ................................91
|
||
5.8. KRB_CRED Message Specification ............................92
|
||
5.8.1. KRB_CRED Definition ................................92
|
||
5.9. Error Message Specification ...............................94
|
||
5.9.1. KRB_ERROR Definition ...............................94
|
||
5.10. Application Tag Numbers ..................................96
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
6. Naming Constraints .............................................97
|
||
6.1. Realm Names ...............................................97
|
||
6.2. Principal Names .......................................... 99
|
||
6.2.1. Name of Server Principals .........................100
|
||
7. Constants and Other Defined Values ............................101
|
||
7.1. Host Address Types .......................................101
|
||
7.2. KDC Messaging: IP Transports .............................102
|
||
7.2.1. UDP/IP transport ..................................102
|
||
7.2.2. TCP/IP Transport ..................................103
|
||
7.2.3. KDC Discovery on IP Networks ......................104
|
||
7.3. Name of the TGS ..........................................105
|
||
7.4. OID Arc for KerberosV5 ...................................106
|
||
7.5. Protocol Constants and Associated Values .................106
|
||
7.5.1. Key Usage Numbers .................................106
|
||
7.5.2. PreAuthentication Data Types ......................108
|
||
7.5.3. Address Types .....................................109
|
||
7.5.4. Authorization Data Types ..........................109
|
||
7.5.5. Transited Encoding Types ..........................109
|
||
7.5.6. Protocol Version Number ...........................109
|
||
7.5.7. Kerberos Message Types ............................110
|
||
7.5.8. Name Types ........................................110
|
||
7.5.9. Error Codes .......................................110
|
||
8. Interoperability Requirements .................................113
|
||
8.1. Specification 2 ..........................................113
|
||
8.2. Recommended KDC Values ...................................116
|
||
9. IANA Considerations ...........................................116
|
||
10. Security Considerations ......................................117
|
||
11. Acknowledgements .............................................121
|
||
A. ASN.1 Module ..................................................123
|
||
B. Changes since RFC 1510 ........................................131
|
||
Normative References .............................................134
|
||
Informative References ...........................................135
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
1. Introduction
|
||
|
||
This document describes the concepts and model upon which the
|
||
Kerberos network authentication system is based. It also specifies
|
||
Version 5 of the Kerberos protocol. The motivations, goals,
|
||
assumptions, and rationale behind most design decisions are treated
|
||
cursorily; they are more fully described in a paper available in IEEE
|
||
communications [NT94] and earlier in the Kerberos portion of the
|
||
Athena Technical Plan [MNSS87].
|
||
|
||
This document is not intended to describe Kerberos to the end user,
|
||
system administrator, or application developer. Higher-level papers
|
||
describing Version 5 of the Kerberos system [NT94] and documenting
|
||
version 4 [SNS88] are available elsewhere.
|
||
|
||
The Kerberos model is based in part on Needham and Schroeder's
|
||
trusted third-party authentication protocol [NS78] and on
|
||
modifications suggested by Denning and Sacco [DS81]. The original
|
||
design and implementation of Kerberos Versions 1 through 4 was the
|
||
work of two former Project Athena staff members, Steve Miller of
|
||
Digital Equipment Corporation and Clifford Neuman (now at the
|
||
Information Sciences Institute of the University of Southern
|
||
California), along with Jerome Saltzer, Technical Director of Project
|
||
Athena, and Jeffrey Schiller, MIT Campus Network Manager. Many other
|
||
members of Project Athena have also contributed to the work on
|
||
Kerberos.
|
||
|
||
Version 5 of the Kerberos protocol (described in this document) has
|
||
evolved because of new requirements and desires for features not
|
||
available in Version 4. The design of Version 5 was led by Clifford
|
||
Neuman and John Kohl with much input from the community. The
|
||
development of the MIT reference implementation was led at MIT by
|
||
John Kohl and Theodore Ts'o, with help and contributed code from many
|
||
others. Since RFC 1510 was issued, many individuals have proposed
|
||
extensions and revisions to the protocol. This document reflects
|
||
some of these proposals. Where such changes involved significant
|
||
effort, the document cites the contribution of the proposer.
|
||
|
||
Reference implementations of both Version 4 and Version 5 of Kerberos
|
||
are publicly available, and commercial implementations have been
|
||
developed and are widely used. Details on the differences between
|
||
Versions 4 and 5 can be found in [KNT94].
|
||
|
||
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 [RFC2119].
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.1. The Kerberos Protocol
|
||
|
||
Kerberos provides a means of verifying the identities of principals,
|
||
(e.g., a workstation user or a network server) on an open
|
||
(unprotected) network. This is accomplished without relying on
|
||
assertions by the host operating system, without basing trust on host
|
||
addresses, without requiring physical security of all the hosts on
|
||
the network, and under the assumption that packets traveling along
|
||
the network can be read, modified, and inserted at will. Kerberos
|
||
performs authentication under these conditions as a trusted third-
|
||
party authentication service by using conventional (shared secret
|
||
key) cryptography. Extensions to Kerberos (outside the scope of this
|
||
document) can provide for the use of public key cryptography during
|
||
certain phases of the authentication protocol. Such extensions
|
||
support Kerberos authentication for users registered with public key
|
||
certification authorities and provide certain benefits of public key
|
||
cryptography in situations where they are needed.
|
||
|
||
The basic Kerberos authentication process proceeds as follows: A
|
||
client sends a request to the authentication server (AS) for
|
||
"credentials" for a given server. The AS responds with these
|
||
credentials, encrypted in the client's key. The credentials consist
|
||
of a "ticket" for the server and a temporary encryption key (often
|
||
called a "session key"). The client transmits the ticket (which
|
||
contains the client's identity and a copy of the session key, all
|
||
encrypted in the server's key) to the server. The session key (now
|
||
shared by the client and server) is used to authenticate the client
|
||
and may optionally be used to authenticate the server. It may also
|
||
be used to encrypt further communication between the two parties or
|
||
to exchange a separate sub-session key to be used to encrypt further
|
||
communication. Note that many applications use Kerberos' functions
|
||
only upon the initiation of a stream-based network connection.
|
||
Unless an application performs encryption or integrity protection for
|
||
the data stream, the identity verification applies only to the
|
||
initiation of the connection, and it does not guarantee that
|
||
subsequent messages on the connection originate from the same
|
||
principal.
|
||
|
||
Implementation of the basic protocol consists of one or more
|
||
authentication servers running on physically secure hosts. The
|
||
authentication servers maintain a database of principals (i.e., users
|
||
and servers) and their secret keys. Code libraries provide
|
||
encryption and implement the Kerberos protocol. In order to add
|
||
authentication to its transactions, a typical network application
|
||
adds calls to the Kerberos library directly or through the Generic
|
||
Security Services Application Programming Interface (GSS-API)
|
||
described in a separate document [RFC4121]. These calls result in
|
||
the transmission of the messages necessary to achieve authentication.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Kerberos protocol consists of several sub-protocols (or
|
||
exchanges). There are two basic methods by which a client can ask a
|
||
Kerberos server for credentials. In the first approach, the client
|
||
sends a cleartext request for a ticket for the desired server to the
|
||
AS. The reply is sent encrypted in the client's secret key. Usually
|
||
this request is for a ticket-granting ticket (TGT), which can later
|
||
be used with the ticket-granting server (TGS). In the second method,
|
||
the client sends a request to the TGS. The client uses the TGT to
|
||
authenticate itself to the TGS in the same manner as if it were
|
||
contacting any other application server that requires Kerberos
|
||
authentication. The reply is encrypted in the session key from the
|
||
TGT. Though the protocol specification describes the AS and the TGS
|
||
as separate servers, in practice they are implemented as different
|
||
protocol entry points within a single Kerberos server.
|
||
|
||
Once obtained, credentials may be used to verify the identity of the
|
||
principals in a transaction, to ensure the integrity of messages
|
||
exchanged between them, or to preserve privacy of the messages. The
|
||
application is free to choose whatever protection may be necessary.
|
||
|
||
To verify the identities of the principals in a transaction, the
|
||
client transmits the ticket to the application server. Because the
|
||
ticket is sent "in the clear" (parts of it are encrypted, but this
|
||
encryption doesn't thwart replay) and might be intercepted and reused
|
||
by an attacker, additional information is sent to prove that the
|
||
message originated with the principal to whom the ticket was issued.
|
||
This information (called the authenticator) is encrypted in the
|
||
session key and includes a timestamp. The timestamp proves that the
|
||
message was recently generated and is not a replay. Encrypting the
|
||
authenticator in the session key proves that it was generated by a
|
||
party possessing the session key. Since no one except the requesting
|
||
principal and the server know the session key (it is never sent over
|
||
the network in the clear), this guarantees the identity of the
|
||
client.
|
||
|
||
The integrity of the messages exchanged between principals can also
|
||
be guaranteed by using the session key (passed in the ticket and
|
||
contained in the credentials). This approach provides detection of
|
||
both replay attacks and message stream modification attacks. It is
|
||
accomplished by generating and transmitting a collision-proof
|
||
checksum (elsewhere called a hash or digest function) of the client's
|
||
message, keyed with the session key. Privacy and integrity of the
|
||
messages exchanged between principals can be secured by encrypting
|
||
the data to be passed by using the session key contained in the
|
||
ticket or the sub-session key found in the authenticator.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
The authentication exchanges mentioned above require read-only access
|
||
to the Kerberos database. Sometimes, however, the entries in the
|
||
database must be modified, such as when adding new principals or
|
||
changing a principal's key. This is done using a protocol between a
|
||
client and a third Kerberos server, the Kerberos Administration
|
||
Server (KADM). There is also a protocol for maintaining multiple
|
||
copies of the Kerberos database. Neither of these protocols are
|
||
described in this document.
|
||
|
||
1.2. Cross-Realm Operation
|
||
|
||
The Kerberos protocol is designed to operate across organizational
|
||
boundaries. A client in one organization can be authenticated to a
|
||
server in another. Each organization wishing to run a Kerberos
|
||
server establishes its own "realm". The name of the realm in which a
|
||
client is registered is part of the client's name and can be used by
|
||
the end-service to decide whether to honor a request.
|
||
|
||
By establishing "inter-realm" keys, the administrators of two realms
|
||
can allow a client authenticated in the local realm to prove its
|
||
identity to servers in other realms. The exchange of inter-realm
|
||
keys (a separate key may be used for each direction) registers the
|
||
ticket-granting service of each realm as a principal in the other
|
||
realm. A client is then able to obtain a TGT for the remote realm's
|
||
ticket-granting service from its local realm. When that TGT is used,
|
||
the remote ticket-granting service uses the inter-realm key (which
|
||
usually differs from its own normal TGS key) to decrypt the TGT; thus
|
||
it is certain that the ticket was issued by the client's own TGS.
|
||
Tickets issued by the remote ticket-granting service will indicate to
|
||
the end-service that the client was authenticated from another realm.
|
||
|
||
Without cross-realm operation, and with appropriate permission, the
|
||
client can arrange registration of a separately-named principal in a
|
||
remote realm and engage in normal exchanges with that realm's
|
||
services. However, for even small numbers of clients this becomes
|
||
cumbersome, and more automatic methods as described here are
|
||
necessary.
|
||
|
||
A realm is said to communicate with another realm if the two realms
|
||
share an inter-realm key, or if the local realm shares an inter-realm
|
||
key with an intermediate realm that communicates with the remote
|
||
realm. An authentication path is the sequence of intermediate realms
|
||
that are transited in communicating from one realm to another.
|
||
|
||
Realms may be organized hierarchically. Each realm shares a key with
|
||
its parent and a different key with each child. If an inter-realm
|
||
key is not directly shared by two realms, the hierarchical
|
||
organization allows an authentication path to be easily constructed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
If a hierarchical organization is not used, it may be necessary to
|
||
consult a database in order to construct an authentication path
|
||
between realms.
|
||
|
||
Although realms are typically hierarchical, intermediate realms may
|
||
be bypassed to achieve cross-realm authentication through alternate
|
||
authentication paths. (These might be established to make
|
||
communication between two realms more efficient.) It is important
|
||
for the end-service to know which realms were transited when deciding
|
||
how much faith to place in the authentication process. To facilitate
|
||
this decision, a field in each ticket contains the names of the
|
||
realms that were involved in authenticating the client.
|
||
|
||
The application server is ultimately responsible for accepting or
|
||
rejecting authentication and SHOULD check the transited field. The
|
||
application server may choose to rely on the Key Distribution Center
|
||
(KDC) for the application server's realm to check the transited
|
||
field. The application server's KDC will set the
|
||
TRANSITED-POLICY-CHECKED flag in this case. The KDCs for
|
||
intermediate realms may also check the transited field as they issue
|
||
TGTs for other realms, but they are encouraged not to do so. A
|
||
client may request that the KDCs not check the transited field by
|
||
setting the DISABLE-TRANSITED-CHECK flag. KDCs SHOULD honor this
|
||
flag.
|
||
|
||
1.3. Choosing a Principal with Which to Communicate
|
||
|
||
The Kerberos protocol provides the means for verifying (subject to
|
||
the assumptions in Section 1.6) that the entity with which one
|
||
communicates is the same entity that was registered with the KDC
|
||
using the claimed identity (principal name). It is still necessary
|
||
to determine whether that identity corresponds to the entity with
|
||
which one intends to communicate.
|
||
|
||
When appropriate data has been exchanged in advance, the application
|
||
may perform this determination syntactically based on the application
|
||
protocol specification, information provided by the user, and
|
||
configuration files. For example, the server principal name
|
||
(including realm) for a telnet server might be derived from the
|
||
user-specified host name (from the telnet command line), the "host/"
|
||
prefix specified in the application protocol specification, and a
|
||
mapping to a Kerberos realm derived syntactically from the domain
|
||
part of the specified hostname and information from the local
|
||
Kerberos realms database.
|
||
|
||
One can also rely on trusted third parties to make this
|
||
determination, but only when the data obtained from the third party
|
||
is suitably integrity-protected while resident on the third-party
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
server and when transmitted. Thus, for example, one should not rely
|
||
on an unprotected DNS record to map a host alias to the primary name
|
||
of a server, accepting the primary name as the party that one intends
|
||
to contact, since an attacker can modify the mapping and impersonate
|
||
the party.
|
||
|
||
Implementations of Kerberos and protocols based on Kerberos MUST NOT
|
||
use insecure DNS queries to canonicalize the hostname components of
|
||
the service principal names (i.e., they MUST NOT use insecure DNS
|
||
queries to map one name to another to determine the host part of the
|
||
principal name with which one is to communicate). In an environment
|
||
without secure name service, application authors MAY append a
|
||
statically configured domain name to unqualified hostnames before
|
||
passing the name to the security mechanisms, but they should do no
|
||
more than that. Secure name service facilities, if available, might
|
||
be trusted for hostname canonicalization, but such canonicalization
|
||
by the client SHOULD NOT be required by KDC implementations.
|
||
|
||
Implementation note: Many current implementations do some degree of
|
||
canonicalization of the provided service name, often using DNS even
|
||
though it creates security problems. However, there is no
|
||
consistency among implementations as to whether the service name is
|
||
case folded to lowercase or whether reverse resolution is used. To
|
||
maximize interoperability and security, applications SHOULD provide
|
||
security mechanisms with names that result from folding the user-
|
||
entered name to lowercase without performing any other modifications
|
||
or canonicalization.
|
||
|
||
1.4. Authorization
|
||
|
||
As an authentication service, Kerberos provides a means of verifying
|
||
the identity of principals on a network. Authentication is usually
|
||
useful primarily as a first step in the process of authorization,
|
||
determining whether a client may use a service, which objects the
|
||
client is allowed to access, and the type of access allowed for each.
|
||
Kerberos does not, by itself, provide authorization. Possession of a
|
||
client ticket for a service provides only for authentication of the
|
||
client to that service, and in the absence of a separate
|
||
authorization procedure, an application should not consider it to
|
||
authorize the use of that service.
|
||
|
||
Separate authorization methods MAY be implemented as application-
|
||
specific access control functions and may utilize files on the
|
||
application server, on separately issued authorization credentials
|
||
such as those based on proxies [Neu93], or on other authorization
|
||
services. Separately authenticated authorization credentials MAY be
|
||
embedded in a ticket's authorization data when encapsulated by the
|
||
KDC-issued authorization data element.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Applications should not accept the mere issuance of a service ticket
|
||
by the Kerberos server (even by a modified Kerberos server) as
|
||
granting authority to use the service, since such applications may
|
||
become vulnerable to the bypass of this authorization check in an
|
||
environment where other options for application authentication are
|
||
provided, or if they interoperate with other KDCs.
|
||
|
||
1.5. Extending Kerberos without Breaking Interoperability
|
||
|
||
As the deployed base of Kerberos implementations grows, extending
|
||
Kerberos becomes more important. Unfortunately, some extensions to
|
||
the existing Kerberos protocol create interoperability issues because
|
||
of uncertainty regarding the treatment of certain extensibility
|
||
options by some implementations. This section includes guidelines
|
||
that will enable future implementations to maintain interoperability.
|
||
|
||
Kerberos provides a general mechanism for protocol extensibility.
|
||
Some protocol messages contain typed holes -- sub-messages that
|
||
contain an octet-string along with an integer that defines how to
|
||
interpret the octet-string. The integer types are registered
|
||
centrally, but they can be used both for vendor extensions and for
|
||
extensions standardized through the IETF.
|
||
|
||
In this document, the word "extension" refers to extension by
|
||
defining a new type to insert into an existing typed hole in a
|
||
protocol message. It does not refer to extension by addition of new
|
||
fields to ASN.1 types, unless the text explicitly indicates
|
||
otherwise.
|
||
|
||
1.5.1. Compatibility with RFC 1510
|
||
|
||
Note that existing Kerberos message formats cannot readily be
|
||
extended by adding fields to the ASN.1 types. Sending additional
|
||
fields often results in the entire message being discarded without an
|
||
error indication. Future versions of this specification will provide
|
||
guidelines to ensure that ASN.1 fields can be added without creating
|
||
an interoperability problem.
|
||
|
||
In the meantime, all new or modified implementations of Kerberos that
|
||
receive an unknown message extension SHOULD preserve the encoding of
|
||
the extension but otherwise ignore its presence. Recipients MUST NOT
|
||
decline a request simply because an extension is present.
|
||
|
||
There is one exception to this rule. If an unknown authorization
|
||
data element type is received by a server other than the ticket-
|
||
granting service either in an AP-REQ or in a ticket contained in an
|
||
AP-REQ, then authentication MUST fail. One of the primary uses of
|
||
authorization data is to restrict the use of the ticket. If the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
service cannot determine whether the restriction applies to that
|
||
service, then a security weakness may result if the ticket can be
|
||
used for that service. Authorization elements that are optional
|
||
SHOULD be enclosed in the AD-IF-RELEVANT element.
|
||
|
||
The ticket-granting service MUST ignore but propagate to derivative
|
||
tickets any unknown authorization data types, unless those data types
|
||
are embedded in a MANDATORY-FOR-KDC element, in which case the
|
||
request will be rejected. This behavior is appropriate because
|
||
requiring that the ticket-granting service understand unknown
|
||
authorization data types would require that KDC software be upgraded
|
||
to understand new application-level restrictions before applications
|
||
used these restrictions, decreasing the utility of authorization data
|
||
as a mechanism for restricting the use of tickets. No security
|
||
problem is created because services to which the tickets are issued
|
||
will verify the authorization data.
|
||
|
||
Implementation note: Many RFC 1510 implementations ignore unknown
|
||
authorization data elements. Depending on these implementations to
|
||
honor authorization data restrictions may create a security weakness.
|
||
|
||
1.5.2. Sending Extensible Messages
|
||
|
||
Care must be taken to ensure that old implementations can understand
|
||
messages sent to them, even if they do not understand an extension
|
||
that is used. Unless the sender knows that an extension is
|
||
supported, the extension cannot change the semantics of the core
|
||
message or previously defined extensions.
|
||
|
||
For example, an extension including key information necessary to
|
||
decrypt the encrypted part of a KDC-REP could only be used in
|
||
situations where the recipient was known to support the extension.
|
||
Thus when designing such extensions it is important to provide a way
|
||
for the recipient to notify the sender of support for the extension.
|
||
For example in the case of an extension that changes the KDC-REP
|
||
reply key, the client could indicate support for the extension by
|
||
including a padata element in the AS-REQ sequence. The KDC should
|
||
only use the extension if this padata element is present in the
|
||
AS-REQ. Even if policy requires the use of the extension, it is
|
||
better to return an error indicating that the extension is required
|
||
than to use the extension when the recipient may not support it.
|
||
Debugging implementations that do not interoperate is easier when
|
||
errors are returned.
|
||
|
||
1.6. Environmental Assumptions
|
||
|
||
Kerberos imposes a few assumptions on the environment in which it can
|
||
properly function, including the following:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
* "Denial of service" attacks are not solved with Kerberos. There
|
||
are places in the protocols where an intruder can prevent an
|
||
application from participating in the proper authentication steps.
|
||
Detection and solution of such attacks (some of which can appear
|
||
to be not-uncommon "normal" failure modes for the system) are
|
||
usually best left to the human administrators and users.
|
||
|
||
* Principals MUST keep their secret keys secret. If an intruder
|
||
somehow steals a principal's key, it will be able to masquerade as
|
||
that principal or to impersonate any server to the legitimate
|
||
principal.
|
||
|
||
* "Password guessing" attacks are not solved by Kerberos. If a user
|
||
chooses a poor password, it is possible for an attacker to
|
||
successfully mount an offline dictionary attack by repeatedly
|
||
attempting to decrypt, with successive entries from a dictionary,
|
||
messages obtained which are encrypted under a key derived from the
|
||
user's password.
|
||
|
||
* Each host on the network MUST have a clock which is "loosely
|
||
synchronized" to the time of the other hosts; this synchronization
|
||
is used to reduce the bookkeeping needs of application servers
|
||
when they do replay detection. The degree of "looseness" can be
|
||
configured on a per-server basis, but it is typically on the order
|
||
of 5 minutes. If the clocks are synchronized over the network,
|
||
the clock synchronization protocol MUST itself be secured from
|
||
network attackers.
|
||
|
||
* Principal identifiers are not recycled on a short-term basis. A
|
||
typical mode of access control will use access control lists
|
||
(ACLs) to grant permissions to particular principals. If a stale
|
||
ACL entry remains for a deleted principal and the principal
|
||
identifier is reused, the new principal will inherit rights
|
||
specified in the stale ACL entry. By not re-using principal
|
||
identifiers, the danger of inadvertent access is removed.
|
||
|
||
1.7. Glossary of Terms
|
||
|
||
Below is a list of terms used throughout this document.
|
||
|
||
Authentication
|
||
Verifying the claimed identity of a principal.
|
||
|
||
Authentication header
|
||
A record containing a Ticket and an Authenticator to be presented
|
||
to a server as part of the authentication process.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Authentication path
|
||
A sequence of intermediate realms transited in the authentication
|
||
process when communicating from one realm to another.
|
||
|
||
Authenticator
|
||
A record containing information that can be shown to have been
|
||
recently generated using the session key known only by the client
|
||
and server.
|
||
|
||
Authorization
|
||
The process of determining whether a client may use a service,
|
||
which objects the client is allowed to access, and the type of
|
||
access allowed for each.
|
||
|
||
Capability
|
||
A token that grants the bearer permission to access an object or
|
||
service. In Kerberos, this might be a ticket whose use is
|
||
restricted by the contents of the authorization data field, but
|
||
which lists no network addresses, together with the session key
|
||
necessary to use the ticket.
|
||
|
||
Ciphertext
|
||
The output of an encryption function. Encryption transforms
|
||
plaintext into ciphertext.
|
||
|
||
Client
|
||
A process that makes use of a network service on behalf of a user.
|
||
Note that in some cases a Server may itself be a client of some
|
||
other server (e.g., a print server may be a client of a file
|
||
server).
|
||
|
||
Credentials
|
||
A ticket plus the secret session key necessary to use that ticket
|
||
successfully in an authentication exchange.
|
||
|
||
Encryption Type (etype)
|
||
When associated with encrypted data, an encryption type identifies
|
||
the algorithm used to encrypt the data and is used to select the
|
||
appropriate algorithm for decrypting the data. Encryption type
|
||
tags are communicated in other messages to enumerate algorithms
|
||
that are desired, supported, preferred, or allowed to be used for
|
||
encryption of data between parties. This preference is combined
|
||
with local information and policy to select an algorithm to be
|
||
used.
|
||
|
||
KDC
|
||
Key Distribution Center. A network service that supplies tickets
|
||
and temporary session keys; or an instance of that service or the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
host on which it runs. The KDC services both initial ticket and
|
||
ticket-granting ticket requests. The initial ticket portion is
|
||
sometimes referred to as the Authentication Server (or service).
|
||
The ticket-granting ticket portion is sometimes referred to as the
|
||
ticket-granting server (or service).
|
||
|
||
Kerberos
|
||
The name given to the Project Athena's authentication service, the
|
||
protocol used by that service, or the code used to implement the
|
||
authentication service. The name is adopted from the three-headed
|
||
dog that guards Hades.
|
||
|
||
Key Version Number (kvno)
|
||
A tag associated with encrypted data identifies which key was used
|
||
for encryption when a long-lived key associated with a principal
|
||
changes over time. It is used during the transition to a new key
|
||
so that the party decrypting a message can tell whether the data
|
||
was encrypted with the old or the new key.
|
||
|
||
Plaintext
|
||
The input to an encryption function or the output of a decryption
|
||
function. Decryption transforms ciphertext into plaintext.
|
||
|
||
Principal
|
||
A named client or server entity that participates in a network
|
||
communication, with one name that is considered canonical.
|
||
|
||
Principal identifier
|
||
The canonical name used to identify each different principal
|
||
uniquely.
|
||
|
||
Seal
|
||
To encipher a record containing several fields in such a way that
|
||
the fields cannot be individually replaced without knowledge of
|
||
the encryption key or leaving evidence of tampering.
|
||
|
||
Secret key
|
||
An encryption key shared by a principal and the KDC, distributed
|
||
outside the bounds of the system, with a long lifetime. In the
|
||
case of a human user's principal, the secret key MAY be derived
|
||
from a password.
|
||
|
||
Server
|
||
A particular Principal that provides a resource to network
|
||
clients. The server is sometimes referred to as the Application
|
||
Server.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Service
|
||
A resource provided to network clients; often provided by more
|
||
than one server (for example, remote file service).
|
||
|
||
Session key
|
||
A temporary encryption key used between two principals, with a
|
||
lifetime limited to the duration of a single login "session". In
|
||
the Kerberos system, a session key is generated by the KDC. The
|
||
session key is distinct from the sub-session key, described next.
|
||
|
||
Sub-session key
|
||
A temporary encryption key used between two principals, selected
|
||
and exchanged by the principals using the session key, and with a
|
||
lifetime limited to the duration of a single association. The
|
||
sub-session key is also referred to as the subkey.
|
||
|
||
Ticket
|
||
A record that helps a client authenticate itself to a server; it
|
||
contains the client's identity, a session key, a timestamp, and
|
||
other information, all sealed using the server's secret key. It
|
||
only serves to authenticate a client when presented along with a
|
||
fresh Authenticator.
|
||
|
||
2. Ticket Flag Uses and Requests
|
||
|
||
Each Kerberos ticket contains a set of flags that are used to
|
||
indicate attributes of that ticket. Most flags may be requested by a
|
||
client when the ticket is obtained; some are automatically turned on
|
||
and off by a Kerberos server as required. The following sections
|
||
explain what the various flags mean and give examples of reasons to
|
||
use them. With the exception of the INVALID flag, clients MUST
|
||
ignore ticket flags that are not recognized. KDCs MUST ignore KDC
|
||
options that are not recognized. Some implementations of RFC 1510
|
||
are known to reject unknown KDC options, so clients may need to
|
||
resend a request without new KDC options if the request was rejected
|
||
when sent with options added since RFC 1510. Because new KDCs will
|
||
ignore unknown options, clients MUST confirm that the ticket returned
|
||
by the KDC meets their needs.
|
||
|
||
Note that it is not, in general, possible to determine whether an
|
||
option was not honored because it was not understood or because it
|
||
was rejected through either configuration or policy. When adding a
|
||
new option to the Kerberos protocol, designers should consider
|
||
whether the distinction is important for their option. If it is, a
|
||
mechanism for the KDC to return an indication that the option was
|
||
understood but rejected needs to be provided in the specification of
|
||
the option. Often in such cases, the mechanism needs to be broad
|
||
enough to permit an error or reason to be returned.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
2.1. Initial, Pre-authenticated, and Hardware-Authenticated Tickets
|
||
|
||
The INITIAL flag indicates that a ticket was issued using the AS
|
||
protocol, rather than issued based on a TGT. Application servers
|
||
that want to require the demonstrated knowledge of a client's secret
|
||
key (e.g., a password-changing program) can insist that this flag be
|
||
set in any tickets they accept, and can thus be assured that the
|
||
client's key was recently presented to the authentication server.
|
||
|
||
The PRE-AUTHENT and HW-AUTHENT flags provide additional information
|
||
about the initial authentication, regardless of whether the current
|
||
ticket was issued directly (in which case INITIAL will also be set)
|
||
or issued on the basis of a TGT (in which case the INITIAL flag is
|
||
clear, but the PRE-AUTHENT and HW-AUTHENT flags are carried forward
|
||
from the TGT).
|
||
|
||
2.2. Invalid Tickets
|
||
|
||
The INVALID flag indicates that a ticket is invalid. Application
|
||
servers MUST reject tickets that have this flag set. A postdated
|
||
ticket will be issued in this form. Invalid tickets MUST be
|
||
validated by the KDC before use, by being presented to the KDC in a
|
||
TGS request with the VALIDATE option specified. The KDC will only
|
||
validate tickets after their starttime has passed. The validation is
|
||
required so that postdated tickets that have been stolen before their
|
||
starttime can be rendered permanently invalid (through a hot-list
|
||
mechanism) (see Section 3.3.3.1).
|
||
|
||
2.3. Renewable Tickets
|
||
|
||
Applications may desire to hold tickets that can be valid for long
|
||
periods of time. However, this can expose their credentials to
|
||
potential theft for equally long periods, and those stolen
|
||
credentials would be valid until the expiration time of the
|
||
ticket(s). Simply using short-lived tickets and obtaining new ones
|
||
periodically would require the client to have long-term access to its
|
||
secret key, an even greater risk. Renewable tickets can be used to
|
||
mitigate the consequences of theft. Renewable tickets have two
|
||
"expiration times": the first is when the current instance of the
|
||
ticket expires, and the second is the latest permissible value for an
|
||
individual expiration time. An application client must periodically
|
||
(i.e., before it expires) present a renewable ticket to the KDC, with
|
||
the RENEW option set in the KDC request. The KDC will issue a new
|
||
ticket with a new session key and a later expiration time. All other
|
||
fields of the ticket are left unmodified by the renewal process.
|
||
When the latest permissible expiration time arrives, the ticket
|
||
expires permanently. At each renewal, the KDC MAY consult a hot-list
|
||
to determine whether the ticket had been reported stolen since its
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
last renewal; it will refuse to renew stolen tickets, and thus the
|
||
usable lifetime of stolen tickets is reduced.
|
||
|
||
The RENEWABLE flag in a ticket is normally only interpreted by the
|
||
ticket-granting service (discussed below in Section 3.3). It can
|
||
usually be ignored by application servers. However, some
|
||
particularly careful application servers MAY disallow renewable
|
||
tickets.
|
||
|
||
If a renewable ticket is not renewed by its expiration time, the KDC
|
||
will not renew the ticket. The RENEWABLE flag is reset by default,
|
||
but a client MAY request it be set by setting the RENEWABLE option in
|
||
the KRB_AS_REQ message. If it is set, then the renew-till field in
|
||
the ticket contains the time after which the ticket may not be
|
||
renewed.
|
||
|
||
2.4. Postdated Tickets
|
||
|
||
Applications may occasionally need to obtain tickets for use much
|
||
later; e.g., a batch submission system would need tickets to be valid
|
||
at the time the batch job is serviced. However, it is dangerous to
|
||
hold valid tickets in a batch queue, since they will be on-line
|
||
longer and more prone to theft. Postdated tickets provide a way to
|
||
obtain these tickets from the KDC at job submission time, but to
|
||
leave them "dormant" until they are activated and validated by a
|
||
further request of the KDC. If a ticket theft were reported in the
|
||
interim, the KDC would refuse to validate the ticket, and the thief
|
||
would be foiled.
|
||
|
||
The MAY-POSTDATE flag in a ticket is normally only interpreted by the
|
||
ticket-granting service. It can be ignored by application servers.
|
||
This flag MUST be set in a TGT in order to issue a postdated ticket
|
||
based on the presented ticket. It is reset by default; a client MAY
|
||
request it by setting the ALLOW-POSTDATE option in the KRB_AS_REQ
|
||
message. This flag does not allow a client to obtain a postdated
|
||
TGT; postdated TGTs can only be obtained by requesting the postdating
|
||
in the KRB_AS_REQ message. The life (endtime-starttime) of a
|
||
postdated ticket will be the remaining life of the TGT at the time of
|
||
the request, unless the RENEWABLE option is also set, in which case
|
||
it can be the full life (endtime-starttime) of the TGT. The KDC MAY
|
||
limit how far in the future a ticket may be postdated.
|
||
|
||
The POSTDATED flag indicates that a ticket has been postdated. The
|
||
application server can check the authtime field in the ticket to see
|
||
when the original authentication occurred. Some services MAY choose
|
||
to reject postdated tickets, or they may only accept them within a
|
||
certain period after the original authentication. When the KDC
|
||
issues a POSTDATED ticket, it will also be marked as INVALID, so that
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
the application client MUST present the ticket to the KDC to be
|
||
validated before use.
|
||
|
||
2.5. Proxiable and Proxy Tickets
|
||
|
||
At times it may be necessary for a principal to allow a service to
|
||
perform an operation on its behalf. The service must be able to take
|
||
on the identity of the client, but only for a particular purpose. A
|
||
principal can allow a service to do this by granting it a proxy.
|
||
|
||
The process of granting a proxy by using the proxy and proxiable
|
||
flags is used to provide credentials for use with specific services.
|
||
Though conceptually also a proxy, users wishing to delegate their
|
||
identity in a form usable for all purposes MUST use the ticket
|
||
forwarding mechanism described in the next section to forward a TGT.
|
||
|
||
The PROXIABLE flag in a ticket is normally only interpreted by the
|
||
ticket-granting service. It can be ignored by application servers.
|
||
When set, this flag tells the ticket-granting server that it is OK to
|
||
issue a new ticket (but not a TGT) with a different network address
|
||
based on this ticket. This flag is set if requested by the client on
|
||
initial authentication. By default, the client will request that it
|
||
be set when requesting a TGT, and that it be reset when requesting
|
||
any other ticket.
|
||
|
||
This flag allows a client to pass a proxy to a server to perform a
|
||
remote request on its behalf (e.g., a print service client can give
|
||
the print server a proxy to access the client's files on a particular
|
||
file server in order to satisfy a print request).
|
||
|
||
In order to complicate the use of stolen credentials, Kerberos
|
||
tickets are often valid only from those network addresses
|
||
specifically included in the ticket, but it is permissible as a
|
||
policy option to allow requests and to issue tickets with no network
|
||
addresses specified. When granting a proxy, the client MUST specify
|
||
the new network address from which the proxy is to be used or
|
||
indicate that the proxy is to be issued for use from any address.
|
||
|
||
The PROXY flag is set in a ticket by the TGS when it issues a proxy
|
||
ticket. Application servers MAY check this flag; and at their option
|
||
they MAY require additional authentication from the agent presenting
|
||
the proxy in order to provide an audit trail.
|
||
|
||
2.6. Forwardable Tickets
|
||
|
||
Authentication forwarding is an instance of a proxy where the service
|
||
that is granted is complete use of the client's identity. An example
|
||
of where it might be used is when a user logs in to a remote system
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
and wants authentication to work from that system as if the login
|
||
were local.
|
||
|
||
The FORWARDABLE flag in a ticket is normally only interpreted by the
|
||
ticket-granting service. It can be ignored by application servers.
|
||
The FORWARDABLE flag has an interpretation similar to that of the
|
||
PROXIABLE flag, except TGTs may also be issued with different network
|
||
addresses. This flag is reset by default, but users MAY request that
|
||
it be set by setting the FORWARDABLE option in the AS request when
|
||
they request their initial TGT.
|
||
|
||
This flag allows for authentication forwarding without requiring the
|
||
user to enter a password again. If the flag is not set, then
|
||
authentication forwarding is not permitted, but the same result can
|
||
still be achieved if the user engages in the AS exchange, specifies
|
||
the requested network addresses, and supplies a password.
|
||
|
||
The FORWARDED flag is set by the TGS when a client presents a ticket
|
||
with the FORWARDABLE flag set and requests a forwarded ticket by
|
||
specifying the FORWARDED KDC option and supplying a set of addresses
|
||
for the new ticket. It is also set in all tickets issued based on
|
||
tickets with the FORWARDED flag set. Application servers may choose
|
||
to process FORWARDED tickets differently than non-FORWARDED tickets.
|
||
|
||
If addressless tickets are forwarded from one system to another,
|
||
clients SHOULD still use this option to obtain a new TGT in order to
|
||
have different session keys on the different systems.
|
||
|
||
2.7. Transited Policy Checking
|
||
|
||
In Kerberos, the application server is ultimately responsible for
|
||
accepting or rejecting authentication, and it SHOULD check that only
|
||
suitably trusted KDCs are relied upon to authenticate a principal.
|
||
The transited field in the ticket identifies which realms (and thus
|
||
which KDCs) were involved in the authentication process, and an
|
||
application server would normally check this field. If any of these
|
||
are untrusted to authenticate the indicated client principal
|
||
(probably determined by a realm-based policy), the authentication
|
||
attempt MUST be rejected. The presence of trusted KDCs in this list
|
||
does not provide any guarantee; an untrusted KDC may have fabricated
|
||
the list.
|
||
|
||
Although the end server ultimately decides whether authentication is
|
||
valid, the KDC for the end server's realm MAY apply a realm-specific
|
||
policy for validating the transited field and accepting credentials
|
||
for cross-realm authentication. When the KDC applies such checks and
|
||
accepts such cross-realm authentication, it will set the
|
||
TRANSITED-POLICY-CHECKED flag in the service tickets it issues based
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
on the cross-realm TGT. A client MAY request that the KDCs not check
|
||
the transited field by setting the DISABLE-TRANSITED-CHECK flag.
|
||
KDCs are encouraged but not required to honor this flag.
|
||
|
||
Application servers MUST either do the transited-realm checks
|
||
themselves or reject cross-realm tickets without
|
||
TRANSITED-POLICY-CHECKED set.
|
||
|
||
2.8. OK as Delegate
|
||
|
||
For some applications, a client may need to delegate authority to a
|
||
server to act on its behalf in contacting other services. This
|
||
requires that the client forward credentials to an intermediate
|
||
server. The ability for a client to obtain a service ticket to a
|
||
server conveys no information to the client about whether the server
|
||
should be trusted to accept delegated credentials. The
|
||
OK-AS-DELEGATE provides a way for a KDC to communicate local realm
|
||
policy to a client regarding whether an intermediate server is
|
||
trusted to accept such credentials.
|
||
|
||
The copy of the ticket flags in the encrypted part of the KDC reply
|
||
may have the OK-AS-DELEGATE flag set to indicate to the client that
|
||
the server specified in the ticket has been determined by the policy
|
||
of the realm to be a suitable recipient of delegation. A client can
|
||
use the presence of this flag to help it decide whether to delegate
|
||
credentials (grant either a proxy or a forwarded TGT) to this server.
|
||
It is acceptable to ignore the value of this flag. When setting this
|
||
flag, an administrator should consider the security and placement of
|
||
the server on which the service will run, as well as whether the
|
||
service requires the use of delegated credentials.
|
||
|
||
2.9. Other KDC Options
|
||
|
||
There are three additional options that MAY be set in a client's
|
||
request of the KDC.
|
||
|
||
2.9.1. Renewable-OK
|
||
|
||
The RENEWABLE-OK option indicates that the client will accept a
|
||
renewable ticket if a ticket with the requested life cannot otherwise
|
||
be provided. If a ticket with the requested life cannot be provided,
|
||
then the KDC MAY issue a renewable ticket with a renew-till equal to
|
||
the requested endtime. The value of the renew-till field MAY still
|
||
be adjusted by site-determined limits or limits imposed by the
|
||
individual principal or server.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
2.9.2. ENC-TKT-IN-SKEY
|
||
|
||
In its basic form, the Kerberos protocol supports authentication in a
|
||
client-server setting and is not well suited to authentication in a
|
||
peer-to-peer environment because the long-term key of the user does
|
||
not remain on the workstation after initial login. Authentication of
|
||
such peers may be supported by Kerberos in its user-to-user variant.
|
||
The ENC-TKT-IN-SKEY option supports user-to-user authentication by
|
||
allowing the KDC to issue a service ticket encrypted using the
|
||
session key from another TGT issued to another user. The
|
||
ENC-TKT-IN-SKEY option is honored only by the ticket-granting
|
||
service. It indicates that the ticket to be issued for the end
|
||
server is to be encrypted in the session key from the additional
|
||
second TGT provided with the request. See Section 3.3.3 for specific
|
||
details.
|
||
|
||
2.9.3. Passwordless Hardware Authentication
|
||
|
||
The OPT-HARDWARE-AUTH option indicates that the client wishes to use
|
||
some form of hardware authentication instead of or in addition to the
|
||
client's password or other long-lived encryption key.
|
||
OPT-HARDWARE-AUTH is honored only by the authentication service. If
|
||
supported and allowed by policy, the KDC will return an error code of
|
||
KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED and include the required METHOD-DATA to
|
||
perform such authentication.
|
||
|
||
3. Message Exchanges
|
||
|
||
The following sections describe the interactions between network
|
||
clients and servers and the messages involved in those exchanges.
|
||
|
||
3.1. The Authentication Service Exchange
|
||
|
||
Summary
|
||
|
||
Message direction Message type Section
|
||
1. Client to Kerberos KRB_AS_REQ 5.4.1
|
||
2. Kerberos to client KRB_AS_REP or 5.4.2
|
||
KRB_ERROR 5.9.1
|
||
|
||
The Authentication Service (AS) Exchange between the client and the
|
||
Kerberos Authentication Server is initiated by a client when it
|
||
wishes to obtain authentication credentials for a given server but
|
||
currently holds no credentials. In its basic form, the client's
|
||
secret key is used for encryption and decryption. This exchange is
|
||
typically used at the initiation of a login session to obtain
|
||
credentials for a Ticket-Granting Server, which will subsequently be
|
||
used to obtain credentials for other servers (see Section 3.3)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
without requiring further use of the client's secret key. This
|
||
exchange is also used to request credentials for services that must
|
||
not be mediated through the Ticket-Granting Service, but rather
|
||
require knowledge of a principal's secret key, such as the password-
|
||
changing service (the password-changing service denies requests
|
||
unless the requester can demonstrate knowledge of the user's old
|
||
password; requiring this knowledge prevents unauthorized password
|
||
changes by someone walking up to an unattended session).
|
||
|
||
This exchange does not by itself provide any assurance of the
|
||
identity of the user. To authenticate a user logging on to a local
|
||
system, the credentials obtained in the AS exchange may first be used
|
||
in a TGS exchange to obtain credentials for a local server; those
|
||
credentials must then be verified by a local server through
|
||
successful completion of the Client/Server exchange.
|
||
|
||
The AS exchange consists of two messages: KRB_AS_REQ from the client
|
||
to Kerberos, and KRB_AS_REP or KRB_ERROR in reply. The formats for
|
||
these messages are described in Sections 5.4.1, 5.4.2, and 5.9.1.
|
||
|
||
In the request, the client sends (in cleartext) its own identity and
|
||
the identity of the server for which it is requesting credentials,
|
||
other information about the credentials it is requesting, and a
|
||
randomly generated nonce, which can be used to detect replays and to
|
||
associate replies with the matching requests. This nonce MUST be
|
||
generated randomly by the client and remembered for checking against
|
||
the nonce in the expected reply. The response, KRB_AS_REP, contains
|
||
a ticket for the client to present to the server, and a session key
|
||
that will be shared by the client and the server. The session key
|
||
and additional information are encrypted in the client's secret key.
|
||
The encrypted part of the KRB_AS_REP message also contains the nonce
|
||
that MUST be matched with the nonce from the KRB_AS_REQ message.
|
||
|
||
Without pre-authentication, the authentication server does not know
|
||
whether the client is actually the principal named in the request.
|
||
It simply sends a reply without knowing or caring whether they are
|
||
the same. This is acceptable because nobody but the principal whose
|
||
identity was given in the request will be able to use the reply. Its
|
||
critical information is encrypted in that principal's key. However,
|
||
an attacker can send a KRB_AS_REQ message to get known plaintext in
|
||
order to attack the principal's key. Especially if the key is based
|
||
on a password, this may create a security exposure. So the initial
|
||
request supports an optional field that can be used to pass
|
||
additional information that might be needed for the initial exchange.
|
||
This field SHOULD be used for pre-authentication as described in
|
||
sections 3.1.1 and 5.2.7.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Various errors can occur; these are indicated by an error response
|
||
(KRB_ERROR) instead of the KRB_AS_REP response. The error message is
|
||
not encrypted. The KRB_ERROR message contains information that can
|
||
be used to associate it with the message to which it replies. The
|
||
contents of the KRB_ERROR message are not integrity-protected. As
|
||
such, the client cannot detect replays, fabrications, or
|
||
modifications. A solution to this problem will be included in a
|
||
future version of the protocol.
|
||
|
||
3.1.1. Generation of KRB_AS_REQ Message
|
||
|
||
The client may specify a number of options in the initial request.
|
||
Among these options are whether pre-authentication is to be
|
||
performed; whether the requested ticket is to be renewable,
|
||
proxiable, or forwardable; whether it should be postdated or allow
|
||
postdating of derivative tickets; and whether a renewable ticket will
|
||
be accepted in lieu of a non-renewable ticket if the requested ticket
|
||
expiration date cannot be satisfied by a non-renewable ticket (due to
|
||
configuration constraints).
|
||
|
||
The client prepares the KRB_AS_REQ message and sends it to the KDC.
|
||
|
||
3.1.2. Receipt of KRB_AS_REQ Message
|
||
|
||
If all goes well, processing the KRB_AS_REQ message will result in
|
||
the creation of a ticket for the client to present to the server.
|
||
The format for the ticket is described in Section 5.3.
|
||
|
||
Because Kerberos can run over unreliable transports such as UDP, the
|
||
KDC MUST be prepared to retransmit responses in case they are lost.
|
||
If a KDC receives a request identical to one it has recently
|
||
processed successfully, the KDC MUST respond with a KRB_AS_REP
|
||
message rather than a replay error. In order to reduce ciphertext
|
||
given to a potential attacker, KDCs MAY send the same response
|
||
generated when the request was first handled. KDCs MUST obey this
|
||
replay behavior even if the actual transport in use is reliable.
|
||
|
||
3.1.3. Generation of KRB_AS_REP Message
|
||
|
||
The authentication server looks up the client and server principals
|
||
named in the KRB_AS_REQ in its database, extracting their respective
|
||
keys. If the requested client principal named in the request is
|
||
unknown because it doesn't exist in the KDC's principal database,
|
||
then an error message with a KDC_ERR_C_PRINCIPAL_UNKNOWN is returned.
|
||
|
||
If required to do so, the server pre-authenticates the request, and
|
||
if the pre-authentication check fails, an error message with the code
|
||
KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_FAILED is returned. If pre-authentication is
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
required, but was not present in the request, an error message with
|
||
the code KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED is returned, and a METHOD-DATA
|
||
object will be stored in the e-data field of the KRB-ERROR message to
|
||
specify which pre-authentication mechanisms are acceptable. Usually
|
||
this will include PA-ETYPE-INFO and/or PA-ETYPE-INFO2 elements as
|
||
described below. If the server cannot accommodate any encryption
|
||
type requested by the client, an error message with code
|
||
KDC_ERR_ETYPE_NOSUPP is returned. Otherwise, the KDC generates a
|
||
'random' session key, meaning that, among other things, it should be
|
||
impossible to guess the next session key based on knowledge of past
|
||
session keys. Although this can be achieved in a pseudo-random
|
||
number generator if it is based on cryptographic principles, it is
|
||
more desirable to use a truly random number generator, such as one
|
||
based on measurements of random physical phenomena. See [RFC4086]
|
||
for an in-depth discussion of randomness.
|
||
|
||
In response to an AS request, if there are multiple encryption keys
|
||
registered for a client in the Kerberos database, then the etype
|
||
field from the AS request is used by the KDC to select the encryption
|
||
method to be used to protect the encrypted part of the KRB_AS_REP
|
||
message that is sent to the client. If there is more than one
|
||
supported strong encryption type in the etype list, the KDC SHOULD
|
||
use the first valid strong etype for which an encryption key is
|
||
available.
|
||
|
||
When the user's key is generated from a password or pass phrase, the
|
||
string-to-key function for the particular encryption key type is
|
||
used, as specified in [RFC3961]. The salt value and additional
|
||
parameters for the string-to-key function have default values
|
||
(specified by Section 4 and by the encryption mechanism
|
||
specification, respectively) that may be overridden by
|
||
pre-authentication data (PA-PW-SALT, PA-AFS3-SALT, PA-ETYPE-INFO,
|
||
PA-ETYPE-INFO2, etc). Since the KDC is presumed to store a copy of
|
||
the resulting key only, these values should not be changed for
|
||
password-based keys except when changing the principal's key.
|
||
|
||
When the AS server is to include pre-authentication data in a
|
||
KRB-ERROR or in an AS-REP, it MUST use PA-ETYPE-INFO2, not PA-ETYPE-
|
||
INFO, if the etype field of the client's AS-REQ lists at least one
|
||
"newer" encryption type. Otherwise (when the etype field of the
|
||
client's AS-REQ does not list any "newer" encryption types), it MUST
|
||
send both PA-ETYPE-INFO2 and PA-ETYPE-INFO (both with an entry for
|
||
each enctype). A "newer" enctype is any enctype first officially
|
||
specified concurrently with or subsequent to the issue of this RFC.
|
||
The enctypes DES, 3DES, or RC4 and any defined in [RFC1510] are not
|
||
"newer" enctypes.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
It is not possible to generate a user's key reliably given a pass
|
||
phrase without contacting the KDC, since it will not be known whether
|
||
alternate salt or parameter values are required.
|
||
|
||
The KDC will attempt to assign the type of the random session key
|
||
from the list of methods in the etype field. The KDC will select the
|
||
appropriate type using the list of methods provided and information
|
||
from the Kerberos database indicating acceptable encryption methods
|
||
for the application server. The KDC will not issue tickets with a
|
||
weak session key encryption type.
|
||
|
||
If the requested starttime is absent, indicates a time in the past,
|
||
or is within the window of acceptable clock skew for the KDC and the
|
||
POSTDATE option has not been specified, then the starttime of the
|
||
ticket is set to the authentication server's current time. If it
|
||
indicates a time in the future beyond the acceptable clock skew, but
|
||
the POSTDATED option has not been specified, then the error
|
||
KDC_ERR_CANNOT_POSTDATE is returned. Otherwise the requested
|
||
starttime is checked against the policy of the local realm (the
|
||
administrator might decide to prohibit certain types or ranges of
|
||
postdated tickets), and if the ticket's starttime is acceptable, it
|
||
is set as requested, and the INVALID flag is set in the new ticket.
|
||
The postdated ticket MUST be validated before use by presenting it to
|
||
the KDC after the starttime has been reached.
|
||
|
||
The expiration time of the ticket will be set to the earlier of the
|
||
requested endtime and a time determined by local policy, possibly by
|
||
using realm- or principal-specific factors. For example, the
|
||
expiration time MAY be set to the earliest of the following:
|
||
|
||
* The expiration time (endtime) requested in the KRB_AS_REQ
|
||
message.
|
||
|
||
* The ticket's starttime plus the maximum allowable lifetime
|
||
associated with the client principal from the authentication
|
||
server's database.
|
||
|
||
* The ticket's starttime plus the maximum allowable lifetime
|
||
associated with the server principal.
|
||
|
||
* The ticket's starttime plus the maximum lifetime set by the
|
||
policy of the local realm.
|
||
|
||
If the requested expiration time minus the starttime (as determined
|
||
above) is less than a site-determined minimum lifetime, an error
|
||
message with code KDC_ERR_NEVER_VALID is returned. If the requested
|
||
expiration time for the ticket exceeds what was determined as above,
|
||
and if the 'RENEWABLE-OK' option was requested, then the 'RENEWABLE'
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
flag is set in the new ticket, and the renew-till value is set as if
|
||
the 'RENEWABLE' option were requested (the field and option names are
|
||
described fully in Section 5.4.1).
|
||
|
||
If the RENEWABLE option has been requested or if the RENEWABLE-OK
|
||
option has been set and a renewable ticket is to be issued, then the
|
||
renew-till field MAY be set to the earliest of:
|
||
|
||
* Its requested value.
|
||
|
||
* The starttime of the ticket plus the minimum of the two maximum
|
||
renewable lifetimes associated with the principals' database
|
||
entries.
|
||
|
||
* The starttime of the ticket plus the maximum renewable lifetime
|
||
set by the policy of the local realm.
|
||
|
||
The flags field of the new ticket will have the following options set
|
||
if they have been requested and if the policy of the local realm
|
||
allows: FORWARDABLE, MAY-POSTDATE, POSTDATED, PROXIABLE, RENEWABLE.
|
||
If the new ticket is postdated (the starttime is in the future), its
|
||
INVALID flag will also be set.
|
||
|
||
If all of the above succeed, the server will encrypt the ciphertext
|
||
part of the ticket using the encryption key extracted from the server
|
||
principal's record in the Kerberos database using the encryption type
|
||
associated with the server principal's key. (This choice is NOT
|
||
affected by the etype field in the request.) It then formats a
|
||
KRB_AS_REP message (see Section 5.4.2), copying the addresses in the
|
||
request into the caddr of the response, placing any required pre-
|
||
authentication data into the padata of the response, and encrypts the
|
||
ciphertext part in the client's key using an acceptable encryption
|
||
method requested in the etype field of the request, or in some key
|
||
specified by pre-authentication mechanisms being used.
|
||
|
||
3.1.4. Generation of KRB_ERROR Message
|
||
|
||
Several errors can occur, and the Authentication Server responds by
|
||
returning an error message, KRB_ERROR, to the client, with the
|
||
error-code and e-text fields set to appropriate values. The error
|
||
message contents and details are described in Section 5.9.1.
|
||
|
||
3.1.5. Receipt of KRB_AS_REP Message
|
||
|
||
If the reply message type is KRB_AS_REP, then the client verifies
|
||
that the cname and crealm fields in the cleartext portion of the
|
||
reply match what it requested. If any padata fields are present,
|
||
they may be used to derive the proper secret key to decrypt the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
message. The client decrypts the encrypted part of the response
|
||
using its secret key and verifies that the nonce in the encrypted
|
||
part matches the nonce it supplied in its request (to detect
|
||
replays). It also verifies that the sname and srealm in the response
|
||
match those in the request (or are otherwise expected values), and
|
||
that the host address field is also correct. It then stores the
|
||
ticket, session key, start and expiration times, and other
|
||
information for later use. The last-req field (and the deprecated
|
||
key-expiration field) from the encrypted part of the response MAY be
|
||
checked to notify the user of impending key expiration. This enables
|
||
the client program to suggest remedial action, such as a password
|
||
change.
|
||
|
||
Upon validation of the KRB_AS_REP message (by checking the returned
|
||
nonce against that sent in the KRB_AS_REQ message), the client knows
|
||
that the current time on the KDC is that read from the authtime field
|
||
of the encrypted part of the reply. The client can optionally use
|
||
this value for clock synchronization in subsequent messages by
|
||
recording with the ticket the difference (offset) between the
|
||
authtime value and the local clock. This offset can then be used by
|
||
the same user to adjust the time read from the system clock when
|
||
generating messages [DGT96].
|
||
|
||
This technique MUST be used when adjusting for clock skew instead of
|
||
directly changing the system clock, because the KDC reply is only
|
||
authenticated to the user whose secret key was used, but not to the
|
||
system or workstation. If the clock were adjusted, an attacker
|
||
colluding with a user logging into a workstation could agree on a
|
||
password, resulting in a KDC reply that would be correctly validated
|
||
even though it did not originate from a KDC trusted by the
|
||
workstation.
|
||
|
||
Proper decryption of the KRB_AS_REP message is not sufficient for the
|
||
host to verify the identity of the user; the user and an attacker
|
||
could cooperate to generate a KRB_AS_REP format message that decrypts
|
||
properly but is not from the proper KDC. If the host wishes to
|
||
verify the identity of the user, it MUST require the user to present
|
||
application credentials that can be verified using a securely-stored
|
||
secret key for the host. If those credentials can be verified, then
|
||
the identity of the user can be assured.
|
||
|
||
3.1.6. Receipt of KRB_ERROR Message
|
||
|
||
If the reply message type is KRB_ERROR, then the client interprets it
|
||
as an error and performs whatever application-specific tasks are
|
||
necessary for recovery.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
3.2. The Client/Server Authentication Exchange
|
||
|
||
Summary
|
||
|
||
Message direction Message type Section
|
||
Client to Application server KRB_AP_REQ 5.5.1
|
||
[optional] Application server to client KRB_AP_REP or 5.5.2
|
||
KRB_ERROR 5.9.1
|
||
|
||
The client/server authentication (CS) exchange is used by network
|
||
applications to authenticate the client to the server and vice versa.
|
||
The client MUST have already acquired credentials for the server
|
||
using the AS or TGS exchange.
|
||
|
||
3.2.1. The KRB_AP_REQ Message
|
||
|
||
The KRB_AP_REQ contains authentication information that SHOULD be
|
||
part of the first message in an authenticated transaction. It
|
||
contains a ticket, an authenticator, and some additional bookkeeping
|
||
information (see Section 5.5.1 for the exact format). The ticket by
|
||
itself is insufficient to authenticate a client, since tickets are
|
||
passed across the network in cleartext (tickets contain both an
|
||
encrypted and unencrypted portion, so cleartext here refers to the
|
||
entire unit, which can be copied from one message and replayed in
|
||
another without any cryptographic skill). The authenticator is used
|
||
to prevent invalid replay of tickets by proving to the server that
|
||
the client knows the session key of the ticket and thus is entitled
|
||
to use the ticket. The KRB_AP_REQ message is referred to elsewhere
|
||
as the 'authentication header'.
|
||
|
||
3.2.2. Generation of a KRB_AP_REQ Message
|
||
|
||
When a client wishes to initiate authentication to a server, it
|
||
obtains (either through a credentials cache, the AS exchange, or the
|
||
TGS exchange) a ticket and session key for the desired service. The
|
||
client MAY re-use any tickets it holds until they expire. To use a
|
||
ticket, the client constructs a new Authenticator from the system
|
||
time and its name, and optionally from an application-specific
|
||
checksum, an initial sequence number to be used in KRB_SAFE or
|
||
KRB_PRIV messages, and/or a session subkey to be used in negotiations
|
||
for a session key unique to this particular session. Authenticators
|
||
MUST NOT be re-used and SHOULD be rejected if replayed to a server.
|
||
Note that this can make applications based on unreliable transports
|
||
difficult to code correctly. If the transport might deliver
|
||
duplicated messages, either a new authenticator MUST be generated for
|
||
each retry, or the application server MUST match requests and replies
|
||
and replay the first reply in response to a detected duplicate.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
If a sequence number is to be included, it SHOULD be randomly chosen
|
||
so that even after many messages have been exchanged it is not likely
|
||
to collide with other sequence numbers in use.
|
||
|
||
The client MAY indicate a requirement of mutual authentication or the
|
||
use of a session-key based ticket (for user-to-user authentication,
|
||
see section 3.7) by setting the appropriate flag(s) in the ap-options
|
||
field of the message.
|
||
|
||
The Authenticator is encrypted in the session key and combined with
|
||
the ticket to form the KRB_AP_REQ message, which is then sent to the
|
||
end server along with any additional application-specific
|
||
information.
|
||
|
||
3.2.3. Receipt of KRB_AP_REQ Message
|
||
|
||
Authentication is based on the server's current time of day (clocks
|
||
MUST be loosely synchronized), the authenticator, and the ticket.
|
||
Several errors are possible. If an error occurs, the server is
|
||
expected to reply to the client with a KRB_ERROR message. This
|
||
message MAY be encapsulated in the application protocol if its raw
|
||
form is not acceptable to the protocol. The format of error messages
|
||
is described in Section 5.9.1.
|
||
|
||
The algorithm for verifying authentication information is as follows.
|
||
If the message type is not KRB_AP_REQ, the server returns the
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_MSG_TYPE error. If the key version indicated by the
|
||
Ticket in the KRB_AP_REQ is not one the server can use (e.g., it
|
||
indicates an old key, and the server no longer possesses a copy of
|
||
the old key), the KRB_AP_ERR_BADKEYVER error is returned. If the
|
||
USE-SESSION-KEY flag is set in the ap-options field, it indicates to
|
||
the server that user-to-user authentication is in use, and that the
|
||
ticket is encrypted in the session key from the server's TGT rather
|
||
than in the server's secret key. See Section 3.7 for a more complete
|
||
description of the effect of user-to-user authentication on all
|
||
messages in the Kerberos protocol.
|
||
|
||
Because it is possible for the server to be registered in multiple
|
||
realms, with different keys in each, the srealm field in the
|
||
unencrypted portion of the ticket in the KRB_AP_REQ is used to
|
||
specify which secret key the server should use to decrypt that
|
||
ticket. The KRB_AP_ERR_NOKEY error code is returned if the server
|
||
doesn't have the proper key to decipher the ticket.
|
||
|
||
The ticket is decrypted using the version of the server's key
|
||
specified by the ticket. If the decryption routines detect a
|
||
modification of the ticket (each encryption system MUST provide
|
||
safeguards to detect modified ciphertext), the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_BAD_INTEGRITY error is returned (chances are good that
|
||
different keys were used to encrypt and decrypt).
|
||
|
||
The authenticator is decrypted using the session key extracted from
|
||
the decrypted ticket. If decryption shows that is has been modified,
|
||
the KRB_AP_ERR_BAD_INTEGRITY error is returned. The name and realm
|
||
of the client from the ticket are compared against the same fields in
|
||
the authenticator. If they don't match, the KRB_AP_ERR_BADMATCH
|
||
error is returned; normally this is caused by a client error or an
|
||
attempted attack. The addresses in the ticket (if any) are then
|
||
searched for an address matching the operating-system reported
|
||
address of the client. If no match is found or the server insists on
|
||
ticket addresses but none are present in the ticket, the
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_BADADDR error is returned. If the local (server) time and
|
||
the client time in the authenticator differ by more than the
|
||
allowable clock skew (e.g., 5 minutes), the KRB_AP_ERR_SKEW error is
|
||
returned.
|
||
|
||
Unless the application server provides its own suitable means to
|
||
protect against replay (for example, a challenge-response sequence
|
||
initiated by the server after authentication, or use of a server-
|
||
generated encryption subkey), the server MUST utilize a replay cache
|
||
to remember any authenticator presented within the allowable clock
|
||
skew. Careful analysis of the application protocol and
|
||
implementation is recommended before eliminating this cache. The
|
||
replay cache will store at least the server name, along with the
|
||
client name, time, and microsecond fields from the recently-seen
|
||
authenticators, and if a matching tuple is found, the
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_REPEAT error is returned. Note that the rejection here is
|
||
restricted to authenticators from the same principal to the same
|
||
server. Other client principals communicating with the same server
|
||
principal should not have their authenticators rejected if the time
|
||
and microsecond fields happen to match some other client's
|
||
authenticator.
|
||
|
||
If a server loses track of authenticators presented within the
|
||
allowable clock skew, it MUST reject all requests until the clock
|
||
skew interval has passed, providing assurance that any lost or
|
||
replayed authenticators will fall outside the allowable clock skew
|
||
and can no longer be successfully replayed. If this were not done,
|
||
an attacker could subvert the authentication by recording the ticket
|
||
and authenticator sent over the network to a server and replaying
|
||
them following an event that caused the server to lose track of
|
||
recently seen authenticators.
|
||
|
||
Implementation note: If a client generates multiple requests to the
|
||
KDC with the same timestamp, including the microsecond field, all but
|
||
the first of the requests received will be rejected as replays. This
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
might happen, for example, if the resolution of the client's clock is
|
||
too coarse. Client implementations SHOULD ensure that the timestamps
|
||
are not reused, possibly by incrementing the microseconds field in
|
||
the time stamp when the clock returns the same time for multiple
|
||
requests.
|
||
|
||
If multiple servers (for example, different services on one machine,
|
||
or a single service implemented on multiple machines) share a service
|
||
principal (a practice that we do not recommend in general, but that
|
||
we acknowledge will be used in some cases), either they MUST share
|
||
this replay cache, or the application protocol MUST be designed so as
|
||
to eliminate the need for it. Note that this applies to all of the
|
||
services. If any of the application protocols does not have replay
|
||
protection built in, an authenticator used with such a service could
|
||
later be replayed to a different service with the same service
|
||
principal but no replay protection, if the former doesn't record the
|
||
authenticator information in the common replay cache.
|
||
|
||
If a sequence number is provided in the authenticator, the server
|
||
saves it for later use in processing KRB_SAFE and/or KRB_PRIV
|
||
messages. If a subkey is present, the server either saves it for
|
||
later use or uses it to help generate its own choice for a subkey to
|
||
be returned in a KRB_AP_REP message.
|
||
|
||
The server computes the age of the ticket: local (server) time minus
|
||
the starttime inside the Ticket. If the starttime is later than the
|
||
current time by more than the allowable clock skew, or if the INVALID
|
||
flag is set in the ticket, the KRB_AP_ERR_TKT_NYV error is returned.
|
||
Otherwise, if the current time is later than end time by more than
|
||
the allowable clock skew, the KRB_AP_ERR_TKT_EXPIRED error is
|
||
returned.
|
||
|
||
If all these checks succeed without an error, the server is assured
|
||
that the client possesses the credentials of the principal named in
|
||
the ticket, and thus, that the client has been authenticated to the
|
||
server.
|
||
|
||
Passing these checks provides only authentication of the named
|
||
principal; it does not imply authorization to use the named service.
|
||
Applications MUST make a separate authorization decision based upon
|
||
the authenticated name of the user, the requested operation, local
|
||
access control information such as that contained in a .k5login or
|
||
.k5users file, and possibly a separate distributed authorization
|
||
service.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
3.2.4. Generation of a KRB_AP_REP Message
|
||
|
||
Typically, a client's request will include both the authentication
|
||
information and its initial request in the same message, and the
|
||
server need not explicitly reply to the KRB_AP_REQ. However, if
|
||
mutual authentication (authenticating not only the client to the
|
||
server, but also the server to the client) is being performed, the
|
||
KRB_AP_REQ message will have MUTUAL-REQUIRED set in its ap-options
|
||
field, and a KRB_AP_REP message is required in response. As with the
|
||
error message, this message MAY be encapsulated in the application
|
||
protocol if its "raw" form is not acceptable to the application's
|
||
protocol. The timestamp and microsecond field used in the reply MUST
|
||
be the client's timestamp and microsecond field (as provided in the
|
||
authenticator). If a sequence number is to be included, it SHOULD be
|
||
randomly chosen as described above for the authenticator. A subkey
|
||
MAY be included if the server desires to negotiate a different
|
||
subkey. The KRB_AP_REP message is encrypted in the session key
|
||
extracted from the ticket.
|
||
|
||
Note that in the Kerberos Version 4 protocol, the timestamp in the
|
||
reply was the client's timestamp plus one. This is not necessary in
|
||
Version 5 because Version 5 messages are formatted in such a way that
|
||
it is not possible to create the reply by judicious message surgery
|
||
(even in encrypted form) without knowledge of the appropriate
|
||
encryption keys.
|
||
|
||
3.2.5. Receipt of KRB_AP_REP Message
|
||
|
||
If a KRB_AP_REP message is returned, the client uses the session key
|
||
from the credentials obtained for the server to decrypt the message
|
||
and verifies that the timestamp and microsecond fields match those in
|
||
the Authenticator it sent to the server. If they match, then the
|
||
client is assured that the server is genuine. The sequence number
|
||
and subkey (if present) are retained for later use. (Note that for
|
||
encrypting the KRB_AP_REP message, the sub-session key is not used,
|
||
even if it is present in the Authentication.)
|
||
|
||
3.2.6. Using the Encryption Key
|
||
|
||
After the KRB_AP_REQ/KRB_AP_REP exchange has occurred, the client and
|
||
server share an encryption key that can be used by the application.
|
||
In some cases, the use of this session key will be implicit in the
|
||
protocol; in others the method of use must be chosen from several
|
||
alternatives. The application MAY choose the actual encryption key
|
||
to be used for KRB_PRIV, KRB_SAFE, or other application-specific uses
|
||
based on the session key from the ticket and subkeys in the
|
||
KRB_AP_REP message and the authenticator. Implementations of the
|
||
protocol MAY provide routines to choose subkeys based on session keys
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
and random numbers and to generate a negotiated key to be returned in
|
||
the KRB_AP_REP message.
|
||
|
||
To mitigate the effect of failures in random number generation on the
|
||
client, it is strongly encouraged that any key derived by an
|
||
application for subsequent use include the full key entropy derived
|
||
from the KDC-generated session key carried in the ticket. We leave
|
||
the protocol negotiations of how to use the key (e.g., for selecting
|
||
an encryption or checksum type) to the application programmer. The
|
||
Kerberos protocol does not constrain the implementation options, but
|
||
an example of how this might be done follows.
|
||
|
||
One way that an application may choose to negotiate a key to be used
|
||
for subsequent integrity and privacy protection is for the client to
|
||
propose a key in the subkey field of the authenticator. The server
|
||
can then choose a key using the key proposed by the client as input,
|
||
returning the new subkey in the subkey field of the application
|
||
reply. This key could then be used for subsequent communication.
|
||
|
||
With both the one-way and mutual authentication exchanges, the peers
|
||
should take care not to send sensitive information to each other
|
||
without proper assurances. In particular, applications that require
|
||
privacy or integrity SHOULD use the KRB_AP_REP response from the
|
||
server to the client to assure both client and server of their peer's
|
||
identity. If an application protocol requires privacy of its
|
||
messages, it can use the KRB_PRIV message (section 3.5). The
|
||
KRB_SAFE message (Section 3.4) can be used to ensure integrity.
|
||
|
||
3.3. The Ticket-Granting Service (TGS) Exchange
|
||
|
||
Summary
|
||
|
||
Message direction Message type Section
|
||
1. Client to Kerberos KRB_TGS_REQ 5.4.1
|
||
2. Kerberos to client KRB_TGS_REP or 5.4.2
|
||
KRB_ERROR 5.9.1
|
||
|
||
The TGS exchange between a client and the Kerberos TGS is initiated
|
||
by a client when it seeks to obtain authentication credentials for a
|
||
given server (which might be registered in a remote realm), when it
|
||
seeks to renew or validate an existing ticket, or when it seeks to
|
||
obtain a proxy ticket. In the first case, the client must already
|
||
have acquired a ticket for the Ticket-Granting Service using the AS
|
||
exchange (the TGT is usually obtained when a client initially
|
||
authenticates to the system, such as when a user logs in). The
|
||
message format for the TGS exchange is almost identical to that for
|
||
the AS exchange. The primary difference is that encryption and
|
||
decryption in the TGS exchange does not take place under the client's
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
key. Instead, the session key from the TGT or renewable ticket, or
|
||
sub-session key from an Authenticator is used. As is the case for
|
||
all application servers, expired tickets are not accepted by the TGS,
|
||
so once a renewable or TGT expires, the client must use a separate
|
||
exchange to obtain valid tickets.
|
||
|
||
The TGS exchange consists of two messages: a request (KRB_TGS_REQ)
|
||
from the client to the Kerberos Ticket-Granting Server, and a reply
|
||
(KRB_TGS_REP or KRB_ERROR). The KRB_TGS_REQ message includes
|
||
information authenticating the client plus a request for credentials.
|
||
The authentication information consists of the authentication header
|
||
(KRB_AP_REQ), which includes the client's previously obtained
|
||
ticket-granting, renewable, or invalid ticket. In the TGT and proxy
|
||
cases, the request MAY include one or more of the following: a list
|
||
of network addresses, a collection of typed authorization data to be
|
||
sealed in the ticket for authorization use by the application server,
|
||
or additional tickets (the use of which are described later). The
|
||
TGS reply (KRB_TGS_REP) contains the requested credentials, encrypted
|
||
in the session key from the TGT or renewable ticket, or, if present,
|
||
in the sub-session key from the Authenticator (part of the
|
||
authentication header). The KRB_ERROR message contains an error code
|
||
and text explaining what went wrong. The KRB_ERROR message is not
|
||
encrypted. The KRB_TGS_REP message contains information that can be
|
||
used to detect replays, and to associate it with the message to which
|
||
it replies. The KRB_ERROR message also contains information that can
|
||
be used to associate it with the message to which it replies. The
|
||
same comments about integrity protection of KRB_ERROR messages
|
||
mentioned in Section 3.1 apply to the TGS exchange.
|
||
|
||
3.3.1. Generation of KRB_TGS_REQ Message
|
||
|
||
Before sending a request to the ticket-granting service, the client
|
||
MUST determine in which realm the application server is believed to
|
||
be registered. This can be accomplished in several ways. It might
|
||
be known beforehand (since the realm is part of the principal
|
||
identifier), it might be stored in a nameserver, or it might be
|
||
obtained from a configuration file. If the realm to be used is
|
||
obtained from a nameserver, there is a danger of being spoofed if the
|
||
nameservice providing the realm name is not authenticated. This
|
||
might result in the use of a realm that has been compromised, which
|
||
would result in an attacker's ability to compromise the
|
||
authentication of the application server to the client.
|
||
|
||
If the client knows the service principal name and realm and it does
|
||
not already possess a TGT for the appropriate realm, then one must be
|
||
obtained. This is first attempted by requesting a TGT for the
|
||
destination realm from a Kerberos server for which the client
|
||
possesses a TGT (by using the KRB_TGS_REQ message recursively). The
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kerberos server MAY return a TGT for the desired realm, in which case
|
||
one can proceed. Alternatively, the Kerberos server MAY return a TGT
|
||
for a realm that is 'closer' to the desired realm (further along the
|
||
standard hierarchical path between the client's realm and the
|
||
requested realm server's realm). Note that in this case
|
||
misconfiguration of the Kerberos servers may cause loops in the
|
||
resulting authentication path, which the client should be careful to
|
||
detect and avoid.
|
||
|
||
If the Kerberos server returns a TGT for a realm 'closer' than the
|
||
desired realm, the client MAY use local policy configuration to
|
||
verify that the authentication path used is an acceptable one.
|
||
Alternatively, a client MAY choose its own authentication path,
|
||
rather than rely on the Kerberos server to select one. In either
|
||
case, any policy or configuration information used to choose or
|
||
validate authentication paths, whether by the Kerberos server or by
|
||
the client, MUST be obtained from a trusted source.
|
||
|
||
When a client obtains a TGT that is 'closer' to the destination
|
||
realm, the client MAY cache this ticket and reuse it in future
|
||
KRB-TGS exchanges with services in the 'closer' realm. However, if
|
||
the client were to obtain a TGT for the 'closer' realm by starting at
|
||
the initial KDC rather than as part of obtaining another ticket, then
|
||
a shorter path to the 'closer' realm might be used. This shorter
|
||
path may be desirable because fewer intermediate KDCs would know the
|
||
session key of the ticket involved. For this reason, clients SHOULD
|
||
evaluate whether they trust the realms transited in obtaining the
|
||
'closer' ticket when making a decision to use the ticket in future.
|
||
|
||
Once the client obtains a TGT for the appropriate realm, it
|
||
determines which Kerberos servers serve that realm and contacts one
|
||
of them. The list might be obtained through a configuration file or
|
||
network service, or it MAY be generated from the name of the realm.
|
||
As long as the secret keys exchanged by realms are kept secret, only
|
||
denial of service results from using a false Kerberos server.
|
||
|
||
As in the AS exchange, the client MAY specify a number of options in
|
||
the KRB_TGS_REQ message. One of these options is the ENC-TKT-IN-SKEY
|
||
option used for user-to-user authentication. An overview of user-
|
||
to-user authentication can be found in Section 3.7. When generating
|
||
the KRB_TGS_REQ message, this option indicates that the client is
|
||
including a TGT obtained from the application server in the
|
||
additional tickets field of the request and that the KDC SHOULD
|
||
encrypt the ticket for the application server using the session key
|
||
from this additional ticket, instead of a server key from the
|
||
principal database.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
The client prepares the KRB_TGS_REQ message, providing an
|
||
authentication header as an element of the padata field, and
|
||
including the same fields as used in the KRB_AS_REQ message along
|
||
with several optional fields: the enc-authorizatfion-data field for
|
||
application server use and additional tickets required by some
|
||
options.
|
||
|
||
In preparing the authentication header, the client can select a sub-
|
||
session key under which the response from the Kerberos server will be
|
||
encrypted. If the client selects a sub-session key, care must be
|
||
taken to ensure the randomness of the selected sub-session key.
|
||
|
||
If the sub-session key is not specified, the session key from the TGT
|
||
will be used. If the enc-authorization-data is present, it MUST be
|
||
encrypted in the sub-session key, if present, from the authenticator
|
||
portion of the authentication header, or, if not present, by using
|
||
the session key from the TGT.
|
||
|
||
Once prepared, the message is sent to a Kerberos server for the
|
||
destination realm.
|
||
|
||
3.3.2. Receipt of KRB_TGS_REQ Message
|
||
|
||
The KRB_TGS_REQ message is processed in a manner similar to the
|
||
KRB_AS_REQ message, but there are many additional checks to be
|
||
performed. First, the Kerberos server MUST determine which server
|
||
the accompanying ticket is for, and it MUST select the appropriate
|
||
key to decrypt it. For a normal KRB_TGS_REQ message, it will be for
|
||
the ticket-granting service, and the TGS's key will be used. If the
|
||
TGT was issued by another realm, then the appropriate inter-realm key
|
||
MUST be used. If (a) the accompanying ticket is not a TGT for the
|
||
current realm, but is for an application server in the current realm,
|
||
(b) the RENEW, VALIDATE, or PROXY options are specified in the
|
||
request, and (c) the server for which a ticket is requested is the
|
||
server named in the accompanying ticket, then the KDC will decrypt
|
||
the ticket in the authentication header using the key of the server
|
||
for which it was issued. If no ticket can be found in the padata
|
||
field, the KDC_ERR_PADATA_TYPE_NOSUPP error is returned.
|
||
|
||
Once the accompanying ticket has been decrypted, the user-supplied
|
||
checksum in the Authenticator MUST be verified against the contents
|
||
of the request, and the message MUST be rejected if the checksums do
|
||
not match (with an error code of KRB_AP_ERR_MODIFIED) or if the
|
||
checksum is not collision-proof (with an error code of
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_INAPP_CKSUM). If the checksum type is not supported, the
|
||
KDC_ERR_SUMTYPE_NOSUPP error is returned. If the authorization-data
|
||
are present, they are decrypted using the sub-session key from the
|
||
Authenticator.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
If any of the decryptions indicate failed integrity checks, the
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_BAD_INTEGRITY error is returned.
|
||
|
||
As discussed in Section 3.1.2, the KDC MUST send a valid KRB_TGS_REP
|
||
message if it receives a KRB_TGS_REQ message identical to one it has
|
||
recently processed. However, if the authenticator is a replay, but
|
||
the rest of the request is not identical, then the KDC SHOULD return
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_REPEAT.
|
||
|
||
3.3.3. Generation of KRB_TGS_REP Message
|
||
|
||
The KRB_TGS_REP message shares its format with the KRB_AS_REP
|
||
(KRB_KDC_REP), but with its type field set to KRB_TGS_REP. The
|
||
detailed specification is in Section 5.4.2.
|
||
|
||
The response will include a ticket for the requested server or for a
|
||
ticket granting server of an intermediate KDC to be contacted to
|
||
obtain the requested ticket. The Kerberos database is queried to
|
||
retrieve the record for the appropriate server (including the key
|
||
with which the ticket will be encrypted). If the request is for a
|
||
TGT for a remote realm, and if no key is shared with the requested
|
||
realm, then the Kerberos server will select the realm 'closest' to
|
||
the requested realm with which it does share a key and use that realm
|
||
instead. This is the only case where the response for the KDC will
|
||
be for a different server than that requested by the client.
|
||
|
||
By default, the address field, the client's name and realm, the list
|
||
of transited realms, the time of initial authentication, the
|
||
expiration time, and the authorization data of the newly-issued
|
||
ticket will be copied from the TGT or renewable ticket. If the
|
||
transited field needs to be updated, but the transited type is not
|
||
supported, the KDC_ERR_TRTYPE_NOSUPP error is returned.
|
||
|
||
If the request specifies an endtime, then the endtime of the new
|
||
ticket is set to the minimum of (a) that request, (b) the endtime
|
||
from the TGT, and (c) the starttime of the TGT plus the minimum of
|
||
the maximum life for the application server and the maximum life for
|
||
the local realm (the maximum life for the requesting principal was
|
||
already applied when the TGT was issued). If the new ticket is to be
|
||
a renewal, then the endtime above is replaced by the minimum of (a)
|
||
the value of the renew_till field of the ticket and (b) the starttime
|
||
for the new ticket plus the life (endtime-starttime) of the old
|
||
ticket.
|
||
|
||
If the FORWARDED option has been requested, then the resulting ticket
|
||
will contain the addresses specified by the client. This option will
|
||
only be honored if the FORWARDABLE flag is set in the TGT. The PROXY
|
||
option is similar; the resulting ticket will contain the addresses
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
specified by the client. It will be honored only if the PROXIABLE
|
||
flag in the TGT is set. The PROXY option will not be honored on
|
||
requests for additional TGTs.
|
||
|
||
If the requested starttime is absent, indicates a time in the past,
|
||
or is within the window of acceptable clock skew for the KDC and the
|
||
POSTDATE option has not been specified, then the starttime of the
|
||
ticket is set to the authentication server's current time. If it
|
||
indicates a time in the future beyond the acceptable clock skew, but
|
||
the POSTDATED option has not been specified or the MAY-POSTDATE flag
|
||
is not set in the TGT, then the error KDC_ERR_CANNOT_POSTDATE is
|
||
returned. Otherwise, if the TGT has the MAY-POSTDATE flag set, then
|
||
the resulting ticket will be postdated, and the requested starttime
|
||
is checked against the policy of the local realm. If acceptable, the
|
||
ticket's starttime is set as requested, and the INVALID flag is set.
|
||
The postdated ticket MUST be validated before use by presenting it to
|
||
the KDC after the starttime has been reached. However, in no case
|
||
may the starttime, endtime, or renew-till time of a newly-issued
|
||
postdated ticket extend beyond the renew-till time of the TGT.
|
||
|
||
If the ENC-TKT-IN-SKEY option has been specified and an additional
|
||
ticket has been included in the request, it indicates that the client
|
||
is using user-to-user authentication to prove its identity to a
|
||
server that does not have access to a persistent key. Section 3.7
|
||
describes the effect of this option on the entire Kerberos protocol.
|
||
When generating the KRB_TGS_REP message, this option in the
|
||
KRB_TGS_REQ message tells the KDC to decrypt the additional ticket
|
||
using the key for the server to which the additional ticket was
|
||
issued and to verify that it is a TGT. If the name of the requested
|
||
server is missing from the request, the name of the client in the
|
||
additional ticket will be used. Otherwise, the name of the requested
|
||
server will be compared to the name of the client in the additional
|
||
ticket. If it is different, the request will be rejected. If the
|
||
request succeeds, the session key from the additional ticket will be
|
||
used to encrypt the new ticket that is issued instead of using the
|
||
key of the server for which the new ticket will be used.
|
||
|
||
If (a) the name of the server in the ticket that is presented to the
|
||
KDC as part of the authentication header is not that of the TGS
|
||
itself, (b) the server is registered in the realm of the KDC, and (c)
|
||
the RENEW option is requested, then the KDC will verify that the
|
||
RENEWABLE flag is set in the ticket, that the INVALID flag is not set
|
||
in the ticket, and that the renew_till time is still in the future.
|
||
If the VALIDATE option is requested, the KDC will check that the
|
||
starttime has passed and that the INVALID flag is set. If the PROXY
|
||
option is requested, then the KDC will check that the PROXIABLE flag
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
is set in the ticket. If the tests succeed and the ticket passes the
|
||
hotlist check described in the next section, the KDC will issue the
|
||
appropriate new ticket.
|
||
|
||
The ciphertext part of the response in the KRB_TGS_REP message is
|
||
encrypted in the sub-session key from the Authenticator, if present,
|
||
or in the session key from the TGT. It is not encrypted using the
|
||
client's secret key. Furthermore, the client's key's expiration date
|
||
and the key version number fields are left out since these values are
|
||
stored along with the client's database record, and that record is
|
||
not needed to satisfy a request based on a TGT.
|
||
|
||
3.3.3.1. Checking for Revoked Tickets
|
||
|
||
Whenever a request is made to the ticket-granting server, the
|
||
presented ticket(s) is (are) checked against a hot-list of tickets
|
||
that have been canceled. This hot-list might be implemented by
|
||
storing a range of issue timestamps for 'suspect tickets'; if a
|
||
presented ticket had an authtime in that range, it would be rejected.
|
||
In this way, a stolen TGT or renewable ticket cannot be used to gain
|
||
additional tickets (renewals or otherwise) once the theft has been
|
||
reported to the KDC for the realm in which the server resides. Any
|
||
normal ticket obtained before it was reported stolen will still be
|
||
valid (because tickets require no interaction with the KDC), but only
|
||
until its normal expiration time. If TGTs have been issued for
|
||
cross-realm authentication, use of the cross-realm TGT will not be
|
||
affected unless the hot-list is propagated to the KDCs for the realms
|
||
for which such cross-realm tickets were issued.
|
||
|
||
3.3.3.2. Encoding the Transited Field
|
||
|
||
If the identity of the server in the TGT that is presented to the KDC
|
||
as part of the authentication header is that of the ticket-granting
|
||
service, but the TGT was issued from another realm, the KDC will look
|
||
up the inter-realm key shared with that realm and use that key to
|
||
decrypt the ticket. If the ticket is valid, then the KDC will honor
|
||
the request, subject to the constraints outlined above in the section
|
||
describing the AS exchange. The realm part of the client's identity
|
||
will be taken from the TGT. The name of the realm that issued the
|
||
TGT, if it is not the realm of the client principal, will be added to
|
||
the transited field of the ticket to be issued. This is accomplished
|
||
by reading the transited field from the TGT (which is treated as an
|
||
unordered set of realm names), adding the new realm to the set, and
|
||
then constructing and writing out its encoded (shorthand) form (this
|
||
may involve a rearrangement of the existing encoding).
|
||
|
||
Note that the ticket-granting service does not add the name of its
|
||
own realm. Instead, its responsibility is to add the name of the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
previous realm. This prevents a malicious Kerberos server from
|
||
intentionally leaving out its own name (it could, however, omit other
|
||
realms' names).
|
||
|
||
The names of neither the local realm nor the principal's realm are to
|
||
be included in the transited field. They appear elsewhere in the
|
||
ticket and both are known to have taken part in authenticating the
|
||
principal. Because the endpoints are not included, both local and
|
||
single-hop inter-realm authentication result in a transited field
|
||
that is empty.
|
||
|
||
Because this field has the name of each transited realm added to it,
|
||
it might potentially be very long. To decrease the length of this
|
||
field, its contents are encoded. The initially supported encoding is
|
||
optimized for the normal case of inter-realm communication: a
|
||
hierarchical arrangement of realms using either domain or X.500 style
|
||
realm names. This encoding (called DOMAIN-X500-COMPRESS) is now
|
||
described.
|
||
|
||
Realm names in the transited field are separated by a ",". The ",",
|
||
"\", trailing "."s, and leading spaces (" ") are special characters,
|
||
and if they are part of a realm name, they MUST be quoted in the
|
||
transited field by preceding them with a "\".
|
||
|
||
A realm name ending with a "." is interpreted as being prepended to
|
||
the previous realm. For example, we can encode traversal of EDU,
|
||
MIT.EDU, ATHENA.MIT.EDU, WASHINGTON.EDU, and CS.WASHINGTON.EDU as:
|
||
|
||
"EDU,MIT.,ATHENA.,WASHINGTON.EDU,CS.".
|
||
|
||
Note that if either ATHENA.MIT.EDU, or CS.WASHINGTON.EDU were
|
||
endpoints, they would not be included in this field, and we would
|
||
have:
|
||
|
||
"EDU,MIT.,WASHINGTON.EDU"
|
||
|
||
A realm name beginning with a "/" is interpreted as being appended to
|
||
the previous realm. For the purpose of appending, the realm
|
||
preceding the first listed realm is considered the null realm ("").
|
||
If a realm name beginning with a "/" is to stand by itself, then it
|
||
SHOULD be preceded by a space (" "). For example, we can encode
|
||
traversal of /COM/HP/APOLLO, /COM/HP, /COM, and /COM/DEC as:
|
||
|
||
"/COM,/HP,/APOLLO, /COM/DEC".
|
||
|
||
As in the example above, if /COM/HP/APOLLO and /COM/DEC were
|
||
endpoints, they would not be included in this field, and we would
|
||
have:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
"/COM,/HP"
|
||
|
||
A null subfield preceding or following a "," indicates that all
|
||
realms between the previous realm and the next realm have been
|
||
traversed. For the purpose of interpreting null subfields, the
|
||
client's realm is considered to precede those in the transited field,
|
||
and the server's realm is considered to follow them. Thus, "," means
|
||
that all realms along the path between the client and the server have
|
||
been traversed. ",EDU, /COM," means that all realms from the
|
||
client's realm up to EDU (in a domain style hierarchy) have been
|
||
traversed, and that everything from /COM down to the server's realm
|
||
in an X.500 style has also been traversed. This could occur if the
|
||
EDU realm in one hierarchy shares an inter-realm key directly with
|
||
the /COM realm in another hierarchy.
|
||
|
||
3.3.4. Receipt of KRB_TGS_REP Message
|
||
|
||
When the KRB_TGS_REP is received by the client, it is processed in
|
||
the same manner as the KRB_AS_REP processing described above. The
|
||
primary difference is that the ciphertext part of the response must
|
||
be decrypted using the sub-session key from the Authenticator, if it
|
||
was specified in the request, or the session key from the TGT, rather
|
||
than the client's secret key. The server name returned in the reply
|
||
is the true principal name of the service.
|
||
|
||
3.4. The KRB_SAFE Exchange
|
||
|
||
The KRB_SAFE message MAY be used by clients requiring the ability to
|
||
detect modifications of messages they exchange. It achieves this by
|
||
including a keyed collision-proof checksum of the user data and some
|
||
control information. The checksum is keyed with an encryption key
|
||
(usually the last key negotiated via subkeys, or the session key if
|
||
no negotiation has occurred).
|
||
|
||
3.4.1. Generation of a KRB_SAFE Message
|
||
|
||
When an application wishes to send a KRB_SAFE message, it collects
|
||
its data and the appropriate control information and computes a
|
||
checksum over them. The checksum algorithm should be the keyed
|
||
checksum mandated to be implemented along with the crypto system used
|
||
for the sub-session or session key. The checksum is generated using
|
||
the sub-session key, if present, or the session key. Some
|
||
implementations use a different checksum algorithm for the KRB_SAFE
|
||
messages, but doing so in an interoperable manner is not always
|
||
possible.
|
||
|
||
The control information for the KRB_SAFE message includes both a
|
||
timestamp and a sequence number. The designer of an application
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
using the KRB_SAFE message MUST choose at least one of the two
|
||
mechanisms. This choice SHOULD be based on the needs of the
|
||
application protocol.
|
||
|
||
Sequence numbers are useful when all messages sent will be received
|
||
by one's peer. Connection state is presently required to maintain
|
||
the session key, so maintaining the next sequence number should not
|
||
present an additional problem.
|
||
|
||
If the application protocol is expected to tolerate lost messages
|
||
without their being resent, the use of the timestamp is the
|
||
appropriate replay detection mechanism. Using timestamps is also the
|
||
appropriate mechanism for multi-cast protocols in which all of one's
|
||
peers share a common sub-session key, but some messages will be sent
|
||
to a subset of one's peers.
|
||
|
||
After computing the checksum, the client then transmits the
|
||
information and checksum to the recipient in the message format
|
||
specified in Section 5.6.1.
|
||
|
||
3.4.2. Receipt of KRB_SAFE Message
|
||
|
||
When an application receives a KRB_SAFE message, it verifies it as
|
||
follows. If any error occurs, an error code is reported for use by
|
||
the application.
|
||
|
||
The message is first checked by verifying that the protocol version
|
||
and type fields match the current version and KRB_SAFE, respectively.
|
||
A mismatch generates a KRB_AP_ERR_BADVERSION or KRB_AP_ERR_MSG_TYPE
|
||
error. The application verifies that the checksum used is a
|
||
collision-proof keyed checksum that uses keys compatible with the
|
||
sub-session or session key as appropriate (or with the application
|
||
key derived from the session or sub-session keys). If it is not, a
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_INAPP_CKSUM error is generated. The sender's address MUST
|
||
be included in the control information; the recipient verifies that
|
||
the operating system's report of the sender's address matches the
|
||
sender's address in the message, and (if a recipient address is
|
||
specified or the recipient requires an address) that one of the
|
||
recipient's addresses appears as the recipient's address in the
|
||
message. To work with network address translation, senders MAY use
|
||
the directional address type specified in Section 8.1 for the sender
|
||
address and not include recipient addresses. A failed match for
|
||
either case generates a KRB_AP_ERR_BADADDR error. Then the timestamp
|
||
and usec and/or the sequence number fields are checked. If timestamp
|
||
and usec are expected and not present, or if they are present but not
|
||
current, the KRB_AP_ERR_SKEW error is generated. Timestamps are not
|
||
required to be strictly ordered; they are only required to be in the
|
||
skew window. If the server name, along with the client name, time,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
and microsecond fields from the Authenticator match any recently-seen
|
||
(sent or received) such tuples, the KRB_AP_ERR_REPEAT error is
|
||
generated. If an incorrect sequence number is included, or if a
|
||
sequence number is expected but not present, the KRB_AP_ERR_BADORDER
|
||
error is generated. If neither a time-stamp and usec nor a sequence
|
||
number is present, a KRB_AP_ERR_MODIFIED error is generated.
|
||
Finally, the checksum is computed over the data and control
|
||
information, and if it doesn't match the received checksum, a
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_MODIFIED error is generated.
|
||
|
||
If all the checks succeed, the application is assured that the
|
||
message was generated by its peer and was not modified in transit.
|
||
|
||
Implementations SHOULD accept any checksum algorithm they implement
|
||
that has both adequate security and keys compatible with the sub-
|
||
session or session key. Unkeyed or non-collision-proof checksums are
|
||
not suitable for this use.
|
||
|
||
3.5. The KRB_PRIV Exchange
|
||
|
||
The KRB_PRIV message MAY be used by clients requiring confidentiality
|
||
and the ability to detect modifications of exchanged messages. It
|
||
achieves this by encrypting the messages and adding control
|
||
information.
|
||
|
||
3.5.1. Generation of a KRB_PRIV Message
|
||
|
||
When an application wishes to send a KRB_PRIV message, it collects
|
||
its data and the appropriate control information (specified in
|
||
Section 5.7.1) and encrypts them under an encryption key (usually the
|
||
last key negotiated via subkeys, or the session key if no negotiation
|
||
has occurred). As part of the control information, the client MUST
|
||
choose to use either a timestamp or a sequence number (or both); see
|
||
the discussion in Section 3.4.1 for guidelines on which to use.
|
||
After the user data and control information are encrypted, the client
|
||
transmits the ciphertext and some 'envelope' information to the
|
||
recipient.
|
||
|
||
3.5.2. Receipt of KRB_PRIV Message
|
||
|
||
When an application receives a KRB_PRIV message, it verifies it as
|
||
follows. If any error occurs, an error code is reported for use by
|
||
the application.
|
||
|
||
The message is first checked by verifying that the protocol version
|
||
and type fields match the current version and KRB_PRIV, respectively.
|
||
A mismatch generates a KRB_AP_ERR_BADVERSION or KRB_AP_ERR_MSG_TYPE
|
||
error. The application then decrypts the ciphertext and processes
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
the resultant plaintext. If decryption shows that the data has been
|
||
modified, a KRB_AP_ERR_BAD_INTEGRITY error is generated.
|
||
|
||
The sender's address MUST be included in the control information; the
|
||
recipient verifies that the operating system's report of the sender's
|
||
address matches the sender's address in the message. If a recipient
|
||
address is specified or the recipient requires an address, then one
|
||
of the recipient's addresses MUST also appear as the recipient's
|
||
address in the message. Where a sender's or receiver's address might
|
||
not otherwise match the address in a message because of network
|
||
address translation, an application MAY be written to use addresses
|
||
of the directional address type in place of the actual network
|
||
address.
|
||
|
||
A failed match for either case generates a KRB_AP_ERR_BADADDR error.
|
||
To work with network address translation, implementations MAY use the
|
||
directional address type defined in Section 7.1 for the sender
|
||
address and include no recipient address.
|
||
|
||
Next the timestamp and usec and/or the sequence number fields are
|
||
checked. If timestamp and usec are expected and not present, or if
|
||
they are present but not current, the KRB_AP_ERR_SKEW error is
|
||
generated. If the server name, along with the client name, time, and
|
||
microsecond fields from the Authenticator match any such recently-
|
||
seen tuples, the KRB_AP_ERR_REPEAT error is generated. If an
|
||
incorrect sequence number is included, or if a sequence number is
|
||
expected but not present, the KRB_AP_ERR_BADORDER error is generated.
|
||
If neither a time-stamp and usec nor a sequence number is present, a
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_MODIFIED error is generated.
|
||
|
||
If all the checks succeed, the application can assume the message was
|
||
generated by its peer and was securely transmitted (without intruders
|
||
seeing the unencrypted contents).
|
||
|
||
3.6. The KRB_CRED Exchange
|
||
|
||
The KRB_CRED message MAY be used by clients requiring the ability to
|
||
send Kerberos credentials from one host to another. It achieves this
|
||
by sending the tickets together with encrypted data containing the
|
||
session keys and other information associated with the tickets.
|
||
|
||
3.6.1. Generation of a KRB_CRED Message
|
||
|
||
When an application wishes to send a KRB_CRED message, it first
|
||
(using the KRB_TGS exchange) obtains credentials to be sent to the
|
||
remote host. It then constructs a KRB_CRED message using the ticket
|
||
or tickets so obtained, placing the session key needed to use each
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
ticket in the key field of the corresponding KrbCredInfo sequence of
|
||
the encrypted part of the KRB_CRED message.
|
||
|
||
Other information associated with each ticket and obtained during the
|
||
KRB_TGS exchange is also placed in the corresponding KrbCredInfo
|
||
sequence in the encrypted part of the KRB_CRED message. The current
|
||
time and, if they are specifically required by the application, the
|
||
nonce, s-address, and r-address fields are placed in the encrypted
|
||
part of the KRB_CRED message, which is then encrypted under an
|
||
encryption key previously exchanged in the KRB_AP exchange (usually
|
||
the last key negotiated via subkeys, or the session key if no
|
||
negotiation has occurred).
|
||
|
||
Implementation note: When constructing a KRB_CRED message for
|
||
inclusion in a GSSAPI initial context token, the MIT implementation
|
||
of Kerberos will not encrypt the KRB_CRED message if the session key
|
||
is a DES or triple DES key. For interoperability with MIT, the
|
||
Microsoft implementation will not encrypt the KRB_CRED in a GSSAPI
|
||
token if it is using a DES session key. Starting at version 1.2.5,
|
||
MIT Kerberos can receive and decode either encrypted or unencrypted
|
||
KRB_CRED tokens in the GSSAPI exchange. The Heimdal implementation
|
||
of Kerberos can also accept either encrypted or unencrypted KRB_CRED
|
||
messages. Since the KRB_CRED message in a GSSAPI token is encrypted
|
||
in the authenticator, the MIT behavior does not present a security
|
||
problem, although it is a violation of the Kerberos specification.
|
||
|
||
3.6.2. Receipt of KRB_CRED Message
|
||
|
||
When an application receives a KRB_CRED message, it verifies it. If
|
||
any error occurs, an error code is reported for use by the
|
||
application. The message is verified by checking that the protocol
|
||
version and type fields match the current version and KRB_CRED,
|
||
respectively. A mismatch generates a KRB_AP_ERR_BADVERSION or
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_MSG_TYPE error. The application then decrypts the
|
||
ciphertext and processes the resultant plaintext. If decryption
|
||
shows the data to have been modified, a KRB_AP_ERR_BAD_INTEGRITY
|
||
error is generated.
|
||
|
||
If present or required, the recipient MAY verify that the operating
|
||
system's report of the sender's address matches the sender's address
|
||
in the message, and that one of the recipient's addresses appears as
|
||
the recipient's address in the message. The address check does not
|
||
provide any added security, since the address, if present, has
|
||
already been checked in the KRB_AP_REQ message and there is not any
|
||
benefit to be gained by an attacker in reflecting a KRB_CRED message
|
||
back to its originator. Thus, the recipient MAY ignore the address
|
||
even if it is present in order to work better in Network Address
|
||
Translation (NAT) environments. A failed match for either case
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
generates a KRB_AP_ERR_BADADDR error. Recipients MAY skip the
|
||
address check, as the KRB_CRED message cannot generally be reflected
|
||
back to the originator. The timestamp and usec fields (and the nonce
|
||
field, if required) are checked next. If the timestamp and usec are
|
||
not present, or if they are present but not current, the
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_SKEW error is generated.
|
||
|
||
If all the checks succeed, the application stores each of the new
|
||
tickets in its credentials cache together with the session key and
|
||
other information in the corresponding KrbCredInfo sequence from the
|
||
encrypted part of the KRB_CRED message.
|
||
|
||
3.7. User-to-User Authentication Exchanges
|
||
|
||
User-to-User authentication provides a method to perform
|
||
authentication when the verifier does not have a access to long-term
|
||
service key. This might be the case when running a server (for
|
||
example, a window server) as a user on a workstation. In such cases,
|
||
the server may have access to the TGT obtained when the user logged
|
||
in to the workstation, but because the server is running as an
|
||
unprivileged user, it might not have access to system keys. Similar
|
||
situations may arise when running peer-to-peer applications.
|
||
|
||
Summary
|
||
|
||
Message direction Message type Sections
|
||
0. Message from application server Not specified
|
||
1. Client to Kerberos KRB_TGS_REQ 3.3 & 5.4.1
|
||
2. Kerberos to client KRB_TGS_REP or 3.3 & 5.4.2
|
||
KRB_ERROR 5.9.1
|
||
3. Client to application server KRB_AP_REQ 3.2 & 5.5.1
|
||
|
||
To address this problem, the Kerberos protocol allows the client to
|
||
request that the ticket issued by the KDC be encrypted using a
|
||
session key from a TGT issued to the party that will verify the
|
||
authentication. This TGT must be obtained from the verifier by means
|
||
of an exchange external to the Kerberos protocol, usually as part of
|
||
the application protocol. This message is shown in the summary above
|
||
as message 0. Note that because the TGT is encrypted in the KDC's
|
||
secret key, it cannot be used for authentication without possession
|
||
of the corresponding secret key. Furthermore, because the verifier
|
||
does not reveal the corresponding secret key, providing a copy of the
|
||
verifier's TGT does not allow impersonation of the verifier.
|
||
|
||
Message 0 in the table above represents an application-specific
|
||
negotiation between the client and server, at the end of which both
|
||
have determined that they will use user-to-user authentication, and
|
||
the client has obtained the server's TGT.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Next, the client includes the server's TGT as an additional ticket in
|
||
its KRB_TGS_REQ request to the KDC (message 1 in the table above) and
|
||
specifies the ENC-TKT-IN-SKEY option in its request.
|
||
|
||
If validated according to the instructions in Section 3.3.3, the
|
||
application ticket returned to the client (message 2 in the table
|
||
above) will be encrypted using the session key from the additional
|
||
ticket and the client will note this when it uses or stores the
|
||
application ticket.
|
||
|
||
When contacting the server using a ticket obtained for user-to-user
|
||
authentication (message 3 in the table above), the client MUST
|
||
specify the USE-SESSION-KEY flag in the ap-options field. This tells
|
||
the application server to use the session key associated with its TGT
|
||
to decrypt the server ticket provided in the application request.
|
||
|
||
4. Encryption and Checksum Specifications
|
||
|
||
The Kerberos protocols described in this document are designed to
|
||
encrypt messages of arbitrary sizes, using stream or block encryption
|
||
ciphers. Encryption is used to prove the identities of the network
|
||
entities participating in message exchanges. The Key Distribution
|
||
Center for each realm is trusted by all principals registered in that
|
||
realm to store a secret key in confidence. Proof of knowledge of
|
||
this secret key is used to verify the authenticity of a principal.
|
||
|
||
The KDC uses the principal's secret key (in the AS exchange) or a
|
||
shared session key (in the TGS exchange) to encrypt responses to
|
||
ticket requests; the ability to obtain the secret key or session key
|
||
implies the knowledge of the appropriate keys and the identity of the
|
||
KDC. The ability of a principal to decrypt the KDC response and to
|
||
present a Ticket and a properly formed Authenticator (generated with
|
||
the session key from the KDC response) to a service verifies the
|
||
identity of the principal; likewise the ability of the service to
|
||
extract the session key from the Ticket and to prove its knowledge
|
||
thereof in a response verifies the identity of the service.
|
||
|
||
[RFC3961] defines a framework for defining encryption and checksum
|
||
mechanisms for use with Kerberos. It also defines several such
|
||
mechanisms, and more may be added in future updates to that document.
|
||
|
||
The string-to-key operation provided by [RFC3961] is used to produce
|
||
a long-term key for a principal (generally for a user). The default
|
||
salt string, if none is provided via pre-authentication data, is the
|
||
concatenation of the principal's realm and name components, in order,
|
||
with no separators. Unless it is indicated otherwise, the default
|
||
string-to-key opaque parameter set as defined in [RFC3961] is used.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Encrypted data, keys, and checksums are transmitted using the
|
||
EncryptedData, EncryptionKey, and Checksum data objects defined in
|
||
Section 5.2.9. The encryption, decryption, and checksum operations
|
||
described in this document use the corresponding encryption,
|
||
decryption, and get_mic operations described in [RFC3961], with
|
||
implicit "specific key" generation using the "key usage" values
|
||
specified in the description of each EncryptedData or Checksum object
|
||
to vary the key for each operation. Note that in some cases, the
|
||
value to be used is dependent on the method of choosing the key or
|
||
the context of the message.
|
||
|
||
Key usages are unsigned 32-bit integers; zero is not permitted. The
|
||
key usage values for encrypting or checksumming Kerberos messages are
|
||
indicated in Section 5 along with the message definitions. The key
|
||
usage values 512-1023 are reserved for uses internal to a Kerberos
|
||
implementation. (For example, seeding a pseudo-random number
|
||
generator with a value produced by encrypting something with a
|
||
session key and a key usage value not used for any other purpose.)
|
||
Key usage values between 1024 and 2047 (inclusive) are reserved for
|
||
application use; applications SHOULD use even values for encryption
|
||
and odd values for checksums within this range. Key usage values are
|
||
also summarized in a table in Section 7.5.1.
|
||
|
||
There might exist other documents that define protocols in terms of
|
||
the RFC 1510 encryption types or checksum types. These documents
|
||
would not know about key usages. In order that these specifications
|
||
continue to be meaningful until they are updated, if no key usage
|
||
values are specified, then key usages 1024 and 1025 must be used to
|
||
derive keys for encryption and checksums, respectively. (This does
|
||
not apply to protocols that do their own encryption independent of
|
||
this framework, by directly using the key resulting from the Kerberos
|
||
authentication exchange.) New protocols defined in terms of the
|
||
Kerberos encryption and checksum types SHOULD use their own key usage
|
||
values.
|
||
|
||
Unless it is indicated otherwise, no cipher state chaining is done
|
||
from one encryption operation to another.
|
||
|
||
Implementation note: Although it is not recommended, some application
|
||
protocols will continue to use the key data directly, even if only in
|
||
currently existing protocol specifications. An implementation
|
||
intended to support general Kerberos applications may therefore need
|
||
to make key data available, as well as the attributes and operations
|
||
described in [RFC3961]. One of the more common reasons for directly
|
||
performing encryption is direct control over negotiation and
|
||
selection of a "sufficiently strong" encryption algorithm (in the
|
||
context of a given application). Although Kerberos does not directly
|
||
provide a facility for negotiating encryption types between the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
application client and server, there are approaches for using
|
||
Kerberos to facilitate this negotiation. For example, a client may
|
||
request only "sufficiently strong" session key types from the KDC and
|
||
expect that any type returned by the KDC will be understood and
|
||
supported by the application server.
|
||
|
||
5. Message Specifications
|
||
|
||
The ASN.1 collected here should be identical to the contents of
|
||
Appendix A. In the case of a conflict, the contents of Appendix A
|
||
shall take precedence.
|
||
|
||
The Kerberos protocol is defined here in terms of Abstract Syntax
|
||
Notation One (ASN.1) [X680], which provides a syntax for specifying
|
||
both the abstract layout of protocol messages as well as their
|
||
encodings. Implementors not utilizing an existing ASN.1 compiler or
|
||
support library are cautioned to understand the actual ASN.1
|
||
specification thoroughly in order to ensure correct implementation
|
||
behavior. There is more complexity in the notation than is
|
||
immediately obvious, and some tutorials and guides to ASN.1 are
|
||
misleading or erroneous.
|
||
|
||
Note that in several places, changes to abstract types from RFC 1510
|
||
have been made. This is in part to address widespread assumptions
|
||
that various implementors have made, in some cases resulting in
|
||
unintentional violations of the ASN.1 standard. These are clearly
|
||
flagged where they occur. The differences between the abstract types
|
||
in RFC 1510 and abstract types in this document can cause
|
||
incompatible encodings to be emitted when certain encoding rules,
|
||
e.g., the Packed Encoding Rules (PER), are used. This theoretical
|
||
incompatibility should not be relevant for Kerberos, since Kerberos
|
||
explicitly specifies the use of the Distinguished Encoding Rules
|
||
(DER). It might be an issue for protocols seeking to use Kerberos
|
||
types with other encoding rules. (This practice is not recommended.)
|
||
With very few exceptions (most notably the usages of BIT STRING), the
|
||
encodings resulting from using the DER remain identical between the
|
||
types defined in RFC 1510 and the types defined in this document.
|
||
|
||
The type definitions in this section assume an ASN.1 module
|
||
definition of the following form:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 50]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
KerberosV5Spec2 {
|
||
iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
|
||
security(5) kerberosV5(2) modules(4) krb5spec2(2)
|
||
} DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN
|
||
|
||
-- rest of definitions here
|
||
|
||
END
|
||
|
||
This specifies that the tagging context for the module will be
|
||
explicit and non-automatic.
|
||
|
||
Note that in some other publications (such as [RFC1510] and
|
||
[RFC1964]), the "dod" portion of the object identifier is erroneously
|
||
specified as having the value "5". In the case of RFC 1964, use of
|
||
the "correct" OID value would result in a change in the wire
|
||
protocol; therefore, it remains unchanged for now.
|
||
|
||
Note that elsewhere in this document, nomenclature for various
|
||
message types is inconsistent, but it largely follows C language
|
||
conventions, including use of underscore (_) characters and all-caps
|
||
spelling of names intended to be numeric constants. Also, in some
|
||
places, identifiers (especially those referring to constants) are
|
||
written in all-caps in order to distinguish them from surrounding
|
||
explanatory text.
|
||
|
||
The ASN.1 notation does not permit underscores in identifiers, so in
|
||
actual ASN.1 definitions, underscores are replaced with hyphens (-).
|
||
Additionally, structure member names and defined values in ASN.1 MUST
|
||
begin with a lowercase letter, whereas type names MUST begin with an
|
||
uppercase letter.
|
||
|
||
5.1. Specific Compatibility Notes on ASN.1
|
||
|
||
For compatibility purposes, implementors should heed the following
|
||
specific notes regarding the use of ASN.1 in Kerberos. These notes
|
||
do not describe deviations from standard usage of ASN.1. The purpose
|
||
of these notes is instead to describe some historical quirks and
|
||
non-compliance of various implementations, as well as historical
|
||
ambiguities, which, although they are valid ASN.1, can lead to
|
||
confusion during implementation.
|
||
|
||
5.1.1. ASN.1 Distinguished Encoding Rules
|
||
|
||
The encoding of Kerberos protocol messages shall obey the
|
||
Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) of ASN.1 as described in [X690].
|
||
Some implementations (believed primarily to be those derived from DCE
|
||
1.1 and earlier) are known to use the more general Basic Encoding
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 51]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Rules (BER); in particular, these implementations send indefinite
|
||
encodings of lengths. Implementations MAY accept such encodings in
|
||
the interest of backward compatibility, though implementors are
|
||
warned that decoding fully-general BER is fraught with peril.
|
||
|
||
5.1.2. Optional Integer Fields
|
||
|
||
Some implementations do not internally distinguish between an omitted
|
||
optional integer value and a transmitted value of zero. The places
|
||
in the protocol where this is relevant include various microseconds
|
||
fields, nonces, and sequence numbers. Implementations SHOULD treat
|
||
omitted optional integer values as having been transmitted with a
|
||
value of zero, if the application is expecting this.
|
||
|
||
5.1.3. Empty SEQUENCE OF Types
|
||
|
||
There are places in the protocol where a message contains a SEQUENCE
|
||
OF type as an optional member. This can result in an encoding that
|
||
contains an empty SEQUENCE OF encoding. The Kerberos protocol does
|
||
not semantically distinguish between an absent optional SEQUENCE OF
|
||
type and a present optional but empty SEQUENCE OF type.
|
||
Implementations SHOULD NOT send empty SEQUENCE OF encodings that are
|
||
marked OPTIONAL, but SHOULD accept them as being equivalent to an
|
||
omitted OPTIONAL type. In the ASN.1 syntax describing Kerberos
|
||
messages, instances of these problematic optional SEQUENCE OF types
|
||
are indicated with a comment.
|
||
|
||
5.1.4. Unrecognized Tag Numbers
|
||
|
||
Future revisions to this protocol may include new message types with
|
||
different APPLICATION class tag numbers. Such revisions should
|
||
protect older implementations by only sending the message types to
|
||
parties that are known to understand them; e.g., by means of a flag
|
||
bit set by the receiver in a preceding request. In the interest of
|
||
robust error handling, implementations SHOULD gracefully handle
|
||
receiving a message with an unrecognized tag anyway, and return an
|
||
error message, if appropriate.
|
||
|
||
In particular, KDCs SHOULD return KRB_AP_ERR_MSG_TYPE if the
|
||
incorrect tag is sent over a TCP transport. The KDCs SHOULD NOT
|
||
respond to messages received with an unknown tag over UDP transport
|
||
in order to avoid denial of service attacks. For non-KDC
|
||
applications, the Kerberos implementation typically indicates an
|
||
error to the application which takes appropriate steps based on the
|
||
application protocol.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 52]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.1.5. Tag Numbers Greater Than 30
|
||
|
||
A naive implementation of a DER ASN.1 decoder may experience problems
|
||
with ASN.1 tag numbers greater than 30, due to such tag numbers being
|
||
encoded using more than one byte. Future revisions of this protocol
|
||
may utilize tag numbers greater than 30, and implementations SHOULD
|
||
be prepared to gracefully return an error, if appropriate, when they
|
||
do not recognize the tag.
|
||
|
||
5.2. Basic Kerberos Types
|
||
|
||
This section defines a number of basic types that are potentially
|
||
used in multiple Kerberos protocol messages.
|
||
|
||
5.2.1. KerberosString
|
||
|
||
The original specification of the Kerberos protocol in RFC 1510 uses
|
||
GeneralString in numerous places for human-readable string data.
|
||
Historical implementations of Kerberos cannot utilize the full power
|
||
of GeneralString. This ASN.1 type requires the use of designation
|
||
and invocation escape sequences as specified in ISO-2022/ECMA-35
|
||
[ISO-2022/ECMA-35] to switch character sets, and the default
|
||
character set that is designated as G0 is the ISO-646/ECMA-6
|
||
[ISO-646/ECMA-6] International Reference Version (IRV) (a.k.a. U.S.
|
||
ASCII), which mostly works.
|
||
|
||
ISO-2022/ECMA-35 defines four character-set code elements (G0..G3)
|
||
and two Control-function code elements (C0..C1). DER prohibits the
|
||
designation of character sets as any but the G0 and C0 sets.
|
||
Unfortunately, this seems to have the side effect of prohibiting the
|
||
use of ISO-8859 (ISO Latin) [ISO-8859] character sets or any other
|
||
character sets that utilize a 96-character set, as ISO-2022/ECMA-35
|
||
prohibits designating them as the G0 code element. This side effect
|
||
is being investigated in the ASN.1 standards community.
|
||
|
||
In practice, many implementations treat GeneralStrings as if they
|
||
were 8-bit strings of whichever character set the implementation
|
||
defaults to, without regard to correct usage of character-set
|
||
designation escape sequences. The default character set is often
|
||
determined by the current user's operating system-dependent locale.
|
||
At least one major implementation places unescaped UTF-8 encoded
|
||
Unicode characters in the GeneralString. This failure to adhere to
|
||
the GeneralString specifications results in interoperability issues
|
||
when conflicting character encodings are utilized by the Kerberos
|
||
clients, services, and KDC.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 53]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
This unfortunate situation is the result of improper documentation of
|
||
the restrictions of the ASN.1 GeneralString type in prior Kerberos
|
||
specifications.
|
||
|
||
The new (post-RFC 1510) type KerberosString, defined below, is a
|
||
GeneralString that is constrained to contain only characters in
|
||
IA5String.
|
||
|
||
KerberosString ::= GeneralString (IA5String)
|
||
|
||
In general, US-ASCII control characters should not be used in
|
||
KerberosString. Control characters SHOULD NOT be used in principal
|
||
names or realm names.
|
||
|
||
For compatibility, implementations MAY choose to accept GeneralString
|
||
values that contain characters other than those permitted by
|
||
IA5String, but they should be aware that character set designation
|
||
codes will likely be absent, and that the encoding should probably be
|
||
treated as locale-specific in almost every way. Implementations MAY
|
||
also choose to emit GeneralString values that are beyond those
|
||
permitted by IA5String, but they should be aware that doing so is
|
||
extraordinarily risky from an interoperability perspective.
|
||
|
||
Some existing implementations use GeneralString to encode unescaped
|
||
locale-specific characters. This is a violation of the ASN.1
|
||
standard. Most of these implementations encode US-ASCII in the
|
||
left-hand half, so as long as the implementation transmits only
|
||
US-ASCII, the ASN.1 standard is not violated in this regard. As soon
|
||
as such an implementation encodes unescaped locale-specific
|
||
characters with the high bit set, it violates the ASN.1 standard.
|
||
|
||
Other implementations have been known to use GeneralString to contain
|
||
a UTF-8 encoding. This also violates the ASN.1 standard, since UTF-8
|
||
is a different encoding, not a 94 or 96 character "G" set as defined
|
||
by ISO 2022. It is believed that these implementations do not even
|
||
use the ISO 2022 escape sequence to change the character encoding.
|
||
Even if implementations were to announce the encoding change by using
|
||
that escape sequence, the ASN.1 standard prohibits the use of any
|
||
escape sequences other than those used to designate/invoke "G" or "C"
|
||
sets allowed by GeneralString.
|
||
|
||
Future revisions to this protocol will almost certainly allow for a
|
||
more interoperable representation of principal names, probably
|
||
including UTF8String.
|
||
|
||
Note that applying a new constraint to a previously unconstrained
|
||
type constitutes creation of a new ASN.1 type. In this particular
|
||
case, the change does not result in a changed encoding under DER.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 54]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.2.2. Realm and PrincipalName
|
||
|
||
Realm ::= KerberosString
|
||
|
||
PrincipalName ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
name-type [0] Int32,
|
||
name-string [1] SEQUENCE OF KerberosString
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
Kerberos realm names are encoded as KerberosStrings. Realms shall
|
||
not contain a character with the code 0 (the US-ASCII NUL). Most
|
||
realms will usually consist of several components separated by
|
||
periods (.), in the style of Internet Domain Names, or separated by
|
||
slashes (/), in the style of X.500 names. Acceptable forms for realm
|
||
names are specified in Section 6.1. A PrincipalName is a typed
|
||
sequence of components consisting of the following subfields:
|
||
|
||
name-type
|
||
This field specifies the type of name that follows. Pre-defined
|
||
values for this field are specified in Section 6.2. The name-type
|
||
SHOULD be treated as a hint. Ignoring the name type, no two names
|
||
can be the same (i.e., at least one of the components, or the
|
||
realm, must be different).
|
||
|
||
name-string
|
||
This field encodes a sequence of components that form a name, each
|
||
component encoded as a KerberosString. Taken together, a
|
||
PrincipalName and a Realm form a principal identifier. Most
|
||
PrincipalNames will have only a few components (typically one or
|
||
two).
|
||
|
||
5.2.3. KerberosTime
|
||
|
||
KerberosTime ::= GeneralizedTime -- with no fractional seconds
|
||
|
||
The timestamps used in Kerberos are encoded as GeneralizedTimes. A
|
||
KerberosTime value shall not include any fractional portions of the
|
||
seconds. As required by the DER, it further shall not include any
|
||
separators, and it shall specify the UTC time zone (Z). Example: The
|
||
only valid format for UTC time 6 minutes, 27 seconds after 9 pm on 6
|
||
November 1985 is 19851106210627Z.
|
||
|
||
5.2.4. Constrained Integer Types
|
||
|
||
Some integer members of types SHOULD be constrained to values
|
||
representable in 32 bits, for compatibility with reasonable
|
||
implementation limits.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 55]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Int32 ::= INTEGER (-2147483648..2147483647)
|
||
-- signed values representable in 32 bits
|
||
|
||
UInt32 ::= INTEGER (0..4294967295)
|
||
-- unsigned 32 bit values
|
||
|
||
Microseconds ::= INTEGER (0..999999)
|
||
-- microseconds
|
||
|
||
Although this results in changes to the abstract types from the RFC
|
||
1510 version, the encoding in DER should be unaltered. Historical
|
||
implementations were typically limited to 32-bit integer values
|
||
anyway, and assigned numbers SHOULD fall in the space of integer
|
||
values representable in 32 bits in order to promote interoperability
|
||
anyway.
|
||
|
||
Several integer fields in messages are constrained to fixed values.
|
||
|
||
pvno
|
||
also TKT-VNO or AUTHENTICATOR-VNO, this recurring field is always
|
||
the constant integer 5. There is no easy way to make this field
|
||
into a useful protocol version number, so its value is fixed.
|
||
|
||
msg-type
|
||
this integer field is usually identical to the application tag
|
||
number of the containing message type.
|
||
|
||
5.2.5. HostAddress and HostAddresses
|
||
|
||
HostAddress ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
addr-type [0] Int32,
|
||
address [1] OCTET STRING
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
-- NOTE: HostAddresses is always used as an OPTIONAL field and
|
||
-- should not be empty.
|
||
HostAddresses -- NOTE: subtly different from rfc1510,
|
||
-- but has a value mapping and encodes the same
|
||
::= SEQUENCE OF HostAddress
|
||
|
||
The host address encodings consist of two fields:
|
||
|
||
addr-type
|
||
This field specifies the type of address that follows. Pre-
|
||
defined values for this field are specified in Section 7.5.3.
|
||
|
||
address
|
||
This field encodes a single address of type addr-type.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 56]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.2.6. AuthorizationData
|
||
|
||
-- NOTE: AuthorizationData is always used as an OPTIONAL field and
|
||
-- should not be empty.
|
||
AuthorizationData ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
|
||
ad-type [0] Int32,
|
||
ad-data [1] OCTET STRING
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
ad-data
|
||
This field contains authorization data to be interpreted according
|
||
to the value of the corresponding ad-type field.
|
||
|
||
ad-type
|
||
This field specifies the format for the ad-data subfield. All
|
||
negative values are reserved for local use. Non-negative values
|
||
are reserved for registered use.
|
||
|
||
Each sequence of type and data is referred to as an authorization
|
||
element. Elements MAY be application specific; however, there is a
|
||
common set of recursive elements that should be understood by all
|
||
implementations. These elements contain other elements embedded
|
||
within them, and the interpretation of the encapsulating element
|
||
determines which of the embedded elements must be interpreted, and
|
||
which may be ignored.
|
||
|
||
These common authorization data elements are recursively defined,
|
||
meaning that the ad-data for these types will itself contain a
|
||
sequence of authorization data whose interpretation is affected by
|
||
the encapsulating element. Depending on the meaning of the
|
||
encapsulating element, the encapsulated elements may be ignored,
|
||
might be interpreted as issued directly by the KDC, or might be
|
||
stored in a separate plaintext part of the ticket. The types of the
|
||
encapsulating elements are specified as part of the Kerberos
|
||
specification because the behavior based on these values should be
|
||
understood across implementations, whereas other elements need only
|
||
be understood by the applications that they affect.
|
||
|
||
Authorization data elements are considered critical if present in a
|
||
ticket or authenticator. If an unknown authorization data element
|
||
type is received by a server either in an AP-REQ or in a ticket
|
||
contained in an AP-REQ, then, unless it is encapsulated in a known
|
||
authorization data element amending the criticality of the elements
|
||
it contains, authentication MUST fail. Authorization data is
|
||
intended to restrict the use of a ticket. If the service cannot
|
||
determine whether the restriction applies to that service, then a
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 57]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
security weakness may result if the ticket can be used for that
|
||
service. Authorization elements that are optional can be enclosed in
|
||
an AD-IF-RELEVANT element.
|
||
|
||
In the definitions that follow, the value of the ad-type for the
|
||
element will be specified as the least significant part of the
|
||
subsection number, and the value of the ad-data will be as shown in
|
||
the ASN.1 structure that follows the subsection heading.
|
||
|
||
Contents of ad-data ad-type
|
||
|
||
DER encoding of AD-IF-RELEVANT 1
|
||
|
||
DER encoding of AD-KDCIssued 4
|
||
|
||
DER encoding of AD-AND-OR 5
|
||
|
||
DER encoding of AD-MANDATORY-FOR-KDC 8
|
||
|
||
5.2.6.1. IF-RELEVANT
|
||
|
||
AD-IF-RELEVANT ::= AuthorizationData
|
||
|
||
AD elements encapsulated within the if-relevant element are intended
|
||
for interpretation only by application servers that understand the
|
||
particular ad-type of the embedded element. Application servers that
|
||
do not understand the type of an element embedded within the
|
||
if-relevant element MAY ignore the uninterpretable element. This
|
||
element promotes interoperability across implementations that may
|
||
have local extensions for authorization. The ad-type for
|
||
AD-IF-RELEVANT is (1).
|
||
|
||
5.2.6.2. KDCIssued
|
||
|
||
AD-KDCIssued ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
ad-checksum [0] Checksum,
|
||
i-realm [1] Realm OPTIONAL,
|
||
i-sname [2] PrincipalName OPTIONAL,
|
||
elements [3] AuthorizationData
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
ad-checksum
|
||
A cryptographic checksum computed over the DER encoding of the
|
||
AuthorizationData in the "elements" field, keyed with the session
|
||
key. Its checksumtype is the mandatory checksum type for the
|
||
encryption type of the session key, and its key usage value is 19.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 58]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
i-realm, i-sname
|
||
The name of the issuing principal if different from that of the
|
||
KDC itself. This field would be used when the KDC can verify the
|
||
authenticity of elements signed by the issuing principal, and it
|
||
allows this KDC to notify the application server of the validity
|
||
of those elements.
|
||
|
||
elements
|
||
A sequence of authorization data elements issued by the KDC.
|
||
|
||
The KDC-issued ad-data field is intended to provide a means for
|
||
Kerberos principal credentials to embed within themselves privilege
|
||
attributes and other mechanisms for positive authorization,
|
||
amplifying the privileges of the principal beyond what can be done
|
||
using credentials without such an a-data element.
|
||
|
||
The above means cannot be provided without this element because the
|
||
definition of the authorization-data field allows elements to be
|
||
added at will by the bearer of a TGT at the time when they request
|
||
service tickets, and elements may also be added to a delegated ticket
|
||
by inclusion in the authenticator.
|
||
|
||
For KDC-issued elements, this is prevented because the elements are
|
||
signed by the KDC by including a checksum encrypted using the
|
||
server's key (the same key used to encrypt the ticket or a key
|
||
derived from that key). Elements encapsulated with in the KDC-issued
|
||
element MUST be ignored by the application server if this "signature"
|
||
is not present. Further, elements encapsulated within this element
|
||
from a TGT MAY be interpreted by the KDC, and used as a basis
|
||
according to policy for including new signed elements within
|
||
derivative tickets, but they will not be copied to a derivative
|
||
ticket directly. If they are copied directly to a derivative ticket
|
||
by a KDC that is not aware of this element, the signature will not be
|
||
correct for the application ticket elements, and the field will be
|
||
ignored by the application server.
|
||
|
||
This element and the elements it encapsulates MAY safely be ignored
|
||
by applications, application servers, and KDCs that do not implement
|
||
this element.
|
||
|
||
The ad-type for AD-KDC-ISSUED is (4).
|
||
|
||
5.2.6.3. AND-OR
|
||
|
||
AD-AND-OR ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
condition-count [0] Int32,
|
||
elements [1] AuthorizationData
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 59]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
When restrictive AD elements are encapsulated within the and-or
|
||
element, the and-or element is considered satisfied if and only if at
|
||
least the number of encapsulated elements specified in condition-
|
||
count are satisfied. Therefore, this element MAY be used to
|
||
implement an "or" operation by setting the condition-count field to
|
||
1, and it MAY specify an "and" operation by setting the condition
|
||
count to the number of embedded elements. Application servers that
|
||
do not implement this element MUST reject tickets that contain
|
||
authorization data elements of this type.
|
||
|
||
The ad-type for AD-AND-OR is (5).
|
||
|
||
5.2.6.4. MANDATORY-FOR-KDC
|
||
|
||
AD-MANDATORY-FOR-KDC ::= AuthorizationData
|
||
|
||
AD elements encapsulated within the mandatory-for-kdc element are to
|
||
be interpreted by the KDC. KDCs that do not understand the type of
|
||
an element embedded within the mandatory-for-kdc element MUST reject
|
||
the request.
|
||
|
||
The ad-type for AD-MANDATORY-FOR-KDC is (8).
|
||
|
||
5.2.7. PA-DATA
|
||
|
||
Historically, PA-DATA have been known as "pre-authentication data",
|
||
meaning that they were used to augment the initial authentication
|
||
with the KDC. Since that time, they have also been used as a typed
|
||
hole with which to extend protocol exchanges with the KDC.
|
||
|
||
PA-DATA ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
-- NOTE: first tag is [1], not [0]
|
||
padata-type [1] Int32,
|
||
padata-value [2] OCTET STRING -- might be encoded AP-REQ
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
padata-type
|
||
Indicates the way that the padata-value element is to be
|
||
interpreted. Negative values of padata-type are reserved for
|
||
unregistered use; non-negative values are used for a registered
|
||
interpretation of the element type.
|
||
|
||
padata-value
|
||
Usually contains the DER encoding of another type; the padata-type
|
||
field identifies which type is encoded here.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 60]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
padata-type Name Contents of padata-value
|
||
|
||
1 pa-tgs-req DER encoding of AP-REQ
|
||
|
||
2 pa-enc-timestamp DER encoding of PA-ENC-TIMESTAMP
|
||
|
||
3 pa-pw-salt salt (not ASN.1 encoded)
|
||
|
||
11 pa-etype-info DER encoding of ETYPE-INFO
|
||
|
||
19 pa-etype-info2 DER encoding of ETYPE-INFO2
|
||
|
||
This field MAY also contain information needed by certain
|
||
extensions to the Kerberos protocol. For example, it might be
|
||
used to verify the identity of a client initially before any
|
||
response is returned.
|
||
|
||
The padata field can also contain information needed to help the
|
||
KDC or the client select the key needed for generating or
|
||
decrypting the response. This form of the padata is useful for
|
||
supporting the use of certain token cards with Kerberos. The
|
||
details of such extensions are specified in separate documents.
|
||
See [Pat92] for additional uses of this field.
|
||
|
||
5.2.7.1. PA-TGS-REQ
|
||
|
||
In the case of requests for additional tickets (KRB_TGS_REQ),
|
||
padata-value will contain an encoded AP-REQ. The checksum in the
|
||
authenticator (which MUST be collision-proof) is to be computed over
|
||
the KDC-REQ-BODY encoding.
|
||
|
||
5.2.7.2. Encrypted Timestamp Pre-authentication
|
||
|
||
There are pre-authentication types that may be used to pre-
|
||
authenticate a client by means of an encrypted timestamp.
|
||
|
||
PA-ENC-TIMESTAMP ::= EncryptedData -- PA-ENC-TS-ENC
|
||
|
||
PA-ENC-TS-ENC ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
patimestamp [0] KerberosTime -- client's time --,
|
||
pausec [1] Microseconds OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
Patimestamp contains the client's time, and pausec contains the
|
||
microseconds, which MAY be omitted if a client will not generate more
|
||
than one request per second. The ciphertext (padata-value) consists
|
||
of the PA-ENC-TS-ENC encoding, encrypted using the client's secret
|
||
key and a key usage value of 1.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 61]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
This pre-authentication type was not present in RFC 1510, but many
|
||
implementations support it.
|
||
|
||
5.2.7.3. PA-PW-SALT
|
||
|
||
The padata-value for this pre-authentication type contains the salt
|
||
for the string-to-key to be used by the client to obtain the key for
|
||
decrypting the encrypted part of an AS-REP message. Unfortunately,
|
||
for historical reasons, the character set to be used is unspecified
|
||
and probably locale-specific.
|
||
|
||
This pre-authentication type was not present in RFC 1510, but many
|
||
implementations support it. It is necessary in any case where the
|
||
salt for the string-to-key algorithm is not the default.
|
||
|
||
In the trivial example, a zero-length salt string is very commonplace
|
||
for realms that have converted their principal databases from
|
||
Kerberos Version 4.
|
||
|
||
A KDC SHOULD NOT send PA-PW-SALT when issuing a KRB-ERROR message
|
||
that requests additional pre-authentication. Implementation note:
|
||
Some KDC implementations issue an erroneous PA-PW-SALT when issuing a
|
||
KRB-ERROR message that requests additional pre-authentication.
|
||
Therefore, clients SHOULD ignore a PA-PW-SALT accompanying a
|
||
KRB-ERROR message that requests additional pre-authentication. As
|
||
noted in section 3.1.3, a KDC MUST NOT send PA-PW-SALT when the
|
||
client's AS-REQ includes at least one "newer" etype.
|
||
|
||
5.2.7.4. PA-ETYPE-INFO
|
||
|
||
The ETYPE-INFO pre-authentication type is sent by the KDC in a
|
||
KRB-ERROR indicating a requirement for additional pre-authentication.
|
||
It is usually used to notify a client of which key to use for the
|
||
encryption of an encrypted timestamp for the purposes of sending a
|
||
PA-ENC-TIMESTAMP pre-authentication value. It MAY also be sent in an
|
||
AS-REP to provide information to the client about which key salt to
|
||
use for the string-to-key to be used by the client to obtain the key
|
||
for decrypting the encrypted part the AS-REP.
|
||
|
||
ETYPE-INFO-ENTRY ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
etype [0] Int32,
|
||
salt [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
ETYPE-INFO ::= SEQUENCE OF ETYPE-INFO-ENTRY
|
||
|
||
The salt, like that of PA-PW-SALT, is also completely unspecified
|
||
with respect to character set and is probably locale-specific.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 62]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
If ETYPE-INFO is sent in an AS-REP, there shall be exactly one
|
||
ETYPE-INFO-ENTRY, and its etype shall match that of the enc-part in
|
||
the AS-REP.
|
||
|
||
This pre-authentication type was not present in RFC 1510, but many
|
||
implementations that support encrypted timestamps for pre-
|
||
authentication need to support ETYPE-INFO as well. As noted in
|
||
Section 3.1.3, a KDC MUST NOT send PA-ETYPE-INFO when the client's
|
||
AS-REQ includes at least one "newer" etype.
|
||
|
||
5.2.7.5. PA-ETYPE-INFO2
|
||
|
||
The ETYPE-INFO2 pre-authentication type is sent by the KDC in a
|
||
KRB-ERROR indicating a requirement for additional pre-authentication.
|
||
It is usually used to notify a client of which key to use for the
|
||
encryption of an encrypted timestamp for the purposes of sending a
|
||
PA-ENC-TIMESTAMP pre-authentication value. It MAY also be sent in an
|
||
AS-REP to provide information to the client about which key salt to
|
||
use for the string-to-key to be used by the client to obtain the key
|
||
for decrypting the encrypted part the AS-REP.
|
||
|
||
ETYPE-INFO2-ENTRY ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
etype [0] Int32,
|
||
salt [1] KerberosString OPTIONAL,
|
||
s2kparams [2] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
ETYPE-INFO2 ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF ETYPE-INFO2-ENTRY
|
||
|
||
The type of the salt is KerberosString, but existing installations
|
||
might have locale-specific characters stored in salt strings, and
|
||
implementors MAY choose to handle them.
|
||
|
||
The interpretation of s2kparams is specified in the cryptosystem
|
||
description associated with the etype. Each cryptosystem has a
|
||
default interpretation of s2kparams that will hold if that element is
|
||
omitted from the encoding of ETYPE-INFO2-ENTRY.
|
||
|
||
If ETYPE-INFO2 is sent in an AS-REP, there shall be exactly one
|
||
ETYPE-INFO2-ENTRY, and its etype shall match that of the enc-part in
|
||
the AS-REP.
|
||
|
||
The preferred ordering of the "hint" pre-authentication data that
|
||
affect client key selection is: ETYPE-INFO2, followed by ETYPE-INFO,
|
||
followed by PW-SALT. As noted in Section 3.1.3, a KDC MUST NOT send
|
||
ETYPE-INFO or PW-SALT when the client's AS-REQ includes at least one
|
||
"newer" etype.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 63]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
The ETYPE-INFO2 pre-authentication type was not present in RFC 1510.
|
||
|
||
5.2.8. KerberosFlags
|
||
|
||
For several message types, a specific constrained bit string type,
|
||
KerberosFlags, is used.
|
||
|
||
KerberosFlags ::= BIT STRING (SIZE (32..MAX))
|
||
-- minimum number of bits shall be sent,
|
||
-- but no fewer than 32
|
||
|
||
Compatibility note: The following paragraphs describe a change from
|
||
the RFC 1510 description of bit strings that would result in
|
||
incompatility in the case of an implementation that strictly
|
||
conformed to ASN.1 DER and RFC 1510.
|
||
|
||
ASN.1 bit strings have multiple uses. The simplest use of a bit
|
||
string is to contain a vector of bits, with no particular meaning
|
||
attached to individual bits. This vector of bits is not necessarily
|
||
a multiple of eight bits long. The use in Kerberos of a bit string
|
||
as a compact boolean vector wherein each element has a distinct
|
||
meaning poses some problems. The natural notation for a compact
|
||
boolean vector is the ASN.1 "NamedBit" notation, and the DER require
|
||
that encodings of a bit string using "NamedBit" notation exclude any
|
||
trailing zero bits. This truncation is easy to neglect, especially
|
||
given C language implementations that naturally choose to store
|
||
boolean vectors as 32-bit integers.
|
||
|
||
For example, if the notation for KDCOptions were to include the
|
||
"NamedBit" notation, as in RFC 1510, and a KDCOptions value to be
|
||
encoded had only the "forwardable" (bit number one) bit set, the DER
|
||
encoding MUST include only two bits: the first reserved bit
|
||
("reserved", bit number zero, value zero) and the one-valued bit (bit
|
||
number one) for "forwardable".
|
||
|
||
Most existing implementations of Kerberos unconditionally send 32
|
||
bits on the wire when encoding bit strings used as boolean vectors.
|
||
This behavior violates the ASN.1 syntax used for flag values in RFC
|
||
1510, but it occurs on such a widely installed base that the protocol
|
||
description is being modified to accommodate it.
|
||
|
||
Consequently, this document removes the "NamedBit" notations for
|
||
individual bits, relegating them to comments. The size constraint on
|
||
the KerberosFlags type requires that at least 32 bits be encoded at
|
||
all times, though a lenient implementation MAY choose to accept fewer
|
||
than 32 bits and to treat the missing bits as set to zero.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 64]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Currently, no uses of KerberosFlags specify more than 32 bits' worth
|
||
of flags, although future revisions of this document may do so. When
|
||
more than 32 bits are to be transmitted in a KerberosFlags value,
|
||
future revisions to this document will likely specify that the
|
||
smallest number of bits needed to encode the highest-numbered one-
|
||
valued bit should be sent. This is somewhat similar to the DER
|
||
encoding of a bit string that is declared with the "NamedBit"
|
||
notation.
|
||
|
||
5.2.9. Cryptosystem-Related Types
|
||
|
||
Many Kerberos protocol messages contain an EncryptedData as a
|
||
container for arbitrary encrypted data, which is often the encrypted
|
||
encoding of another data type. Fields within EncryptedData assist
|
||
the recipient in selecting a key with which to decrypt the enclosed
|
||
data.
|
||
|
||
EncryptedData ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
etype [0] Int32 -- EncryptionType --,
|
||
kvno [1] UInt32 OPTIONAL,
|
||
cipher [2] OCTET STRING -- ciphertext
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
etype
|
||
This field identifies which encryption algorithm was used to
|
||
encipher the cipher.
|
||
|
||
kvno
|
||
This field contains the version number of the key under which data
|
||
is encrypted. It is only present in messages encrypted under long
|
||
lasting keys, such as principals' secret keys.
|
||
|
||
cipher
|
||
This field contains the enciphered text, encoded as an OCTET
|
||
STRING. (Note that the encryption mechanisms defined in [RFC3961]
|
||
MUST incorporate integrity protection as well, so no additional
|
||
checksum is required.)
|
||
|
||
The EncryptionKey type is the means by which cryptographic keys used
|
||
for encryption are transferred.
|
||
|
||
EncryptionKey ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
keytype [0] Int32 -- actually encryption type --,
|
||
keyvalue [1] OCTET STRING
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 65]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
keytype
|
||
This field specifies the encryption type of the encryption key
|
||
that follows in the keyvalue field. Although its name is
|
||
"keytype", it actually specifies an encryption type. Previously,
|
||
multiple cryptosystems that performed encryption differently but
|
||
were capable of using keys with the same characteristics were
|
||
permitted to share an assigned number to designate the type of
|
||
key; this usage is now deprecated.
|
||
|
||
keyvalue
|
||
This field contains the key itself, encoded as an octet string.
|
||
|
||
Messages containing cleartext data to be authenticated will usually
|
||
do so by using a member of type Checksum. Most instances of Checksum
|
||
use a keyed hash, though exceptions will be noted.
|
||
|
||
Checksum ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
cksumtype [0] Int32,
|
||
checksum [1] OCTET STRING
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
cksumtype
|
||
This field indicates the algorithm used to generate the
|
||
accompanying checksum.
|
||
|
||
checksum
|
||
This field contains the checksum itself, encoded as an octet
|
||
string.
|
||
|
||
See Section 4 for a brief description of the use of encryption and
|
||
checksums in Kerberos.
|
||
|
||
5.3. Tickets
|
||
|
||
This section describes the format and encryption parameters for
|
||
tickets and authenticators. When a ticket or authenticator is
|
||
included in a protocol message, it is treated as an opaque object. A
|
||
ticket is a record that helps a client authenticate to a service. A
|
||
Ticket contains the following information:
|
||
|
||
Ticket ::= [APPLICATION 1] SEQUENCE {
|
||
tkt-vno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
realm [1] Realm,
|
||
sname [2] PrincipalName,
|
||
enc-part [3] EncryptedData -- EncTicketPart
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
-- Encrypted part of ticket
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 66]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
EncTicketPart ::= [APPLICATION 3] SEQUENCE {
|
||
flags [0] TicketFlags,
|
||
key [1] EncryptionKey,
|
||
crealm [2] Realm,
|
||
cname [3] PrincipalName,
|
||
transited [4] TransitedEncoding,
|
||
authtime [5] KerberosTime,
|
||
starttime [6] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
endtime [7] KerberosTime,
|
||
renew-till [8] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
caddr [9] HostAddresses OPTIONAL,
|
||
authorization-data [10] AuthorizationData OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
-- encoded Transited field
|
||
TransitedEncoding ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
tr-type [0] Int32 -- must be registered --,
|
||
contents [1] OCTET STRING
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TicketFlags ::= KerberosFlags
|
||
-- reserved(0),
|
||
-- forwardable(1),
|
||
-- forwarded(2),
|
||
-- proxiable(3),
|
||
-- proxy(4),
|
||
-- may-postdate(5),
|
||
-- postdated(6),
|
||
-- invalid(7),
|
||
-- renewable(8),
|
||
-- initial(9),
|
||
-- pre-authent(10),
|
||
-- hw-authent(11),
|
||
-- the following are new since 1510
|
||
-- transited-policy-checked(12),
|
||
-- ok-as-delegate(13)
|
||
|
||
tkt-vno
|
||
This field specifies the version number for the ticket format.
|
||
This document describes version number 5.
|
||
|
||
realm
|
||
This field specifies the realm that issued a ticket. It also
|
||
serves to identify the realm part of the server's principal
|
||
identifier. Since a Kerberos server can only issue tickets for
|
||
servers within its realm, the two will always be identical.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 67]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
sname
|
||
This field specifies all components of the name part of the
|
||
server's identity, including those parts that identify a specific
|
||
instance of a service.
|
||
|
||
enc-part
|
||
This field holds the encrypted encoding of the EncTicketPart
|
||
sequence. It is encrypted in the key shared by Kerberos and the
|
||
end server (the server's secret key), using a key usage value of
|
||
2.
|
||
|
||
flags
|
||
This field indicates which of various options were used or
|
||
requested when the ticket was issued. The meanings of the flags
|
||
are as follows:
|
||
|
||
Bit(s) Name Description
|
||
|
||
0 reserved Reserved for future expansion of this field.
|
||
|
||
1 forwardable The FORWARDABLE flag is normally only
|
||
interpreted by the TGS, and can be ignored
|
||
by end servers. When set, this flag tells
|
||
the ticket-granting server that it is OK to
|
||
issue a new TGT with a different network
|
||
address based on the presented ticket.
|
||
|
||
2 forwarded When set, this flag indicates that the
|
||
ticket has either been forwarded or was
|
||
issued based on authentication involving a
|
||
forwarded TGT.
|
||
|
||
3 proxiable The PROXIABLE flag is normally only
|
||
interpreted by the TGS, and can be ignored
|
||
by end servers. The PROXIABLE flag has an
|
||
interpretation identical to that of the
|
||
FORWARDABLE flag, except that the PROXIABLE
|
||
flag tells the ticket-granting server that
|
||
only non-TGTs may be issued with different
|
||
network addresses.
|
||
|
||
4 proxy When set, this flag indicates that a ticket
|
||
is a proxy.
|
||
|
||
5 may-postdate The MAY-POSTDATE flag is normally only
|
||
interpreted by the TGS, and can be ignored
|
||
by end servers. This flag tells the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 68]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
ticket-granting server that a post-dated
|
||
ticket MAY be issued based on this TGT.
|
||
|
||
6 postdated This flag indicates that this ticket has
|
||
been postdated. The end-service can check
|
||
the authtime field to see when the original
|
||
authentication occurred.
|
||
|
||
7 invalid This flag indicates that a ticket is
|
||
invalid, and it must be validated by the KDC
|
||
before use. Application servers must reject
|
||
tickets which have this flag set.
|
||
|
||
8 renewable The RENEWABLE flag is normally only
|
||
interpreted by the TGS, and can usually be
|
||
ignored by end servers (some particularly
|
||
careful servers MAY disallow renewable
|
||
tickets). A renewable ticket can be used to
|
||
obtain a replacement ticket that expires at
|
||
a later date.
|
||
|
||
9 initial This flag indicates that this ticket was
|
||
issued using the AS protocol, and not issued
|
||
based on a TGT.
|
||
|
||
10 pre-authent This flag indicates that during initial
|
||
authentication, the client was authenticated
|
||
by the KDC before a ticket was issued. The
|
||
strength of the pre-authentication method is
|
||
not indicated, but is acceptable to the KDC.
|
||
|
||
11 hw-authent This flag indicates that the protocol
|
||
employed for initial authentication required
|
||
the use of hardware expected to be possessed
|
||
solely by the named client. The hardware
|
||
authentication method is selected by the KDC
|
||
and the strength of the method is not
|
||
indicated.
|
||
|
||
12 transited- This flag indicates that the KDC for
|
||
policy-checked the realm has checked the transited field
|
||
against a realm-defined policy for trusted
|
||
certifiers. If this flag is reset (0), then
|
||
the application server must check the
|
||
transited field itself, and if unable to do
|
||
so, it must reject the authentication. If
|
||
the flag is set (1), then the application
|
||
server MAY skip its own validation of the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 69]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
transited field, relying on the validation
|
||
performed by the KDC. At its option the
|
||
application server MAY still apply its own
|
||
validation based on a separate policy for
|
||
acceptance.
|
||
|
||
This flag is new since RFC 1510.
|
||
|
||
13 ok-as-delegate This flag indicates that the server (not the
|
||
client) specified in the ticket has been
|
||
determined by policy of the realm to be a
|
||
suitable recipient of delegation. A client
|
||
can use the presence of this flag to help it
|
||
decide whether to delegate credentials
|
||
(either grant a proxy or a forwarded TGT) to
|
||
this server. The client is free to ignore
|
||
the value of this flag. When setting this
|
||
flag, an administrator should consider the
|
||
security and placement of the server on
|
||
which the service will run, as well as
|
||
whether the service requires the use of
|
||
delegated credentials.
|
||
|
||
This flag is new since RFC 1510.
|
||
|
||
14-31 reserved Reserved for future use.
|
||
|
||
key
|
||
This field exists in the ticket and the KDC response and is used
|
||
to pass the session key from Kerberos to the application server
|
||
and the client.
|
||
|
||
crealm
|
||
This field contains the name of the realm in which the client is
|
||
registered and in which initial authentication took place.
|
||
|
||
cname
|
||
This field contains the name part of the client's principal
|
||
identifier.
|
||
|
||
transited
|
||
This field lists the names of the Kerberos realms that took part
|
||
in authenticating the user to whom this ticket was issued. It
|
||
does not specify the order in which the realms were transited.
|
||
See Section 3.3.3.2 for details on how this field encodes the
|
||
traversed realms. When the names of CAs are to be embedded in the
|
||
transited field (as specified for some extensions to the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 70]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
protocol), the X.500 names of the CAs SHOULD be mapped into items
|
||
in the transited field using the mapping defined by RFC 2253.
|
||
|
||
authtime
|
||
This field indicates the time of initial authentication for the
|
||
named principal. It is the time of issue for the original ticket
|
||
on which this ticket is based. It is included in the ticket to
|
||
provide additional information to the end service, and to provide
|
||
the necessary information for implementation of a "hot list"
|
||
service at the KDC. An end service that is particularly paranoid
|
||
could refuse to accept tickets for which the initial
|
||
authentication occurred "too far" in the past. This field is also
|
||
returned as part of the response from the KDC. When it is
|
||
returned as part of the response to initial authentication
|
||
(KRB_AS_REP), this is the current time on the Kerberos server. It
|
||
is NOT recommended that this time value be used to adjust the
|
||
workstation's clock, as the workstation cannot reliably determine
|
||
that such a KRB_AS_REP actually came from the proper KDC in a
|
||
timely manner.
|
||
|
||
starttime
|
||
This field in the ticket specifies the time after which the ticket
|
||
is valid. Together with endtime, this field specifies the life of
|
||
the ticket. If the starttime field is absent from the ticket,
|
||
then the authtime field SHOULD be used in its place to determine
|
||
the life of the ticket.
|
||
|
||
endtime
|
||
This field contains the time after which the ticket will not be
|
||
honored (its expiration time). Note that individual services MAY
|
||
place their own limits on the life of a ticket and MAY reject
|
||
tickets which have not yet expired. As such, this is really an
|
||
upper bound on the expiration time for the ticket.
|
||
|
||
renew-till
|
||
This field is only present in tickets that have the RENEWABLE flag
|
||
set in the flags field. It indicates the maximum endtime that may
|
||
be included in a renewal. It can be thought of as the absolute
|
||
expiration time for the ticket, including all renewals.
|
||
|
||
caddr
|
||
This field in a ticket contains zero (if omitted) or more (if
|
||
present) host addresses. These are the addresses from which the
|
||
ticket can be used. If there are no addresses, the ticket can be
|
||
used from any location. The decision by the KDC to issue or by
|
||
the end server to accept addressless tickets is a policy decision
|
||
and is left to the Kerberos and end-service administrators; they
|
||
MAY refuse to issue or accept such tickets. Because of the wide
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 71]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
deployment of network address translation, it is recommended that
|
||
policy allow the issue and acceptance of such tickets.
|
||
|
||
Network addresses are included in the ticket to make it harder for
|
||
an attacker to use stolen credentials. Because the session key is
|
||
not sent over the network in cleartext, credentials can't be
|
||
stolen simply by listening to the network; an attacker has to gain
|
||
access to the session key (perhaps through operating system
|
||
security breaches or a careless user's unattended session) to make
|
||
use of stolen tickets.
|
||
|
||
Note that the network address from which a connection is received
|
||
cannot be reliably determined. Even if it could be, an attacker
|
||
who has compromised the client's workstation could use the
|
||
credentials from there. Including the network addresses only
|
||
makes it more difficult, not impossible, for an attacker to walk
|
||
off with stolen credentials and then to use them from a "safe"
|
||
location.
|
||
|
||
authorization-data
|
||
The authorization-data field is used to pass authorization data
|
||
from the principal on whose behalf a ticket was issued to the
|
||
application service. If no authorization data is included, this
|
||
field will be left out. Experience has shown that the name of
|
||
this field is confusing, and that a better name would be
|
||
"restrictions". Unfortunately, it is not possible to change the
|
||
name at this time.
|
||
|
||
This field contains restrictions on any authority obtained on the
|
||
basis of authentication using the ticket. It is possible for any
|
||
principal in possession of credentials to add entries to the
|
||
authorization data field since these entries further restrict what
|
||
can be done with the ticket. Such additions can be made by
|
||
specifying the additional entries when a new ticket is obtained
|
||
during the TGS exchange, or they MAY be added during chained
|
||
delegation using the authorization data field of the
|
||
authenticator.
|
||
|
||
Because entries may be added to this field by the holder of
|
||
credentials, except when an entry is separately authenticated by
|
||
encapsulation in the KDC-issued element, it is not allowable for
|
||
the presence of an entry in the authorization data field of a
|
||
ticket to amplify the privileges one would obtain from using a
|
||
ticket.
|
||
|
||
The data in this field may be specific to the end service; the
|
||
field will contain the names of service specific objects, and the
|
||
rights to those objects. The format for this field is described
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 72]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
in Section 5.2.6. Although Kerberos is not concerned with the
|
||
format of the contents of the subfields, it does carry type
|
||
information (ad-type).
|
||
|
||
By using the authorization_data field, a principal is able to
|
||
issue a proxy that is valid for a specific purpose. For example,
|
||
a client wishing to print a file can obtain a file server proxy to
|
||
be passed to the print server. By specifying the name of the file
|
||
in the authorization_data field, the file server knows that the
|
||
print server can only use the client's rights when accessing the
|
||
particular file to be printed.
|
||
|
||
A separate service providing authorization or certifying group
|
||
membership may be built using the authorization-data field. In
|
||
this case, the entity granting authorization (not the authorized
|
||
entity) may obtain a ticket in its own name (e.g., the ticket is
|
||
issued in the name of a privilege server), and this entity adds
|
||
restrictions on its own authority and delegates the restricted
|
||
authority through a proxy to the client. The client would then
|
||
present this authorization credential to the application server
|
||
separately from the authentication exchange. Alternatively, such
|
||
authorization credentials MAY be embedded in the ticket
|
||
authenticating the authorized entity, when the authorization is
|
||
separately authenticated using the KDC-issued authorization data
|
||
element (see 5.2.6.2).
|
||
|
||
Similarly, if one specifies the authorization-data field of a
|
||
proxy and leaves the host addresses blank, the resulting ticket
|
||
and session key can be treated as a capability. See [Neu93] for
|
||
some suggested uses of this field.
|
||
|
||
The authorization-data field is optional and does not have to be
|
||
included in a ticket.
|
||
|
||
5.4. Specifications for the AS and TGS Exchanges
|
||
|
||
This section specifies the format of the messages used in the
|
||
exchange between the client and the Kerberos server. The format of
|
||
possible error messages appears in Section 5.9.1.
|
||
|
||
5.4.1. KRB_KDC_REQ Definition
|
||
|
||
The KRB_KDC_REQ message has no application tag number of its own.
|
||
Instead, it is incorporated into either KRB_AS_REQ or KRB_TGS_REQ,
|
||
each of which has an application tag, depending on whether the
|
||
request is for an initial ticket or an additional ticket. In either
|
||
case, the message is sent from the client to the KDC to request
|
||
credentials for a service.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 73]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
The message fields are as follows:
|
||
|
||
AS-REQ ::= [APPLICATION 10] KDC-REQ
|
||
|
||
TGS-REQ ::= [APPLICATION 12] KDC-REQ
|
||
|
||
KDC-REQ ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
-- NOTE: first tag is [1], not [0]
|
||
pvno [1] INTEGER (5) ,
|
||
msg-type [2] INTEGER (10 -- AS -- | 12 -- TGS --),
|
||
padata [3] SEQUENCE OF PA-DATA OPTIONAL
|
||
-- NOTE: not empty --,
|
||
req-body [4] KDC-REQ-BODY
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KDC-REQ-BODY ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
kdc-options [0] KDCOptions,
|
||
cname [1] PrincipalName OPTIONAL
|
||
-- Used only in AS-REQ --,
|
||
realm [2] Realm
|
||
-- Server's realm
|
||
-- Also client's in AS-REQ --,
|
||
sname [3] PrincipalName OPTIONAL,
|
||
from [4] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
till [5] KerberosTime,
|
||
rtime [6] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
nonce [7] UInt32,
|
||
etype [8] SEQUENCE OF Int32 -- EncryptionType
|
||
-- in preference order --,
|
||
addresses [9] HostAddresses OPTIONAL,
|
||
enc-authorization-data [10] EncryptedData OPTIONAL
|
||
-- AuthorizationData --,
|
||
additional-tickets [11] SEQUENCE OF Ticket OPTIONAL
|
||
-- NOTE: not empty
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KDCOptions ::= KerberosFlags
|
||
-- reserved(0),
|
||
-- forwardable(1),
|
||
-- forwarded(2),
|
||
-- proxiable(3),
|
||
-- proxy(4),
|
||
-- allow-postdate(5),
|
||
-- postdated(6),
|
||
-- unused7(7),
|
||
-- renewable(8),
|
||
-- unused9(9),
|
||
-- unused10(10),
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 74]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
-- opt-hardware-auth(11),
|
||
-- unused12(12),
|
||
-- unused13(13),
|
||
-- 15 is reserved for canonicalize
|
||
-- unused15(15),
|
||
-- 26 was unused in 1510
|
||
-- disable-transited-check(26),
|
||
--
|
||
-- renewable-ok(27),
|
||
-- enc-tkt-in-skey(28),
|
||
-- renew(30),
|
||
-- validate(31)
|
||
|
||
The fields in this message are as follows:
|
||
|
||
pvno
|
||
This field is included in each message, and specifies the protocol
|
||
version number. This document specifies protocol version 5.
|
||
|
||
msg-type
|
||
This field indicates the type of a protocol message. It will
|
||
almost always be the same as the application identifier associated
|
||
with a message. It is included to make the identifier more
|
||
readily accessible to the application. For the KDC-REQ message,
|
||
this type will be KRB_AS_REQ or KRB_TGS_REQ.
|
||
|
||
padata
|
||
Contains pre-authentication data. Requests for additional tickets
|
||
(KRB_TGS_REQ) MUST contain a padata of PA-TGS-REQ.
|
||
|
||
The padata (pre-authentication data) field contains a sequence of
|
||
authentication information that may be needed before credentials
|
||
can be issued or decrypted.
|
||
|
||
req-body
|
||
This field is a placeholder delimiting the extent of the remaining
|
||
fields. If a checksum is to be calculated over the request, it is
|
||
calculated over an encoding of the KDC-REQ-BODY sequence which is
|
||
enclosed within the req-body field.
|
||
|
||
kdc-options
|
||
This field appears in the KRB_AS_REQ and KRB_TGS_REQ requests to
|
||
the KDC and indicates the flags that the client wants set on the
|
||
tickets as well as other information that is to modify the
|
||
behavior of the KDC. Where appropriate, the name of an option may
|
||
be the same as the flag that is set by that option. Although in
|
||
most cases, the bit in the options field will be the same as that
|
||
in the flags field, this is not guaranteed, so it is not
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 75]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
acceptable simply to copy the options field to the flags field.
|
||
There are various checks that must be made before an option is
|
||
honored anyway.
|
||
|
||
The kdc_options field is a bit-field, where the selected options
|
||
are indicated by the bit being set (1), and the unselected options
|
||
and reserved fields being reset (0). The encoding of the bits is
|
||
specified in Section 5.2. The options are described in more
|
||
detail above in Section 2. The meanings of the options are as
|
||
follows:
|
||
|
||
Bits Name Description
|
||
|
||
0 RESERVED Reserved for future expansion of
|
||
this field.
|
||
|
||
1 FORWARDABLE The FORWARDABLE option indicates
|
||
that the ticket to be issued is to
|
||
have its forwardable flag set. It
|
||
may only be set on the initial
|
||
request, or in a subsequent request
|
||
if the TGT on which it is based is
|
||
also forwardable.
|
||
|
||
2 FORWARDED The FORWARDED option is only
|
||
specified in a request to the
|
||
ticket-granting server and will only
|
||
be honored if the TGT in the request
|
||
has its FORWARDABLE bit set. This
|
||
option indicates that this is a
|
||
request for forwarding. The
|
||
address(es) of the host from which
|
||
the resulting ticket is to be valid
|
||
are included in the addresses field
|
||
of the request.
|
||
|
||
3 PROXIABLE The PROXIABLE option indicates that
|
||
the ticket to be issued is to have
|
||
its proxiable flag set. It may only
|
||
be set on the initial request, or a
|
||
subsequent request if the TGT on
|
||
which it is based is also proxiable.
|
||
|
||
4 PROXY The PROXY option indicates that this
|
||
is a request for a proxy. This
|
||
option will only be honored if the
|
||
TGT in the request has its PROXIABLE
|
||
bit set. The address(es) of the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 76]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
host from which the resulting ticket
|
||
is to be valid are included in the
|
||
addresses field of the request.
|
||
|
||
5 ALLOW-POSTDATE The ALLOW-POSTDATE option indicates
|
||
that the ticket to be issued is to
|
||
have its MAY-POSTDATE flag set. It
|
||
may only be set on the initial
|
||
request, or in a subsequent request
|
||
if the TGT on which it is based also
|
||
has its MAY-POSTDATE flag set.
|
||
|
||
6 POSTDATED The POSTDATED option indicates that
|
||
this is a request for a postdated
|
||
ticket. This option will only be
|
||
honored if the TGT on which it is
|
||
based has its MAY-POSTDATE flag set.
|
||
The resulting ticket will also have
|
||
its INVALID flag set, and that flag
|
||
may be reset by a subsequent request
|
||
to the KDC after the starttime in
|
||
the ticket has been reached.
|
||
|
||
7 RESERVED This option is presently unused.
|
||
|
||
8 RENEWABLE The RENEWABLE option indicates that
|
||
the ticket to be issued is to have
|
||
its RENEWABLE flag set. It may only
|
||
be set on the initial request, or
|
||
when the TGT on which the request is
|
||
based is also renewable. If this
|
||
option is requested, then the rtime
|
||
field in the request contains the
|
||
desired absolute expiration time for
|
||
the ticket.
|
||
|
||
9 RESERVED Reserved for PK-Cross.
|
||
|
||
10 RESERVED Reserved for future use.
|
||
|
||
11 RESERVED Reserved for opt-hardware-auth.
|
||
|
||
12-25 RESERVED Reserved for future use.
|
||
|
||
26 DISABLE-TRANSITED-CHECK By default the KDC will check the
|
||
transited field of a TGT against the
|
||
policy of the local realm before it
|
||
will issue derivative tickets based
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 77]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
on the TGT. If this flag is set in
|
||
the request, checking of the
|
||
transited field is disabled.
|
||
Tickets issued without the
|
||
performance of this check will be
|
||
noted by the reset (0) value of the
|
||
TRANSITED-POLICY-CHECKED flag,
|
||
indicating to the application server
|
||
that the transited field must be
|
||
checked locally. KDCs are
|
||
encouraged but not required to honor
|
||
the DISABLE-TRANSITED-CHECK option.
|
||
|
||
This flag is new since RFC 1510.
|
||
|
||
27 RENEWABLE-OK The RENEWABLE-OK option indicates
|
||
that a renewable ticket will be
|
||
acceptable if a ticket with the
|
||
requested life cannot otherwise be
|
||
provided, in which case a renewable
|
||
ticket may be issued with a renew-
|
||
till equal to the requested endtime.
|
||
The value of the renew-till field
|
||
may still be limited by local
|
||
limits, or limits selected by the
|
||
individual principal or server.
|
||
|
||
28 ENC-TKT-IN-SKEY This option is used only by the
|
||
ticket-granting service. The ENC-
|
||
TKT-IN-SKEY option indicates that
|
||
the ticket for the end server is to
|
||
be encrypted in the session key from
|
||
the additional TGT provided.
|
||
|
||
29 RESERVED Reserved for future use.
|
||
|
||
30 RENEW This option is used only by the
|
||
ticket-granting service. The RENEW
|
||
option indicates that the present
|
||
request is for a renewal. The
|
||
ticket provided is encrypted in the
|
||
secret key for the server on which
|
||
it is valid. This option will only
|
||
be honored if the ticket to be
|
||
renewed has its RENEWABLE flag set
|
||
and if the time in its renew-till
|
||
field has not passed. The ticket to
|
||
be renewed is passed in the padata
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 78]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
field as part of the authentication
|
||
header.
|
||
|
||
31 VALIDATE This option is used only by the
|
||
ticket-granting service. The
|
||
VALIDATE option indicates that the
|
||
request is to validate a postdated
|
||
ticket. It will only be honored if
|
||
the ticket presented is postdated,
|
||
presently has its INVALID flag set,
|
||
and would otherwise be usable at
|
||
this time. A ticket cannot be
|
||
validated before its starttime. The
|
||
ticket presented for validation is
|
||
encrypted in the key of the server
|
||
for which it is valid and is passed
|
||
in the padata field as part of the
|
||
authentication header.
|
||
|
||
cname and sname
|
||
These fields are the same as those described for the ticket in
|
||
section 5.3. The sname may only be absent when the ENC-TKT-IN-
|
||
SKEY option is specified. If the sname is absent, the name of the
|
||
server is taken from the name of the client in the ticket passed
|
||
as additional-tickets.
|
||
|
||
enc-authorization-data
|
||
The enc-authorization-data, if present (and it can only be present
|
||
in the TGS_REQ form), is an encoding of the desired
|
||
authorization-data encrypted under the sub-session key if present
|
||
in the Authenticator, or alternatively from the session key in the
|
||
TGT (both the Authenticator and TGT come from the padata field in
|
||
the KRB_TGS_REQ). The key usage value used when encrypting is 5
|
||
if a sub-session key is used, or 4 if the session key is used.
|
||
|
||
realm
|
||
This field specifies the realm part of the server's principal
|
||
identifier. In the AS exchange, this is also the realm part of
|
||
the client's principal identifier.
|
||
|
||
from
|
||
This field is included in the KRB_AS_REQ and KRB_TGS_REQ ticket
|
||
requests when the requested ticket is to be postdated. It
|
||
specifies the desired starttime for the requested ticket. If this
|
||
field is omitted, then the KDC SHOULD use the current time
|
||
instead.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 79]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
till
|
||
This field contains the expiration date requested by the client in
|
||
a ticket request. It is not optional, but if the requested
|
||
endtime is "19700101000000Z", the requested ticket is to have the
|
||
maximum endtime permitted according to KDC policy. Implementation
|
||
note: This special timestamp corresponds to a UNIX time_t value of
|
||
zero on most systems.
|
||
|
||
rtime
|
||
This field is the requested renew-till time sent from a client to
|
||
the KDC in a ticket request. It is optional.
|
||
|
||
nonce
|
||
This field is part of the KDC request and response. It is
|
||
intended to hold a random number generated by the client. If the
|
||
same number is included in the encrypted response from the KDC, it
|
||
provides evidence that the response is fresh and has not been
|
||
replayed by an attacker. Nonces MUST NEVER be reused.
|
||
|
||
etype
|
||
This field specifies the desired encryption algorithm to be used
|
||
in the response.
|
||
|
||
addresses
|
||
This field is included in the initial request for tickets, and it
|
||
is optionally included in requests for additional tickets from the
|
||
ticket-granting server. It specifies the addresses from which the
|
||
requested ticket is to be valid. Normally it includes the
|
||
addresses for the client's host. If a proxy is requested, this
|
||
field will contain other addresses. The contents of this field
|
||
are usually copied by the KDC into the caddr field of the
|
||
resulting ticket.
|
||
|
||
additional-tickets
|
||
Additional tickets MAY be optionally included in a request to the
|
||
ticket-granting server. If the ENC-TKT-IN-SKEY option has been
|
||
specified, then the session key from the additional ticket will be
|
||
used in place of the server's key to encrypt the new ticket. When
|
||
the ENC-TKT-IN-SKEY option is used for user-to-user
|
||
authentication, this additional ticket MAY be a TGT issued by the
|
||
local realm or an inter-realm TGT issued for the current KDC's
|
||
realm by a remote KDC. If more than one option that requires
|
||
additional tickets has been specified, then the additional tickets
|
||
are used in the order specified by the ordering of the options
|
||
bits (see kdc-options, above).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 80]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
The application tag number will be either ten (10) or twelve (12)
|
||
depending on whether the request is for an initial ticket (AS-REQ) or
|
||
for an additional ticket (TGS-REQ).
|
||
|
||
The optional fields (addresses, authorization-data, and additional-
|
||
tickets) are only included if necessary to perform the operation
|
||
specified in the kdc-options field.
|
||
|
||
Note that in KRB_TGS_REQ, the protocol version number appears twice
|
||
and two different message types appear: the KRB_TGS_REQ message
|
||
contains these fields as does the authentication header (KRB_AP_REQ)
|
||
that is passed in the padata field.
|
||
|
||
5.4.2. KRB_KDC_REP Definition
|
||
|
||
The KRB_KDC_REP message format is used for the reply from the KDC for
|
||
either an initial (AS) request or a subsequent (TGS) request. There
|
||
is no message type for KRB_KDC_REP. Instead, the type will be either
|
||
KRB_AS_REP or KRB_TGS_REP. The key used to encrypt the ciphertext
|
||
part of the reply depends on the message type. For KRB_AS_REP, the
|
||
ciphertext is encrypted in the client's secret key, and the client's
|
||
key version number is included in the key version number for the
|
||
encrypted data. For KRB_TGS_REP, the ciphertext is encrypted in the
|
||
sub-session key from the Authenticator; if it is absent, the
|
||
ciphertext is encrypted in the session key from the TGT used in the
|
||
request. In that case, no version number will be present in the
|
||
EncryptedData sequence.
|
||
|
||
The KRB_KDC_REP message contains the following fields:
|
||
|
||
AS-REP ::= [APPLICATION 11] KDC-REP
|
||
|
||
TGS-REP ::= [APPLICATION 13] KDC-REP
|
||
|
||
KDC-REP ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (11 -- AS -- | 13 -- TGS --),
|
||
padata [2] SEQUENCE OF PA-DATA OPTIONAL
|
||
-- NOTE: not empty --,
|
||
crealm [3] Realm,
|
||
cname [4] PrincipalName,
|
||
ticket [5] Ticket,
|
||
enc-part [6] EncryptedData
|
||
-- EncASRepPart or EncTGSRepPart,
|
||
-- as appropriate
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
EncASRepPart ::= [APPLICATION 25] EncKDCRepPart
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 81]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
EncTGSRepPart ::= [APPLICATION 26] EncKDCRepPart
|
||
|
||
EncKDCRepPart ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
key [0] EncryptionKey,
|
||
last-req [1] LastReq,
|
||
nonce [2] UInt32,
|
||
key-expiration [3] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
flags [4] TicketFlags,
|
||
authtime [5] KerberosTime,
|
||
starttime [6] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
endtime [7] KerberosTime,
|
||
renew-till [8] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
srealm [9] Realm,
|
||
sname [10] PrincipalName,
|
||
caddr [11] HostAddresses OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
LastReq ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
|
||
lr-type [0] Int32,
|
||
lr-value [1] KerberosTime
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
pvno and msg-type
|
||
These fields are described above in Section 5.4.1. msg-type is
|
||
either KRB_AS_REP or KRB_TGS_REP.
|
||
|
||
padata
|
||
This field is described in detail in Section 5.4.1. One possible
|
||
use for it is to encode an alternate "salt" string to be used with
|
||
a string-to-key algorithm. This ability is useful for easing
|
||
transitions if a realm name needs to change (e.g., when a company
|
||
is acquired); in such a case all existing password-derived entries
|
||
in the KDC database would be flagged as needing a special salt
|
||
string until the next password change.
|
||
|
||
crealm, cname, srealm, and sname
|
||
These fields are the same as those described for the ticket in
|
||
section 5.3.
|
||
|
||
ticket
|
||
The newly-issued ticket, from Section 5.3.
|
||
|
||
enc-part
|
||
This field is a place holder for the ciphertext and related
|
||
information that forms the encrypted part of a message. The
|
||
description of the encrypted part of the message follows each
|
||
appearance of this field.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 82]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
The key usage value for encrypting this field is 3 in an AS-REP
|
||
message, using the client's long-term key or another key selected
|
||
via pre-authentication mechanisms. In a TGS-REP message, the key
|
||
usage value is 8 if the TGS session key is used, or 9 if a TGS
|
||
authenticator subkey is used.
|
||
|
||
Compatibility note: Some implementations unconditionally send an
|
||
encrypted EncTGSRepPart (application tag number 26) in this field
|
||
regardless of whether the reply is a AS-REP or a TGS-REP. In the
|
||
interest of compatibility, implementors MAY relax the check on the
|
||
tag number of the decrypted ENC-PART.
|
||
|
||
key
|
||
This field is the same as described for the ticket in Section 5.3.
|
||
|
||
last-req
|
||
This field is returned by the KDC and specifies the time(s) of the
|
||
last request by a principal. Depending on what information is
|
||
available, this might be the last time that a request for a TGT
|
||
was made, or the last time that a request based on a TGT was
|
||
successful. It also might cover all servers for a realm, or just
|
||
the particular server. Some implementations MAY display this
|
||
information to the user to aid in discovering unauthorized use of
|
||
one's identity. It is similar in spirit to the last login time
|
||
displayed when logging in to timesharing systems.
|
||
|
||
lr-type
|
||
This field indicates how the following lr-value field is to be
|
||
interpreted. Negative values indicate that the information
|
||
pertains only to the responding server. Non-negative values
|
||
pertain to all servers for the realm.
|
||
|
||
If the lr-type field is zero (0), then no information is conveyed
|
||
by the lr-value subfield. If the absolute value of the lr-type
|
||
field is one (1), then the lr-value subfield is the time of last
|
||
initial request for a TGT. If it is two (2), then the lr-value
|
||
subfield is the time of last initial request. If it is three (3),
|
||
then the lr-value subfield is the time of issue for the newest TGT
|
||
used. If it is four (4), then the lr-value subfield is the time
|
||
of the last renewal. If it is five (5), then the lr-value
|
||
subfield is the time of last request (of any type). If it is (6),
|
||
then the lr-value subfield is the time when the password will
|
||
expire. If it is (7), then the lr-value subfield is the time when
|
||
the account will expire.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 83]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
lr-value
|
||
This field contains the time of the last request. The time MUST
|
||
be interpreted according to the contents of the accompanying lr-
|
||
type subfield.
|
||
|
||
nonce
|
||
This field is described above in Section 5.4.1.
|
||
|
||
key-expiration
|
||
The key-expiration field is part of the response from the KDC and
|
||
specifies the time that the client's secret key is due to expire.
|
||
The expiration might be the result of password aging or an account
|
||
expiration. If present, it SHOULD be set to the earlier of the
|
||
user's key expiration and account expiration. The use of this
|
||
field is deprecated, and the last-req field SHOULD be used to
|
||
convey this information instead. This field will usually be left
|
||
out of the TGS reply since the response to the TGS request is
|
||
encrypted in a session key and no client information has to be
|
||
retrieved from the KDC database. It is up to the application
|
||
client (usually the login program) to take appropriate action
|
||
(such as notifying the user) if the expiration time is imminent.
|
||
|
||
flags, authtime, starttime, endtime, renew-till and caddr
|
||
These fields are duplicates of those found in the encrypted
|
||
portion of the attached ticket (see Section 5.3), provided so the
|
||
client MAY verify that they match the intended request and in
|
||
order to assist in proper ticket caching. If the message is of
|
||
type KRB_TGS_REP, the caddr field will only be filled in if the
|
||
request was for a proxy or forwarded ticket, or if the user is
|
||
substituting a subset of the addresses from the TGT. If the
|
||
client-requested addresses are not present or not used, then the
|
||
addresses contained in the ticket will be the same as those
|
||
included in the TGT.
|
||
|
||
5.5. Client/Server (CS) Message Specifications
|
||
|
||
This section specifies the format of the messages used for the
|
||
authentication of the client to the application server.
|
||
|
||
5.5.1. KRB_AP_REQ Definition
|
||
|
||
The KRB_AP_REQ message contains the Kerberos protocol version number,
|
||
the message type KRB_AP_REQ, an options field to indicate any options
|
||
in use, and the ticket and authenticator themselves. The KRB_AP_REQ
|
||
message is often referred to as the "authentication header".
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 84]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
AP-REQ ::= [APPLICATION 14] SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (14),
|
||
ap-options [2] APOptions,
|
||
ticket [3] Ticket,
|
||
authenticator [4] EncryptedData -- Authenticator
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
APOptions ::= KerberosFlags
|
||
-- reserved(0),
|
||
-- use-session-key(1),
|
||
-- mutual-required(2)
|
||
|
||
pvno and msg-type
|
||
These fields are described above in Section 5.4.1. msg-type is
|
||
KRB_AP_REQ.
|
||
|
||
ap-options
|
||
This field appears in the application request (KRB_AP_REQ) and
|
||
affects the way the request is processed. It is a bit-field,
|
||
where the selected options are indicated by the bit being set (1),
|
||
and the unselected options and reserved fields by being reset (0).
|
||
The encoding of the bits is specified in Section 5.2. The
|
||
meanings of the options are as follows:
|
||
|
||
Bit(s) Name Description
|
||
|
||
0 reserved Reserved for future expansion of this field.
|
||
|
||
1 use-session-key The USE-SESSION-KEY option indicates that
|
||
the ticket the client is presenting to a
|
||
server is encrypted in the session key from
|
||
the server's TGT. When this option is not
|
||
specified, the ticket is encrypted in the
|
||
server's secret key.
|
||
|
||
2 mutual-required The MUTUAL-REQUIRED option tells the server
|
||
that the client requires mutual
|
||
authentication, and that it must respond
|
||
with a KRB_AP_REP message.
|
||
|
||
3-31 reserved Reserved for future use.
|
||
|
||
ticket
|
||
This field is a ticket authenticating the client to the server.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 85]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
authenticator
|
||
This contains the encrypted authenticator, which includes the
|
||
client's choice of a subkey.
|
||
|
||
The encrypted authenticator is included in the AP-REQ; it certifies
|
||
to a server that the sender has recent knowledge of the encryption
|
||
key in the accompanying ticket, to help the server detect replays.
|
||
It also assists in the selection of a "true session key" to use with
|
||
the particular session. The DER encoding of the following is
|
||
encrypted in the ticket's session key, with a key usage value of 11
|
||
in normal application exchanges, or 7 when used as the PA-TGS-REQ
|
||
PA-DATA field of a TGS-REQ exchange (see Section 5.4.1):
|
||
|
||
-- Unencrypted authenticator
|
||
Authenticator ::= [APPLICATION 2] SEQUENCE {
|
||
authenticator-vno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
crealm [1] Realm,
|
||
cname [2] PrincipalName,
|
||
cksum [3] Checksum OPTIONAL,
|
||
cusec [4] Microseconds,
|
||
ctime [5] KerberosTime,
|
||
subkey [6] EncryptionKey OPTIONAL,
|
||
seq-number [7] UInt32 OPTIONAL,
|
||
authorization-data [8] AuthorizationData OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
authenticator-vno
|
||
This field specifies the version number for the format of the
|
||
authenticator. This document specifies version 5.
|
||
|
||
crealm and cname
|
||
These fields are the same as those described for the ticket in
|
||
section 5.3.
|
||
|
||
cksum
|
||
This field contains a checksum of the application data that
|
||
accompanies the KRB_AP_REQ, computed using a key usage value of 10
|
||
in normal application exchanges, or 6 when used in the TGS-REQ
|
||
PA-TGS-REQ AP-DATA field.
|
||
|
||
cusec
|
||
This field contains the microsecond part of the client's
|
||
timestamp. Its value (before encryption) ranges from 0 to 999999.
|
||
It often appears along with ctime. The two fields are used
|
||
together to specify a reasonably accurate timestamp.
|
||
|
||
ctime
|
||
This field contains the current time on the client's host.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 86]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
subkey
|
||
This field contains the client's choice for an encryption key to
|
||
be used to protect this specific application session. Unless an
|
||
application specifies otherwise, if this field is left out, the
|
||
session key from the ticket will be used.
|
||
|
||
seq-number
|
||
This optional field includes the initial sequence number to be
|
||
used by the KRB_PRIV or KRB_SAFE messages when sequence numbers
|
||
are used to detect replays. (It may also be used by application
|
||
specific messages.) When included in the authenticator, this
|
||
field specifies the initial sequence number for messages from the
|
||
client to the server. When included in the AP-REP message, the
|
||
initial sequence number is that for messages from the server to
|
||
the client. When used in KRB_PRIV or KRB_SAFE messages, it is
|
||
incremented by one after each message is sent. Sequence numbers
|
||
fall in the range 0 through 2^32 - 1 and wrap to zero following
|
||
the value 2^32 - 1.
|
||
|
||
For sequence numbers to support the detection of replays
|
||
adequately, they SHOULD be non-repeating, even across connection
|
||
boundaries. The initial sequence number SHOULD be random and
|
||
uniformly distributed across the full space of possible sequence
|
||
numbers, so that it cannot be guessed by an attacker and so that
|
||
it and the successive sequence numbers do not repeat other
|
||
sequences. In the event that more than 2^32 messages are to be
|
||
generated in a series of KRB_PRIV or KRB_SAFE messages, rekeying
|
||
SHOULD be performed before sequence numbers are reused with the
|
||
same encryption key.
|
||
|
||
Implmentation note: Historically, some implementations transmit
|
||
signed twos-complement numbers for sequence numbers. In the
|
||
interests of compatibility, implementations MAY accept the
|
||
equivalent negative number where a positive number greater than
|
||
2^31 - 1 is expected.
|
||
|
||
Implementation note: As noted before, some implementations omit
|
||
the optional sequence number when its value would be zero.
|
||
Implementations MAY accept an omitted sequence number when
|
||
expecting a value of zero, and SHOULD NOT transmit an
|
||
Authenticator with a initial sequence number of zero.
|
||
|
||
authorization-data
|
||
This field is the same as described for the ticket in Section 5.3.
|
||
It is optional and will only appear when additional restrictions
|
||
are to be placed on the use of a ticket, beyond those carried in
|
||
the ticket itself.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 87]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.5.2. KRB_AP_REP Definition
|
||
|
||
The KRB_AP_REP message contains the Kerberos protocol version number,
|
||
the message type, and an encrypted time-stamp. The message is sent
|
||
in response to an application request (KRB_AP_REQ) for which the
|
||
mutual authentication option has been selected in the ap-options
|
||
field.
|
||
|
||
AP-REP ::= [APPLICATION 15] SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (15),
|
||
enc-part [2] EncryptedData -- EncAPRepPart
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
EncAPRepPart ::= [APPLICATION 27] SEQUENCE {
|
||
ctime [0] KerberosTime,
|
||
cusec [1] Microseconds,
|
||
subkey [2] EncryptionKey OPTIONAL,
|
||
seq-number [3] UInt32 OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
The encoded EncAPRepPart is encrypted in the shared session key of
|
||
the ticket. The optional subkey field can be used in an
|
||
application-arranged negotiation to choose a per association session
|
||
key.
|
||
|
||
pvno and msg-type
|
||
These fields are described above in Section 5.4.1. msg-type is
|
||
KRB_AP_REP.
|
||
|
||
enc-part
|
||
This field is described above in Section 5.4.2. It is computed
|
||
with a key usage value of 12.
|
||
|
||
ctime
|
||
This field contains the current time on the client's host.
|
||
|
||
cusec
|
||
This field contains the microsecond part of the client's
|
||
timestamp.
|
||
|
||
subkey
|
||
This field contains an encryption key that is to be used to
|
||
protect this specific application session. See Section 3.2.6 for
|
||
specifics on how this field is used to negotiate a key. Unless an
|
||
application specifies otherwise, if this field is left out, the
|
||
sub-session key from the authenticator or if the latter is also
|
||
left out, the session key from the ticket will be used.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 88]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
seq-number
|
||
This field is described above in Section 5.3.2.
|
||
|
||
5.5.3. Error Message Reply
|
||
|
||
If an error occurs while processing the application request, the
|
||
KRB_ERROR message will be sent in response. See Section 5.9.1 for
|
||
the format of the error message. The cname and crealm fields MAY be
|
||
left out if the server cannot determine their appropriate values from
|
||
the corresponding KRB_AP_REQ message. If the authenticator was
|
||
decipherable, the ctime and cusec fields will contain the values from
|
||
it.
|
||
|
||
5.6. KRB_SAFE Message Specification
|
||
|
||
This section specifies the format of a message that can be used by
|
||
either side (client or server) of an application to send a tamper-
|
||
proof message to its peer. It presumes that a session key has
|
||
previously been exchanged (for example, by using the
|
||
KRB_AP_REQ/KRB_AP_REP messages).
|
||
|
||
5.6.1. KRB_SAFE definition
|
||
|
||
The KRB_SAFE message contains user data along with a collision-proof
|
||
checksum keyed with the last encryption key negotiated via subkeys,
|
||
or with the session key if no negotiation has occurred. The message
|
||
fields are as follows:
|
||
|
||
KRB-SAFE ::= [APPLICATION 20] SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (20),
|
||
safe-body [2] KRB-SAFE-BODY,
|
||
cksum [3] Checksum
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KRB-SAFE-BODY ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
user-data [0] OCTET STRING,
|
||
timestamp [1] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
usec [2] Microseconds OPTIONAL,
|
||
seq-number [3] UInt32 OPTIONAL,
|
||
s-address [4] HostAddress,
|
||
r-address [5] HostAddress OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
pvno and msg-type
|
||
These fields are described above in Section 5.4.1. msg-type is
|
||
KRB_SAFE.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 89]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
safe-body
|
||
This field is a placeholder for the body of the KRB-SAFE message.
|
||
|
||
cksum
|
||
This field contains the checksum of the application data, computed
|
||
with a key usage value of 15.
|
||
|
||
The checksum is computed over the encoding of the KRB-SAFE
|
||
sequence. First, the cksum is set to a type zero, zero-length
|
||
value, and the checksum is computed over the encoding of the KRB-
|
||
SAFE sequence. Then the checksum is set to the result of that
|
||
computation. Finally, the KRB-SAFE sequence is encoded again.
|
||
This method, although different than the one specified in RFC
|
||
1510, corresponds to existing practice.
|
||
|
||
user-data
|
||
This field is part of the KRB_SAFE and KRB_PRIV messages, and
|
||
contains the application-specific data that is being passed from
|
||
the sender to the recipient.
|
||
|
||
timestamp
|
||
This field is part of the KRB_SAFE and KRB_PRIV messages. Its
|
||
contents are the current time as known by the sender of the
|
||
message. By checking the timestamp, the recipient of the message
|
||
is able to make sure that it was recently generated, and is not a
|
||
replay.
|
||
|
||
usec
|
||
This field is part of the KRB_SAFE and KRB_PRIV headers. It
|
||
contains the microsecond part of the timestamp.
|
||
|
||
seq-number
|
||
This field is described above in Section 5.3.2.
|
||
|
||
s-address
|
||
Sender's address.
|
||
|
||
This field specifies the address in use by the sender of the
|
||
message.
|
||
|
||
r-address
|
||
This field specifies the address in use by the recipient of the
|
||
message. It MAY be omitted for some uses (such as broadcast
|
||
protocols), but the recipient MAY arbitrarily reject such
|
||
messages. This field, along with s-address, can be used to help
|
||
detect messages that have been incorrectly or maliciously
|
||
delivered to the wrong recipient.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 90]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.7. KRB_PRIV Message Specification
|
||
|
||
This section specifies the format of a message that can be used by
|
||
either side (client or server) of an application to send a message to
|
||
its peer securely and privately. It presumes that a session key has
|
||
previously been exchanged (for example, by using the
|
||
KRB_AP_REQ/KRB_AP_REP messages).
|
||
|
||
5.7.1. KRB_PRIV Definition
|
||
|
||
The KRB_PRIV message contains user data encrypted in the Session Key.
|
||
The message fields are as follows:
|
||
|
||
KRB-PRIV ::= [APPLICATION 21] SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (21),
|
||
-- NOTE: there is no [2] tag
|
||
enc-part [3] EncryptedData -- EncKrbPrivPart
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
EncKrbPrivPart ::= [APPLICATION 28] SEQUENCE {
|
||
user-data [0] OCTET STRING,
|
||
timestamp [1] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
usec [2] Microseconds OPTIONAL,
|
||
seq-number [3] UInt32 OPTIONAL,
|
||
s-address [4] HostAddress -- sender's addr --,
|
||
r-address [5] HostAddress OPTIONAL -- recip's addr
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
pvno and msg-type
|
||
These fields are described above in Section 5.4.1. msg-type is
|
||
KRB_PRIV.
|
||
|
||
enc-part
|
||
This field holds an encoding of the EncKrbPrivPart sequence
|
||
encrypted under the session key, with a key usage value of 13.
|
||
This encrypted encoding is used for the enc-part field of the
|
||
KRB-PRIV message.
|
||
|
||
user-data, timestamp, usec, s-address, and r-address
|
||
These fields are described above in Section 5.6.1.
|
||
|
||
seq-number
|
||
This field is described above in Section 5.3.2.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 91]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.8. KRB_CRED Message Specification
|
||
|
||
This section specifies the format of a message that can be used to
|
||
send Kerberos credentials from one principal to another. It is
|
||
presented here to encourage a common mechanism to be used by
|
||
applications when forwarding tickets or providing proxies to
|
||
subordinate servers. It presumes that a session key has already been
|
||
exchanged, perhaps by using the KRB_AP_REQ/KRB_AP_REP messages.
|
||
|
||
5.8.1. KRB_CRED Definition
|
||
|
||
The KRB_CRED message contains a sequence of tickets to be sent and
|
||
information needed to use the tickets, including the session key from
|
||
each. The information needed to use the tickets is encrypted under
|
||
an encryption key previously exchanged or transferred alongside the
|
||
KRB_CRED message. The message fields are as follows:
|
||
|
||
KRB-CRED ::= [APPLICATION 22] SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (22),
|
||
tickets [2] SEQUENCE OF Ticket,
|
||
enc-part [3] EncryptedData -- EncKrbCredPart
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
EncKrbCredPart ::= [APPLICATION 29] SEQUENCE {
|
||
ticket-info [0] SEQUENCE OF KrbCredInfo,
|
||
nonce [1] UInt32 OPTIONAL,
|
||
timestamp [2] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
usec [3] Microseconds OPTIONAL,
|
||
s-address [4] HostAddress OPTIONAL,
|
||
r-address [5] HostAddress OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KrbCredInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
key [0] EncryptionKey,
|
||
prealm [1] Realm OPTIONAL,
|
||
pname [2] PrincipalName OPTIONAL,
|
||
flags [3] TicketFlags OPTIONAL,
|
||
authtime [4] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
starttime [5] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
endtime [6] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
renew-till [7] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
srealm [8] Realm OPTIONAL,
|
||
sname [9] PrincipalName OPTIONAL,
|
||
caddr [10] HostAddresses OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 92]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
pvno and msg-type
|
||
These fields are described above in Section 5.4.1. msg-type is
|
||
KRB_CRED.
|
||
|
||
tickets
|
||
These are the tickets obtained from the KDC specifically for use
|
||
by the intended recipient. Successive tickets are paired with the
|
||
corresponding KrbCredInfo sequence from the enc-part of the KRB-
|
||
CRED message.
|
||
|
||
enc-part
|
||
This field holds an encoding of the EncKrbCredPart sequence
|
||
encrypted under the session key shared by the sender and the
|
||
intended recipient, with a key usage value of 14. This encrypted
|
||
encoding is used for the enc-part field of the KRB-CRED message.
|
||
|
||
Implementation note: Implementations of certain applications, most
|
||
notably certain implementations of the Kerberos GSS-API mechanism,
|
||
do not separately encrypt the contents of the EncKrbCredPart of
|
||
the KRB-CRED message when sending it. In the case of those GSS-
|
||
API mechanisms, this is not a security vulnerability, as the
|
||
entire KRB-CRED message is itself embedded in an encrypted
|
||
message.
|
||
|
||
nonce
|
||
If practical, an application MAY require the inclusion of a nonce
|
||
generated by the recipient of the message. If the same value is
|
||
included as the nonce in the message, it provides evidence that
|
||
the message is fresh and has not been replayed by an attacker. A
|
||
nonce MUST NEVER be reused.
|
||
|
||
timestamp and usec
|
||
These fields specify the time that the KRB-CRED message was
|
||
generated. The time is used to provide assurance that the message
|
||
is fresh.
|
||
|
||
s-address and r-address
|
||
These fields are described above in Section 5.6.1. They are used
|
||
optionally to provide additional assurance of the integrity of the
|
||
KRB-CRED message.
|
||
|
||
key
|
||
This field exists in the corresponding ticket passed by the KRB-
|
||
CRED message and is used to pass the session key from the sender
|
||
to the intended recipient. The field's encoding is described in
|
||
Section 5.2.9.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 93]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
The following fields are optional. If present, they can be
|
||
associated with the credentials in the remote ticket file. If left
|
||
out, then it is assumed that the recipient of the credentials already
|
||
knows their values.
|
||
|
||
prealm and pname
|
||
The name and realm of the delegated principal identity.
|
||
|
||
flags, authtime, starttime, endtime, renew-till, srealm, sname,
|
||
and caddr
|
||
These fields contain the values of the corresponding fields from
|
||
the ticket found in the ticket field. Descriptions of the fields
|
||
are identical to the descriptions in the KDC-REP message.
|
||
|
||
5.9. Error Message Specification
|
||
|
||
This section specifies the format for the KRB_ERROR message. The
|
||
fields included in the message are intended to return as much
|
||
information as possible about an error. It is not expected that all
|
||
the information required by the fields will be available for all
|
||
types of errors. If the appropriate information is not available
|
||
when the message is composed, the corresponding field will be left
|
||
out of the message.
|
||
|
||
Note that because the KRB_ERROR message is not integrity protected,
|
||
it is quite possible for an intruder to synthesize or modify it. In
|
||
particular, this means that the client SHOULD NOT use any fields in
|
||
this message for security-critical purposes, such as setting a system
|
||
clock or generating a fresh authenticator. The message can be
|
||
useful, however, for advising a user on the reason for some failure.
|
||
|
||
5.9.1. KRB_ERROR Definition
|
||
|
||
The KRB_ERROR message consists of the following fields:
|
||
|
||
KRB-ERROR ::= [APPLICATION 30] SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (30),
|
||
ctime [2] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
cusec [3] Microseconds OPTIONAL,
|
||
stime [4] KerberosTime,
|
||
susec [5] Microseconds,
|
||
error-code [6] Int32,
|
||
crealm [7] Realm OPTIONAL,
|
||
cname [8] PrincipalName OPTIONAL,
|
||
realm [9] Realm -- service realm --,
|
||
sname [10] PrincipalName -- service name --,
|
||
e-text [11] KerberosString OPTIONAL,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 94]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
e-data [12] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
pvno and msg-type
|
||
These fields are described above in Section 5.4.1. msg-type is
|
||
KRB_ERROR.
|
||
|
||
ctime and cusec
|
||
These fields are described above in Section 5.5.2. If the values
|
||
for these fields are known to the entity generating the error (as
|
||
they would be if the KRB-ERROR is generated in reply to, e.g., a
|
||
failed authentication service request), they should be populated
|
||
in the KRB-ERROR. If the values are not available, these fields
|
||
can be omitted.
|
||
|
||
stime
|
||
This field contains the current time on the server. It is of type
|
||
KerberosTime.
|
||
|
||
susec
|
||
This field contains the microsecond part of the server's
|
||
timestamp. Its value ranges from 0 to 999999. It appears along
|
||
with stime. The two fields are used in conjunction to specify a
|
||
reasonably accurate timestamp.
|
||
|
||
error-code
|
||
This field contains the error code returned by Kerberos or the
|
||
server when a request fails. To interpret the value of this field
|
||
see the list of error codes in Section 7.5.9. Implementations are
|
||
encouraged to provide for national language support in the display
|
||
of error messages.
|
||
|
||
crealm, and cname
|
||
These fields are described above in Section 5.3. When the entity
|
||
generating the error knows these values, they should be populated
|
||
in the KRB-ERROR. If the values are not known, the crealm and
|
||
cname fields SHOULD be omitted.
|
||
|
||
realm and sname
|
||
These fields are described above in Section 5.3.
|
||
|
||
e-text
|
||
This field contains additional text to help explain the error code
|
||
associated with the failed request (for example, it might include
|
||
a principal name which was unknown).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 95]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
e-data
|
||
This field contains additional data about the error for use by the
|
||
application to help it recover from or handle the error. If the
|
||
errorcode is KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED, then the e-data field will
|
||
contain an encoding of a sequence of padata fields, each
|
||
corresponding to an acceptable pre-authentication method and
|
||
optionally containing data for the method:
|
||
|
||
METHOD-DATA ::= SEQUENCE OF PA-DATA
|
||
|
||
For error codes defined in this document other than
|
||
KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED, the format and contents of the e-data field
|
||
are implementation-defined. Similarly, for future error codes, the
|
||
format and contents of the e-data field are implementation-defined
|
||
unless specified otherwise. Whether defined by the implementation or
|
||
in a future document, the e-data field MAY take the form of TYPED-
|
||
DATA:
|
||
|
||
TYPED-DATA ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF SEQUENCE {
|
||
data-type [0] Int32,
|
||
data-value [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
5.10. Application Tag Numbers
|
||
|
||
The following table lists the application class tag numbers used by
|
||
various data types defined in this section.
|
||
|
||
Tag Number(s) Type Name Comments
|
||
|
||
0 unused
|
||
|
||
1 Ticket PDU
|
||
|
||
2 Authenticator non-PDU
|
||
|
||
3 EncTicketPart non-PDU
|
||
|
||
4-9 unused
|
||
|
||
10 AS-REQ PDU
|
||
|
||
11 AS-REP PDU
|
||
|
||
12 TGS-REQ PDU
|
||
|
||
13 TGS-REP PDU
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 96]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
14 AP-REQ PDU
|
||
|
||
15 AP-REP PDU
|
||
|
||
16 RESERVED16 TGT-REQ (for user-to-user)
|
||
|
||
17 RESERVED17 TGT-REP (for user-to-user)
|
||
|
||
18-19 unused
|
||
|
||
20 KRB-SAFE PDU
|
||
|
||
21 KRB-PRIV PDU
|
||
|
||
22 KRB-CRED PDU
|
||
|
||
23-24 unused
|
||
|
||
25 EncASRepPart non-PDU
|
||
|
||
26 EncTGSRepPart non-PDU
|
||
|
||
27 EncApRepPart non-PDU
|
||
|
||
28 EncKrbPrivPart non-PDU
|
||
|
||
29 EncKrbCredPart non-PDU
|
||
|
||
30 KRB-ERROR PDU
|
||
|
||
The ASN.1 types marked above as "PDU" (Protocol Data Unit) are the
|
||
only ASN.1 types intended as top-level types of the Kerberos
|
||
protocol, and are the only types that may be used as elements in
|
||
another protocol that makes use of Kerberos.
|
||
|
||
6. Naming Constraints
|
||
|
||
6.1. Realm Names
|
||
|
||
Although realm names are encoded as GeneralStrings and technically a
|
||
realm can select any name it chooses, interoperability across realm
|
||
boundaries requires agreement on how realm names are to be assigned,
|
||
and what information they imply.
|
||
|
||
To enforce these conventions, each realm MUST conform to the
|
||
conventions itself, and it MUST require that any realms with which
|
||
inter-realm keys are shared also conform to the conventions and
|
||
require the same from its neighbors.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 97]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kerberos realm names are case sensitive. Realm names that differ
|
||
only in the case of the characters are not equivalent. There are
|
||
presently three styles of realm names: domain, X500, and other.
|
||
Examples of each style follow:
|
||
|
||
domain: ATHENA.MIT.EDU
|
||
X500: C=US/O=OSF
|
||
other: NAMETYPE:rest/of.name=without-restrictions
|
||
|
||
Domain style realm names MUST look like domain names: they consist of
|
||
components separated by periods (.) and they contain neither colons
|
||
(:) nor slashes (/). Though domain names themselves are case
|
||
insensitive, in order for realms to match, the case must match as
|
||
well. When establishing a new realm name based on an internet domain
|
||
name it is recommended by convention that the characters be converted
|
||
to uppercase.
|
||
|
||
X.500 names contain an equals sign (=) and cannot contain a colon (:)
|
||
before the equals sign. The realm names for X.500 names will be
|
||
string representations of the names with components separated by
|
||
slashes. Leading and trailing slashes will not be included. Note
|
||
that the slash separator is consistent with Kerberos implementations
|
||
based on RFC 1510, but it is different from the separator recommended
|
||
in RFC 2253.
|
||
|
||
Names that fall into the other category MUST begin with a prefix that
|
||
contains no equals sign (=) or period (.), and the prefix MUST be
|
||
followed by a colon (:) and the rest of the name. All prefixes
|
||
expect those beginning with used. Presently none are assigned.
|
||
|
||
The reserved category includes strings that do not fall into the
|
||
first three categories. All names in this category are reserved. It
|
||
is unlikely that names will be assigned to this category unless there
|
||
is a very strong argument for not using the 'other' category.
|
||
|
||
These rules guarantee that there will be no conflicts between the
|
||
various name styles. The following additional constraints apply to
|
||
the assignment of realm names in the domain and X.500 categories:
|
||
either the name of a realm for the domain or X.500 formats must be
|
||
used by the organization owning (to whom it was assigned) an Internet
|
||
domain name or X.500 name, or, in the case that no such names are
|
||
registered, authority to use a realm name MAY be derived from the
|
||
authority of the parent realm. For example, if there is no domain
|
||
name for E40.MIT.EDU, then the administrator of the MIT.EDU realm can
|
||
authorize the creation of a realm with that name.
|
||
|
||
This is acceptable because the organization to which the parent is
|
||
assigned is presumably the organization authorized to assign names to
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 98]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
its children in the X.500 and domain name systems as well. If the
|
||
parent assigns a realm name without also registering it in the domain
|
||
name or X.500 hierarchy, it is the parent's responsibility to make
|
||
sure that in the future there will not exist a name identical to the
|
||
realm name of the child unless it is assigned to the same entity as
|
||
the realm name.
|
||
|
||
6.2. Principal Names
|
||
|
||
As was the case for realm names, conventions are needed to ensure
|
||
that all agree on what information is implied by a principal name.
|
||
The name-type field that is part of the principal name indicates the
|
||
kind of information implied by the name. The name-type SHOULD be
|
||
treated only as a hint to interpreting the meaning of a name. It is
|
||
not significant when checking for equivalence. Principal names that
|
||
differ only in the name-type identify the same principal. The name
|
||
type does not partition the name space. Ignoring the name type, no
|
||
two names can be the same (i.e., at least one of the components, or
|
||
the realm, MUST be different). The following name types are defined:
|
||
|
||
Name Type Value Meaning
|
||
|
||
NT-UNKNOWN 0 Name type not known
|
||
NT-PRINCIPAL 1 Just the name of the principal as in DCE,
|
||
or for users
|
||
NT-SRV-INST 2 Service and other unique instance (krbtgt)
|
||
NT-SRV-HST 3 Service with host name as instance
|
||
(telnet, rcommands)
|
||
NT-SRV-XHST 4 Service with host as remaining components
|
||
NT-UID 5 Unique ID
|
||
NT-X500-PRINCIPAL 6 Encoded X.509 Distinguished name [RFC2253]
|
||
NT-SMTP-NAME 7 Name in form of SMTP email name
|
||
(e.g., user@example.com)
|
||
NT-ENTERPRISE 10 Enterprise name - may be mapped to principal
|
||
name
|
||
|
||
When a name implies no information other than its uniqueness at a
|
||
particular time, the name type PRINCIPAL SHOULD be used. The
|
||
principal name type SHOULD be used for users, and it might also be
|
||
used for a unique server. If the name is a unique machine-generated
|
||
ID that is guaranteed never to be reassigned, then the name type of
|
||
UID SHOULD be used. (Note that it is generally a bad idea to
|
||
reassign names of any type since stale entries might remain in access
|
||
control lists.)
|
||
|
||
If the first component of a name identifies a service and the
|
||
remaining components identify an instance of the service in a
|
||
server-specified manner, then the name type of SRV-INST SHOULD be
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 99]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
used. An example of this name type is the Kerberos ticket-granting
|
||
service whose name has a first component of krbtgt and a second
|
||
component identifying the realm for which the ticket is valid.
|
||
|
||
If the first component of a name identifies a service and there is a
|
||
single component following the service name identifying the instance
|
||
as the host on which the server is running, then the name type
|
||
SRV-HST SHOULD be used. This type is typically used for Internet
|
||
services such as telnet and the Berkeley R commands. If the separate
|
||
components of the host name appear as successive components following
|
||
the name of the service, then the name type SRV-XHST SHOULD be used.
|
||
This type might be used to identify servers on hosts with X.500
|
||
names, where the slash (/) might otherwise be ambiguous.
|
||
|
||
A name type of NT-X500-PRINCIPAL SHOULD be used when a name from an
|
||
X.509 certificate is translated into a Kerberos name. The encoding
|
||
of the X.509 name as a Kerberos principal shall conform to the
|
||
encoding rules specified in RFC 2253.
|
||
|
||
A name type of SMTP allows a name to be of a form that resembles an
|
||
SMTP email name. This name, including an "@" and a domain name, is
|
||
used as the one component of the principal name.
|
||
|
||
A name type of UNKNOWN SHOULD be used when the form of the name is
|
||
not known. When comparing names, a name of type UNKNOWN will match
|
||
principals authenticated with names of any type. A principal
|
||
authenticated with a name of type UNKNOWN, however, will only match
|
||
other names of type UNKNOWN.
|
||
|
||
Names of any type with an initial component of 'krbtgt' are reserved
|
||
for the Kerberos ticket-granting service. See Section 7.3 for the
|
||
form of such names.
|
||
|
||
6.2.1. Name of Server Principals
|
||
|
||
The principal identifier for a server on a host will generally be
|
||
composed of two parts: (1) the realm of the KDC with which the server
|
||
is registered, and (2) a two-component name of type NT-SRV-HST, if
|
||
the host name is an Internet domain name, or a multi-component name
|
||
of type NT-SRV-XHST, if the name of the host is of a form (such as
|
||
X.500) that allows slash (/) separators. The first component of the
|
||
two- or multi-component name will identify the service, and the
|
||
latter components will identify the host. Where the name of the host
|
||
is not case sensitive (for example, with Internet domain names) the
|
||
name of the host MUST be lowercase. If specified by the application
|
||
protocol for services such as telnet and the Berkeley R commands that
|
||
run with system privileges, the first component MAY be the string
|
||
'host' instead of a service-specific identifier.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 100]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
7. Constants and Other Defined Values
|
||
|
||
7.1. Host Address Types
|
||
|
||
All negative values for the host address type are reserved for local
|
||
use. All non-negative values are reserved for officially assigned
|
||
type fields and interpretations.
|
||
|
||
Internet (IPv4) Addresses
|
||
|
||
Internet (IPv4) addresses are 32-bit (4-octet) quantities, encoded
|
||
in MSB order (most significant byte first). The IPv4 loopback
|
||
address SHOULD NOT appear in a Kerberos PDU. The type of IPv4
|
||
addresses is two (2).
|
||
|
||
Internet (IPv6) Addresses
|
||
|
||
IPv6 addresses [RFC3513] are 128-bit (16-octet) quantities,
|
||
encoded in MSB order (most significant byte first). The type of
|
||
IPv6 addresses is twenty-four (24). The following addresses MUST
|
||
NOT appear in any Kerberos PDU:
|
||
|
||
* the Unspecified Address
|
||
* the Loopback Address
|
||
* Link-Local addresses
|
||
|
||
This restriction applies to the inclusion in the address fields of
|
||
Kerberos PDUs, but not to the address fields of packets that might
|
||
carry such PDUs. The restriction is necessary because the use of
|
||
an address with non-global scope could allow the acceptance of a
|
||
message sent from a node that may have the same address, but which
|
||
is not the host intended by the entity that added the restriction.
|
||
If the link-local address type needs to be used for communication,
|
||
then the address restriction in tickets must not be used (i.e.,
|
||
addressless tickets must be used).
|
||
|
||
IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses MUST be represented as addresses of
|
||
type 2.
|
||
|
||
DECnet Phase IV Addresses
|
||
|
||
DECnet Phase IV addresses are 16-bit addresses, encoded in LSB
|
||
order. The type of DECnet Phase IV addresses is twelve (12).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 101]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Netbios Addresses
|
||
|
||
Netbios addresses are 16-octet addresses typically composed of 1
|
||
to 15 alphanumeric characters and padded with the US-ASCII SPC
|
||
character (code 32). The 16th octet MUST be the US-ASCII NUL
|
||
character (code 0). The type of Netbios addresses is twenty (20).
|
||
|
||
Directional Addresses
|
||
|
||
Including the sender address in KRB_SAFE and KRB_PRIV messages is
|
||
undesirable in many environments because the addresses may be
|
||
changed in transport by network address translators. However, if
|
||
these addresses are removed, the messages may be subject to a
|
||
reflection attack in which a message is reflected back to its
|
||
originator. The directional address type provides a way to avoid
|
||
transport addresses and reflection attacks. Directional addresses
|
||
are encoded as four-byte unsigned integers in network byte order.
|
||
If the message is originated by the party sending the original
|
||
KRB_AP_REQ message, then an address of 0 SHOULD be used. If the
|
||
message is originated by the party to whom that KRB_AP_REQ was
|
||
sent, then the address 1 SHOULD be used. Applications involving
|
||
multiple parties can specify the use of other addresses.
|
||
|
||
Directional addresses MUST only be used for the sender address
|
||
field in the KRB_SAFE or KRB_PRIV messages. They MUST NOT be used
|
||
as a ticket address or in a KRB_AP_REQ message. This address type
|
||
SHOULD only be used in situations where the sending party knows
|
||
that the receiving party supports the address type. This
|
||
generally means that directional addresses may only be used when
|
||
the application protocol requires their support. Directional
|
||
addresses are type (3).
|
||
|
||
7.2. KDC Messaging: IP Transports
|
||
|
||
Kerberos defines two IP transport mechanisms for communication
|
||
between clients and servers: UDP/IP and TCP/IP.
|
||
|
||
7.2.1. UDP/IP transport
|
||
|
||
Kerberos servers (KDCs) supporting IP transports MUST accept UDP
|
||
requests and SHOULD listen for them on port 88 (decimal) unless
|
||
specifically configured to listen on an alternative UDP port.
|
||
Alternate ports MAY be used when running multiple KDCs for multiple
|
||
realms on the same host.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 102]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kerberos clients supporting IP transports SHOULD support the sending
|
||
of UDP requests. Clients SHOULD use KDC discovery [7.2.3] to
|
||
identify the IP address and port to which they will send their
|
||
request.
|
||
|
||
When contacting a KDC for a KRB_KDC_REQ request using UDP/IP
|
||
transport, the client shall send a UDP datagram containing only an
|
||
encoding of the request to the KDC. The KDC will respond with a
|
||
reply datagram containing only an encoding of the reply message
|
||
(either a KRB_ERROR or a KRB_KDC_REP) to the sending port at the
|
||
sender's IP address. The response to a request made through UDP/IP
|
||
transport MUST also use UDP/IP transport. If the response cannot be
|
||
handled using UDP (for example, because it is too large), the KDC
|
||
MUST return KRB_ERR_RESPONSE_TOO_BIG, forcing the client to retry the
|
||
request using the TCP transport.
|
||
|
||
7.2.2. TCP/IP Transport
|
||
|
||
Kerberos servers (KDCs) supporting IP transports MUST accept TCP
|
||
requests and SHOULD listen for them on port 88 (decimal) unless
|
||
specifically configured to listen on an alternate TCP port.
|
||
Alternate ports MAY be used when running multiple KDCs for multiple
|
||
realms on the same host.
|
||
|
||
Clients MUST support the sending of TCP requests, but MAY choose to
|
||
try a request initially using the UDP transport. Clients SHOULD use
|
||
KDC discovery [7.2.3] to identify the IP address and port to which
|
||
they will send their request.
|
||
|
||
Implementation note: Some extensions to the Kerberos protocol will
|
||
not succeed if any client or KDC not supporting the TCP transport is
|
||
involved. Implementations of RFC 1510 were not required to support
|
||
TCP/IP transports.
|
||
|
||
When the KRB_KDC_REQ message is sent to the KDC over a TCP stream,
|
||
the response (KRB_KDC_REP or KRB_ERROR message) MUST be returned to
|
||
the client on the same TCP stream that was established for the
|
||
request. The KDC MAY close the TCP stream after sending a response,
|
||
but MAY leave the stream open for a reasonable period of time if it
|
||
expects a follow-up. Care must be taken in managing TCP/IP
|
||
connections on the KDC to prevent denial of service attacks based on
|
||
the number of open TCP/IP connections.
|
||
|
||
The client MUST be prepared to have the stream closed by the KDC at
|
||
any time after the receipt of a response. A stream closure SHOULD
|
||
NOT be treated as a fatal error. Instead, if multiple exchanges are
|
||
required (e.g., certain forms of pre-authentication), the client may
|
||
need to establish a new connection when it is ready to send
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 103]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
subsequent messages. A client MAY close the stream after receiving a
|
||
response, and SHOULD close the stream if it does not expect to send
|
||
follow-up messages.
|
||
|
||
A client MAY send multiple requests before receiving responses,
|
||
though it must be prepared to handle the connection being closed
|
||
after the first response.
|
||
|
||
Each request (KRB_KDC_REQ) and response (KRB_KDC_REP or KRB_ERROR)
|
||
sent over the TCP stream is preceded by the length of the request as
|
||
4 octets in network byte order. The high bit of the length is
|
||
reserved for future expansion and MUST currently be set to zero. If
|
||
a KDC that does not understand how to interpret a set high bit of the
|
||
length encoding receives a request with the high order bit of the
|
||
length set, it MUST return a KRB-ERROR message with the error
|
||
KRB_ERR_FIELD_TOOLONG and MUST close the TCP stream.
|
||
|
||
If multiple requests are sent over a single TCP connection and the
|
||
KDC sends multiple responses, the KDC is not required to send the
|
||
responses in the order of the corresponding requests. This may
|
||
permit some implementations to send each response as soon as it is
|
||
ready, even if earlier requests are still being processed (for
|
||
example, waiting for a response from an external device or database).
|
||
|
||
7.2.3. KDC Discovery on IP Networks
|
||
|
||
Kerberos client implementations MUST provide a means for the client
|
||
to determine the location of the Kerberos Key Distribution Centers
|
||
(KDCs). Traditionally, Kerberos implementations have stored such
|
||
configuration information in a file on each client machine.
|
||
Experience has shown that this method of storing configuration
|
||
information presents problems with out-of-date information and
|
||
scaling, especially when using cross-realm authentication. This
|
||
section describes a method for using the Domain Name System [RFC1035]
|
||
for storing KDC location information.
|
||
|
||
7.2.3.1. DNS vs. Kerberos: Case Sensitivity of Realm Names
|
||
|
||
In Kerberos, realm names are case sensitive. Although it is strongly
|
||
encouraged that all realm names be all uppercase, this recommendation
|
||
has not been adopted by all sites. Some sites use all lowercase
|
||
names and other use mixed case. DNS, on the other hand, is case
|
||
insensitive for queries. Because the realm names "MYREALM",
|
||
"myrealm", and "MyRealm" are all different, but resolve the same in
|
||
the domain name system, it is necessary that only one of the possible
|
||
combinations of upper- and lowercase characters be used in realm
|
||
names.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 104]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.2.3.2. Specifying KDC Location Information with DNS SRV records
|
||
|
||
KDC location information is to be stored using the DNS SRV RR
|
||
[RFC2782]. The format of this RR is as follows:
|
||
|
||
_Service._Proto.Realm TTL Class SRV Priority Weight Port Target
|
||
|
||
The Service name for Kerberos is always "kerberos".
|
||
|
||
The Proto can be either "udp" or "tcp". If these SRV records are to
|
||
be used, both "udp" and "tcp" records MUST be specified for all KDC
|
||
deployments.
|
||
|
||
The Realm is the Kerberos realm that this record corresponds to. The
|
||
realm MUST be a domain-style realm name.
|
||
|
||
TTL, Class, SRV, Priority, Weight, and Target have the standard
|
||
meaning as defined in RFC 2782.
|
||
|
||
As per RFC 2782, the Port number used for "_udp" and "_tcp" SRV
|
||
records SHOULD be the value assigned to "kerberos" by the Internet
|
||
Assigned Number Authority: 88 (decimal), unless the KDC is configured
|
||
to listen on an alternate TCP port.
|
||
|
||
Implementation note: Many existing client implementations do not
|
||
support KDC Discovery and are configured to send requests to the IANA
|
||
assigned port (88 decimal), so it is strongly recommended that KDCs
|
||
be configured to listen on that port.
|
||
|
||
7.2.3.3. KDC Discovery for Domain Style Realm Names on IP Networks
|
||
|
||
These are DNS records for a Kerberos realm EXAMPLE.COM. It has two
|
||
Kerberos servers, kdc1.example.com and kdc2.example.com. Queries
|
||
should be directed to kdc1.example.com first as per the specified
|
||
priority. Weights are not used in these sample records.
|
||
|
||
_kerberos._udp.EXAMPLE.COM. IN SRV 0 0 88 kdc1.example.com.
|
||
_kerberos._udp.EXAMPLE.COM. IN SRV 1 0 88 kdc2.example.com.
|
||
_kerberos._tcp.EXAMPLE.COM. IN SRV 0 0 88 kdc1.example.com.
|
||
_kerberos._tcp.EXAMPLE.COM. IN SRV 1 0 88 kdc2.example.com.
|
||
|
||
7.3. Name of the TGS
|
||
|
||
The principal identifier of the ticket-granting service shall be
|
||
composed of three parts: the realm of the KDC issuing the TGS ticket,
|
||
and a two-part name of type NT-SRV-INST, with the first part "krbtgt"
|
||
and the second part the name of the realm that will accept the TGT.
|
||
For example, a TGT issued by the ATHENA.MIT.EDU realm to be used to
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 105]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
get tickets from the ATHENA.MIT.EDU KDC has a principal identifier of
|
||
"ATHENA.MIT.EDU" (realm), ("krbtgt", "ATHENA.MIT.EDU") (name). A TGT
|
||
issued by the ATHENA.MIT.EDU realm to be used to get tickets from the
|
||
MIT.EDU realm has a principal identifier of "ATHENA.MIT.EDU" (realm),
|
||
("krbtgt", "MIT.EDU") (name).
|
||
|
||
7.4. OID Arc for KerberosV5
|
||
|
||
This OID MAY be used to identify Kerberos protocol messages
|
||
encapsulated in other protocols. It also designates the OID arc for
|
||
KerberosV5-related OIDs assigned by future IETF action.
|
||
Implementation note: RFC 1510 had an incorrect value (5) for "dod" in
|
||
its OID.
|
||
|
||
id-krb5 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
|
||
iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
|
||
security(5) kerberosV5(2)
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
Assignment of OIDs beneath the id-krb5 arc must be obtained by
|
||
contacting the registrar for the id-krb5 arc, or its designee. At
|
||
the time of the issuance of this RFC, such registrations can be
|
||
obtained by contacting krb5-oid-registrar@mit.edu.
|
||
|
||
7.5. Protocol Constants and Associated Values
|
||
|
||
The following tables list constants used in the protocol and define
|
||
their meanings. In the "specification" section, ranges are specified
|
||
that limit the values of constants for which values are defined here.
|
||
This allows implementations to make assumptions about the maximum
|
||
values that will be received for these constants. Implementations
|
||
receiving values outside the range specified in the "specification"
|
||
section MAY reject the request, but they MUST recover cleanly.
|
||
|
||
7.5.1. Key Usage Numbers
|
||
|
||
The encryption and checksum specifications in [RFC3961] require as
|
||
input a "key usage number", to alter the encryption key used in any
|
||
specific message in order to make certain types of cryptographic
|
||
attack more difficult. These are the key usage values assigned in
|
||
this document:
|
||
|
||
1. AS-REQ PA-ENC-TIMESTAMP padata timestamp, encrypted with
|
||
the client key (Section 5.2.7.2)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 106]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
2. AS-REP Ticket and TGS-REP Ticket (includes TGS session
|
||
key or application session key), encrypted with the
|
||
service key (Section 5.3)
|
||
3. AS-REP encrypted part (includes TGS session key or
|
||
application session key), encrypted with the client key
|
||
(Section 5.4.2)
|
||
4. TGS-REQ KDC-REQ-BODY AuthorizationData, encrypted with
|
||
the TGS session key (Section 5.4.1)
|
||
5. TGS-REQ KDC-REQ-BODY AuthorizationData, encrypted with
|
||
the TGS authenticator subkey (Section 5.4.1)
|
||
6. TGS-REQ PA-TGS-REQ padata AP-REQ Authenticator cksum,
|
||
keyed with the TGS session key (Section 5.5.1)
|
||
7. TGS-REQ PA-TGS-REQ padata AP-REQ Authenticator (includes
|
||
TGS authenticator subkey), encrypted with the TGS session
|
||
key (Section 5.5.1)
|
||
8. TGS-REP encrypted part (includes application session
|
||
key), encrypted with the TGS session key (Section 5.4.2)
|
||
9. TGS-REP encrypted part (includes application session
|
||
key), encrypted with the TGS authenticator subkey
|
||
(Section 5.4.2)
|
||
10. AP-REQ Authenticator cksum, keyed with the application
|
||
session key (Section 5.5.1)
|
||
11. AP-REQ Authenticator (includes application authenticator
|
||
subkey), encrypted with the application session key
|
||
(Section 5.5.1)
|
||
12. AP-REP encrypted part (includes application session
|
||
subkey), encrypted with the application session key
|
||
(Section 5.5.2)
|
||
13. KRB-PRIV encrypted part, encrypted with a key chosen by
|
||
the application (Section 5.7.1)
|
||
14. KRB-CRED encrypted part, encrypted with a key chosen by
|
||
the application (Section 5.8.1)
|
||
15. KRB-SAFE cksum, keyed with a key chosen by the
|
||
application (Section 5.6.1)
|
||
16-18. Reserved for future use in Kerberos and related
|
||
protocols.
|
||
19. AD-KDC-ISSUED checksum (ad-checksum in 5.2.6.4)
|
||
20-21. Reserved for future use in Kerberos and related
|
||
protocols.
|
||
22-25. Reserved for use in the Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API
|
||
mechanisms [RFC4121].
|
||
26-511. Reserved for future use in Kerberos and related
|
||
protocols.
|
||
512-1023. Reserved for uses internal to a Kerberos implementation.
|
||
1024. Encryption for application use in protocols that do not
|
||
specify key usage values
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 107]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
1025. Checksums for application use in protocols that do not
|
||
specify key usage values
|
||
1026-2047. Reserved for application use.
|
||
|
||
7.5.2. PreAuthentication Data Types
|
||
|
||
Padata and Data Type Padata-type Comment
|
||
Value
|
||
|
||
PA-TGS-REQ 1
|
||
PA-ENC-TIMESTAMP 2
|
||
PA-PW-SALT 3
|
||
[reserved] 4
|
||
PA-ENC-UNIX-TIME 5 (deprecated)
|
||
PA-SANDIA-SECUREID 6
|
||
PA-SESAME 7
|
||
PA-OSF-DCE 8
|
||
PA-CYBERSAFE-SECUREID 9
|
||
PA-AFS3-SALT 10
|
||
PA-ETYPE-INFO 11
|
||
PA-SAM-CHALLENGE 12 (sam/otp)
|
||
PA-SAM-RESPONSE 13 (sam/otp)
|
||
PA-PK-AS-REQ_OLD 14 (pkinit)
|
||
PA-PK-AS-REP_OLD 15 (pkinit)
|
||
PA-PK-AS-REQ 16 (pkinit)
|
||
PA-PK-AS-REP 17 (pkinit)
|
||
PA-ETYPE-INFO2 19 (replaces pa-etype-info)
|
||
PA-USE-SPECIFIED-KVNO 20
|
||
PA-SAM-REDIRECT 21 (sam/otp)
|
||
PA-GET-FROM-TYPED-DATA 22 (embedded in typed data)
|
||
TD-PADATA 22 (embeds padata)
|
||
PA-SAM-ETYPE-INFO 23 (sam/otp)
|
||
PA-ALT-PRINC 24 (crawdad@fnal.gov)
|
||
PA-SAM-CHALLENGE2 30 (kenh@pobox.com)
|
||
PA-SAM-RESPONSE2 31 (kenh@pobox.com)
|
||
PA-EXTRA-TGT 41 Reserved extra TGT
|
||
TD-PKINIT-CMS-CERTIFICATES 101 CertificateSet from CMS
|
||
TD-KRB-PRINCIPAL 102 PrincipalName
|
||
TD-KRB-REALM 103 Realm
|
||
TD-TRUSTED-CERTIFIERS 104 from PKINIT
|
||
TD-CERTIFICATE-INDEX 105 from PKINIT
|
||
TD-APP-DEFINED-ERROR 106 application specific
|
||
TD-REQ-NONCE 107 INTEGER
|
||
TD-REQ-SEQ 108 INTEGER
|
||
PA-PAC-REQUEST 128 (jbrezak@exchange.microsoft.com)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 108]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.5.3. Address Types
|
||
|
||
Address Type Value
|
||
|
||
IPv4 2
|
||
Directional 3
|
||
ChaosNet 5
|
||
XNS 6
|
||
ISO 7
|
||
DECNET Phase IV 12
|
||
AppleTalk DDP 16
|
||
NetBios 20
|
||
IPv6 24
|
||
|
||
7.5.4. Authorization Data Types
|
||
|
||
Authorization Data Type Ad-type Value
|
||
|
||
AD-IF-RELEVANT 1
|
||
AD-INTENDED-FOR-SERVER 2
|
||
AD-INTENDED-FOR-APPLICATION-CLASS 3
|
||
AD-KDC-ISSUED 4
|
||
AD-AND-OR 5
|
||
AD-MANDATORY-TICKET-EXTENSIONS 6
|
||
AD-IN-TICKET-EXTENSIONS 7
|
||
AD-MANDATORY-FOR-KDC 8
|
||
Reserved values 9-63
|
||
OSF-DCE 64
|
||
SESAME 65
|
||
AD-OSF-DCE-PKI-CERTID 66 (hemsath@us.ibm.com)
|
||
AD-WIN2K-PAC 128 (jbrezak@exchange.microsoft.com)
|
||
AD-ETYPE-NEGOTIATION 129 (lzhu@windows.microsoft.com)
|
||
|
||
7.5.5. Transited Encoding Types
|
||
|
||
Transited Encoding Type Tr-type Value
|
||
|
||
DOMAIN-X500-COMPRESS 1
|
||
Reserved values All others
|
||
|
||
7.5.6. Protocol Version Number
|
||
|
||
Label Value Meaning or MIT Code
|
||
|
||
pvno 5 Current Kerberos protocol version number
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 109]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.5.7. Kerberos Message Types
|
||
|
||
Message Type Value Meaning
|
||
|
||
KRB_AS_REQ 10 Request for initial authentication
|
||
KRB_AS_REP 11 Response to KRB_AS_REQ request
|
||
KRB_TGS_REQ 12 Request for authentication based on TGT
|
||
KRB_TGS_REP 13 Response to KRB_TGS_REQ request
|
||
KRB_AP_REQ 14 Application request to server
|
||
KRB_AP_REP 15 Response to KRB_AP_REQ_MUTUAL
|
||
KRB_RESERVED16 16 Reserved for user-to-user krb_tgt_request
|
||
KRB_RESERVED17 17 Reserved for user-to-user krb_tgt_reply
|
||
KRB_SAFE 20 Safe (checksummed) application message
|
||
KRB_PRIV 21 Private (encrypted) application message
|
||
KRB_CRED 22 Private (encrypted) message to forward
|
||
credentials
|
||
KRB_ERROR 30 Error response
|
||
|
||
7.5.8. Name Types
|
||
|
||
Name Type Value Meaning
|
||
|
||
KRB_NT_UNKNOWN 0 Name type not known
|
||
KRB_NT_PRINCIPAL 1 Just the name of the principal as in DCE,
|
||
or for users
|
||
KRB_NT_SRV_INST 2 Service and other unique instance (krbtgt)
|
||
KRB_NT_SRV_HST 3 Service with host name as instance
|
||
(telnet, rcommands)
|
||
KRB_NT_SRV_XHST 4 Service with host as remaining components
|
||
KRB_NT_UID 5 Unique ID
|
||
KRB_NT_X500_PRINCIPAL 6 Encoded X.509 Distinguished name [RFC2253]
|
||
KRB_NT_SMTP_NAME 7 Name in form of SMTP email name
|
||
(e.g., user@example.com)
|
||
KRB_NT_ENTERPRISE 10 Enterprise name; may be mapped to
|
||
principal name
|
||
|
||
7.5.9. Error Codes
|
||
|
||
Error Code Value Meaning
|
||
|
||
KDC_ERR_NONE 0 No error
|
||
KDC_ERR_NAME_EXP 1 Client's entry in database
|
||
has expired
|
||
KDC_ERR_SERVICE_EXP 2 Server's entry in database
|
||
has expired
|
||
KDC_ERR_BAD_PVNO 3 Requested protocol version
|
||
number not supported
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 110]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
KDC_ERR_C_OLD_MAST_KVNO 4 Client's key encrypted in
|
||
old master key
|
||
KDC_ERR_S_OLD_MAST_KVNO 5 Server's key encrypted in
|
||
old master key
|
||
KDC_ERR_C_PRINCIPAL_UNKNOWN 6 Client not found in
|
||
Kerberos database
|
||
KDC_ERR_S_PRINCIPAL_UNKNOWN 7 Server not found in
|
||
Kerberos database
|
||
KDC_ERR_PRINCIPAL_NOT_UNIQUE 8 Multiple principal entries
|
||
in database
|
||
KDC_ERR_NULL_KEY 9 The client or server has a
|
||
null key
|
||
KDC_ERR_CANNOT_POSTDATE 10 Ticket not eligible for
|
||
postdating
|
||
KDC_ERR_NEVER_VALID 11 Requested starttime is
|
||
later than end time
|
||
KDC_ERR_POLICY 12 KDC policy rejects request
|
||
KDC_ERR_BADOPTION 13 KDC cannot accommodate
|
||
requested option
|
||
KDC_ERR_ETYPE_NOSUPP 14 KDC has no support for
|
||
encryption type
|
||
KDC_ERR_SUMTYPE_NOSUPP 15 KDC has no support for
|
||
checksum type
|
||
KDC_ERR_PADATA_TYPE_NOSUPP 16 KDC has no support for
|
||
padata type
|
||
KDC_ERR_TRTYPE_NOSUPP 17 KDC has no support for
|
||
transited type
|
||
KDC_ERR_CLIENT_REVOKED 18 Clients credentials have
|
||
been revoked
|
||
KDC_ERR_SERVICE_REVOKED 19 Credentials for server have
|
||
been revoked
|
||
KDC_ERR_TGT_REVOKED 20 TGT has been revoked
|
||
KDC_ERR_CLIENT_NOTYET 21 Client not yet valid; try
|
||
again later
|
||
KDC_ERR_SERVICE_NOTYET 22 Server not yet valid; try
|
||
again later
|
||
KDC_ERR_KEY_EXPIRED 23 Password has expired;
|
||
change password to reset
|
||
KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_FAILED 24 Pre-authentication
|
||
information was invalid
|
||
KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED 25 Additional pre-
|
||
authentication required
|
||
KDC_ERR_SERVER_NOMATCH 26 Requested server and ticket
|
||
don't match
|
||
KDC_ERR_MUST_USE_USER2USER 27 Server principal valid for
|
||
user2user only
|
||
KDC_ERR_PATH_NOT_ACCEPTED 28 KDC Policy rejects
|
||
transited path
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 111]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
KDC_ERR_SVC_UNAVAILABLE 29 A service is not available
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_BAD_INTEGRITY 31 Integrity check on
|
||
decrypted field failed
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_TKT_EXPIRED 32 Ticket expired
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_TKT_NYV 33 Ticket not yet valid
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_REPEAT 34 Request is a replay
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_NOT_US 35 The ticket isn't for us
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_BADMATCH 36 Ticket and authenticator
|
||
don't match
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_SKEW 37 Clock skew too great
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_BADADDR 38 Incorrect net address
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_BADVERSION 39 Protocol version mismatch
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_MSG_TYPE 40 Invalid msg type
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_MODIFIED 41 Message stream modified
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_BADORDER 42 Message out of order
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_BADKEYVER 44 Specified version of key is
|
||
not available
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_NOKEY 45 Service key not available
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_MUT_FAIL 46 Mutual authentication
|
||
failed
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_BADDIRECTION 47 Incorrect message direction
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_METHOD 48 Alternative authentication
|
||
method required
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_BADSEQ 49 Incorrect sequence number
|
||
in message
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_INAPP_CKSUM 50 Inappropriate type of
|
||
checksum in message
|
||
KRB_AP_PATH_NOT_ACCEPTED 51 Policy rejects transited
|
||
path
|
||
KRB_ERR_RESPONSE_TOO_BIG 52 Response too big for UDP;
|
||
retry with TCP
|
||
KRB_ERR_GENERIC 60 Generic error (description
|
||
in e-text)
|
||
KRB_ERR_FIELD_TOOLONG 61 Field is too long for this
|
||
implementation
|
||
KDC_ERROR_CLIENT_NOT_TRUSTED 62 Reserved for PKINIT
|
||
KDC_ERROR_KDC_NOT_TRUSTED 63 Reserved for PKINIT
|
||
KDC_ERROR_INVALID_SIG 64 Reserved for PKINIT
|
||
KDC_ERR_KEY_TOO_WEAK 65 Reserved for PKINIT
|
||
KDC_ERR_CERTIFICATE_MISMATCH 66 Reserved for PKINIT
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_NO_TGT 67 No TGT available to
|
||
validate USER-TO-USER
|
||
KDC_ERR_WRONG_REALM 68 Reserved for future use
|
||
KRB_AP_ERR_USER_TO_USER_REQUIRED 69 Ticket must be for
|
||
USER-TO-USER
|
||
KDC_ERR_CANT_VERIFY_CERTIFICATE 70 Reserved for PKINIT
|
||
KDC_ERR_INVALID_CERTIFICATE 71 Reserved for PKINIT
|
||
KDC_ERR_REVOKED_CERTIFICATE 72 Reserved for PKINIT
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 112]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
KDC_ERR_REVOCATION_STATUS_UNKNOWN 73 Reserved for PKINIT
|
||
KDC_ERR_REVOCATION_STATUS_UNAVAILABLE 74 Reserved for PKINIT
|
||
KDC_ERR_CLIENT_NAME_MISMATCH 75 Reserved for PKINIT
|
||
KDC_ERR_KDC_NAME_MISMATCH 76 Reserved for PKINIT
|
||
|
||
8. Interoperability Requirements
|
||
|
||
Version 5 of the Kerberos protocol supports a myriad of options.
|
||
Among these are multiple encryption and checksum types; alternative
|
||
encoding schemes for the transited field; optional mechanisms for
|
||
pre-authentication; the handling of tickets with no addresses;
|
||
options for mutual authentication; user-to-user authentication;
|
||
support for proxies; the format of realm names; the handling of
|
||
authorization data; and forwarding, postdating, and renewing tickets.
|
||
|
||
In order to ensure the interoperability of realms, it is necessary to
|
||
define a minimal configuration that must be supported by all
|
||
implementations. This minimal configuration is subject to change as
|
||
technology does. For example, if at some later date it is discovered
|
||
that one of the required encryption or checksum algorithms is not
|
||
secure, it will be replaced.
|
||
|
||
8.1. Specification 2
|
||
|
||
This section defines the second specification of these options.
|
||
Implementations which are configured in this way can be said to
|
||
support Kerberos Version 5 Specification 2 (5.2). Specification 1
|
||
(deprecated) may be found in RFC 1510.
|
||
|
||
Transport
|
||
|
||
TCP/IP and UDP/IP transport MUST be supported by clients and KDCs
|
||
claiming conformance to specification 2.
|
||
|
||
Encryption and Checksum Methods
|
||
|
||
The following encryption and checksum mechanisms MUST be
|
||
supported:
|
||
|
||
Encryption: AES256-CTS-HMAC-SHA1-96 [RFC3962]
|
||
Checksums: HMAC-SHA1-96-AES256 [RFC3962]
|
||
|
||
Implementations SHOULD support other mechanisms as well, but the
|
||
additional mechanisms may only be used when communicating with
|
||
principals known to also support them. The following mechanisms
|
||
from [RFC3961] and [RFC3962] SHOULD be supported:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 113]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Encryption: AES128-CTS-HMAC-SHA1-96, DES-CBC-MD5, DES3-CBC-SHA1-KD
|
||
Checksums: DES-MD5, HMAC-SHA1-DES3-KD, HMAC-SHA1-96-AES128
|
||
|
||
Implementations MAY support other mechanisms as well, but the
|
||
additional mechanisms may only be used when communicating with
|
||
principals known to support them also.
|
||
|
||
Implementation note: Earlier implementations of Kerberos generate
|
||
messages using the CRC-32 and RSA-MD5 checksum methods. For
|
||
interoperability with these earlier releases, implementors MAY
|
||
consider supporting these checksum methods but should carefully
|
||
analyze the security implications to limit the situations within
|
||
which these methods are accepted.
|
||
|
||
Realm Names
|
||
|
||
All implementations MUST understand hierarchical realms in both
|
||
the Internet Domain and the X.500 style. When a TGT for an
|
||
unknown realm is requested, the KDC MUST be able to determine the
|
||
names of the intermediate realms between the KDCs realm and the
|
||
requested realm.
|
||
|
||
Transited Field Encoding
|
||
|
||
DOMAIN-X500-COMPRESS (described in Section 3.3.3.2) MUST be
|
||
supported. Alternative encodings MAY be supported, but they may
|
||
only be used when that encoding is supported by ALL intermediate
|
||
realms.
|
||
|
||
Pre-authentication Methods
|
||
|
||
The TGS-REQ method MUST be supported. It is not used on the
|
||
initial request. The PA-ENC-TIMESTAMP method MUST be supported by
|
||
clients, but whether it is enabled by default MAY be determined on
|
||
a realm-by-realm basis. If the method is not used in the initial
|
||
request and the error KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED is returned
|
||
specifying PA-ENC-TIMESTAMP as an acceptable method, the client
|
||
SHOULD retry the initial request using the PA-ENC-TIMESTAMP pre-
|
||
authentication method. Servers need not support the PA-ENC-
|
||
TIMESTAMP method, but if it is not supported the server SHOULD
|
||
ignore the presence of PA-ENC-TIMESTAMP pre-authentication in a
|
||
request.
|
||
|
||
The ETYPE-INFO2 method MUST be supported; this method is used to
|
||
communicate the set of supported encryption types, and
|
||
corresponding salt and string to key parameters. The ETYPE-INFO
|
||
method SHOULD be supported for interoperability with older
|
||
implementation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 114]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Mutual Authentication
|
||
|
||
Mutual authentication (via the KRB_AP_REP message) MUST be
|
||
supported.
|
||
|
||
Ticket Addresses and Flags
|
||
|
||
All KDCs MUST pass through tickets that carry no addresses (i.e.,
|
||
if a TGT contains no addresses, the KDC will return derivative
|
||
tickets). Implementations SHOULD default to requesting
|
||
addressless tickets, as this significantly increases
|
||
interoperability with network address translation. In some cases,
|
||
realms or application servers MAY require that tickets have an
|
||
address.
|
||
|
||
Implementations SHOULD accept directional address type for the
|
||
KRB_SAFE and KRB_PRIV message and SHOULD include directional
|
||
addresses in these messages when other address types are not
|
||
available.
|
||
|
||
Proxies and forwarded tickets MUST be supported. Individual
|
||
realms and application servers can set their own policy on when
|
||
such tickets will be accepted.
|
||
|
||
All implementations MUST recognize renewable and postdated
|
||
tickets, but they need not actually implement them. If these
|
||
options are not supported, the starttime and endtime in the ticket
|
||
SHALL specify a ticket's entire useful life. When a postdated
|
||
ticket is decoded by a server, all implementations SHALL make the
|
||
presence of the postdated flag visible to the calling server.
|
||
|
||
User-to-User Authentication
|
||
|
||
Support for user-to-user authentication (via the ENC-TKT-IN-SKEY
|
||
KDC option) MUST be provided by implementations, but individual
|
||
realms MAY decide as a matter of policy to reject such requests on
|
||
a per-principal or realm-wide basis.
|
||
|
||
Authorization Data
|
||
|
||
Implementations MUST pass all authorization data subfields from
|
||
TGTs to any derivative tickets unless they are directed to
|
||
suppress a subfield as part of the definition of that registered
|
||
subfield type. (It is never incorrect to pass on a subfield, and
|
||
no registered subfield types presently specify suppression at the
|
||
KDC.)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 115]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Implementations MUST make the contents of any authorization data
|
||
subfields available to the server when a ticket is used.
|
||
Implementations are not required to allow clients to specify the
|
||
contents of the authorization data fields.
|
||
|
||
Constant Ranges
|
||
|
||
All protocol constants are constrained to 32-bit (signed) values
|
||
unless further constrained by the protocol definition. This limit
|
||
is provided to allow implementations to make assumptions about the
|
||
maximum values that will be received for these constants.
|
||
Implementations receiving values outside this range MAY reject the
|
||
request, but they MUST recover cleanly.
|
||
|
||
8.2. Recommended KDC Values
|
||
|
||
Following is a list of recommended values for a KDC configuration.
|
||
|
||
Minimum lifetime 5 minutes
|
||
Maximum renewable lifetime 1 week
|
||
Maximum ticket lifetime 1 day
|
||
Acceptable clock skew 5 minutes
|
||
Empty addresses Allowed
|
||
Proxiable, etc. Allowed
|
||
|
||
9. IANA Considerations
|
||
|
||
Section 7 of this document specifies protocol constants and other
|
||
defined values required for the interoperability of multiple
|
||
implementations. Until a subsequent RFC specifies otherwise, or the
|
||
Kerberos working group is shut down, allocations of additional
|
||
protocol constants and other defined values required for extensions
|
||
to the Kerberos protocol will be administered by the Kerberos working
|
||
group. Following the recommendations outlined in [RFC2434], guidance
|
||
is provided to the IANA as follows:
|
||
|
||
"reserved" realm name types in Section 6.1 and "other" realm types
|
||
except those beginning with "X-" or "x-" will not be registered
|
||
without IETF standards action, at which point guidelines for further
|
||
assignment will be specified. Realm name types beginning with "X-"
|
||
or "x-" are for private use.
|
||
|
||
For host address types described in Section 7.1, negative values are
|
||
for private use. Assignment of additional positive numbers is
|
||
subject to review by the Kerberos working group or other expert
|
||
review.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 116]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Additional key usage numbers, as defined in Section 7.5.1, will be
|
||
assigned subject to review by the Kerberos working group or other
|
||
expert review.
|
||
|
||
Additional preauthentication data type values, as defined in section
|
||
7.5.2, will be assigned subject to review by the Kerberos working
|
||
group or other expert review.
|
||
|
||
Additional authorization data types as defined in Section 7.5.4, will
|
||
be assigned subject to review by the Kerberos working group or other
|
||
expert review. Although it is anticipated that there may be
|
||
significant demand for private use types, provision is intentionally
|
||
not made for a private use portion of the namespace because conflicts
|
||
between privately assigned values could have detrimental security
|
||
implications.
|
||
|
||
Additional transited encoding types, as defined in Section 7.5.5,
|
||
present special concerns for interoperability with existing
|
||
implementations. As such, such assignments will only be made by
|
||
standards action, except that the Kerberos working group or another
|
||
other working group with competent jurisdiction may make preliminary
|
||
assignments for documents that are moving through the standards
|
||
process.
|
||
|
||
Additional Kerberos message types, as described in Section 7.5.7,
|
||
will be assigned subject to review by the Kerberos working group or
|
||
other expert review.
|
||
|
||
Additional name types, as described in Section 7.5.8, will be
|
||
assigned subject to review by the Kerberos working group or other
|
||
expert review.
|
||
|
||
Additional error codes described in Section 7.5.9 will be assigned
|
||
subject to review by the Kerberos working group or other expert
|
||
review.
|
||
|
||
10. Security Considerations
|
||
|
||
As an authentication service, Kerberos provides a means of verifying
|
||
the identity of principals on a network. By itself, Kerberos does
|
||
not provide authorization. Applications should not accept the
|
||
issuance of a service ticket by the Kerberos server as granting
|
||
authority to use the service, since such applications may become
|
||
vulnerable to the bypass of this authorization check in an
|
||
environment where they inter-operate with other KDCs or where other
|
||
options for application authentication are provided.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 117]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Denial of service attacks are not solved with Kerberos. There are
|
||
places in the protocols where an intruder can prevent an application
|
||
from participating in the proper authentication steps. Because
|
||
authentication is a required step for the use of many services,
|
||
successful denial of service attacks on a Kerberos server might
|
||
result in the denial of other network services that rely on Kerberos
|
||
for authentication. Kerberos is vulnerable to many kinds of denial
|
||
of service attacks: those on the network, which would prevent clients
|
||
from contacting the KDC; those on the domain name system, which could
|
||
prevent a client from finding the IP address of the Kerberos server;
|
||
and those by overloading the Kerberos KDC itself with repeated
|
||
requests.
|
||
|
||
Interoperability conflicts caused by incompatible character-set usage
|
||
(see 5.2.1) can result in denial of service for clients that utilize
|
||
character-sets in Kerberos strings other than those stored in the KDC
|
||
database.
|
||
|
||
Authentication servers maintain a database of principals (i.e., users
|
||
and servers) and their secret keys. The security of the
|
||
authentication server machines is critical. The breach of security
|
||
of an authentication server will compromise the security of all
|
||
servers that rely upon the compromised KDC, and will compromise the
|
||
authentication of any principals registered in the realm of the
|
||
compromised KDC.
|
||
|
||
Principals must keep their secret keys secret. If an intruder
|
||
somehow steals a principal's key, it will be able to masquerade as
|
||
that principal or impersonate any server to the legitimate principal.
|
||
|
||
Password-guessing attacks are not solved by Kerberos. If a user
|
||
chooses a poor password, it is possible for an attacker to
|
||
successfully mount an off-line dictionary attack by repeatedly
|
||
attempting to decrypt, with successive entries from a dictionary,
|
||
messages obtained that are encrypted under a key derived from the
|
||
user's password.
|
||
|
||
Unless pre-authentication options are required by the policy of a
|
||
realm, the KDC will not know whether a request for authentication
|
||
succeeds. An attacker can request a reply with credentials for any
|
||
principal. These credentials will likely not be of much use to the
|
||
attacker unless it knows the client's secret key, but the
|
||
availability of the response encrypted in the client's secret key
|
||
provides the attacker with ciphertext that may be used to mount brute
|
||
force or dictionary attacks to decrypt the credentials, by guessing
|
||
the user's password. For this reason it is strongly encouraged that
|
||
Kerberos realms require the use of pre-authentication. Even with
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 118]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
pre-authentication, attackers may try brute force or dictionary
|
||
attacks against credentials that are observed by eavesdropping on the
|
||
network.
|
||
|
||
Because a client can request a ticket for any server principal and
|
||
can attempt a brute force or dictionary attack against the server
|
||
principal's key using that ticket, it is strongly encouraged that
|
||
keys be randomly generated (rather than generated from passwords) for
|
||
any principals that are usable as the target principal for a
|
||
KRB_TGS_REQ or KRB_AS_REQ messages. [RFC4086]
|
||
|
||
Although the DES-CBC-MD5 encryption method and DES-MD5 checksum
|
||
methods are listed as SHOULD be implemented for backward
|
||
compatibility, the single DES encryption algorithm on which these are
|
||
based is weak, and stronger algorithms should be used whenever
|
||
possible.
|
||
|
||
Each host on the network must have a clock that is loosely
|
||
synchronized to the time of the other hosts; this synchronization is
|
||
used to reduce the bookkeeping needs of application servers when they
|
||
do replay detection. The degree of "looseness" can be configured on
|
||
a per-server basis, but it is typically on the order of 5 minutes.
|
||
If the clocks are synchronized over the network, the clock
|
||
synchronization protocol MUST itself be secured from network
|
||
attackers.
|
||
|
||
Principal identifiers must not recycled on a short-term basis. A
|
||
typical mode of access control will use access control lists (ACLs)
|
||
to grant permissions to particular principals. If a stale ACL entry
|
||
remains for a deleted principal and the principal identifier is
|
||
reused, the new principal will inherit rights specified in the stale
|
||
ACL entry. By not reusing principal identifiers, the danger of
|
||
inadvertent access is removed.
|
||
|
||
Proper decryption of an KRB_AS_REP message from the KDC is not
|
||
sufficient for the host to verify the identity of the user; the user
|
||
and an attacker could cooperate to generate a KRB_AS_REP format
|
||
message that decrypts properly but is not from the proper KDC. To
|
||
authenticate a user logging on to a local system, the credentials
|
||
obtained in the AS exchange may first be used in a TGS exchange to
|
||
obtain credentials for a local server. Those credentials must then
|
||
be verified by a local server through successful completion of the
|
||
Client/Server exchange.
|
||
|
||
Many RFC 1510-compliant implementations ignore unknown authorization
|
||
data elements. Depending on these implementations to honor
|
||
authorization data restrictions may create a security weakness.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 119]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kerberos credentials contain clear-text information identifying the
|
||
principals to which they apply. If privacy of this information is
|
||
needed, this exchange should itself be encapsulated in a protocol
|
||
providing for confidentiality on the exchange of these credentials.
|
||
|
||
Applications must take care to protect communications subsequent to
|
||
authentication, either by using the KRB_PRIV or KRB_SAFE messages as
|
||
appropriate, or by applying their own confidentiality or integrity
|
||
mechanisms on such communications. Completion of the KRB_AP_REQ and
|
||
KRB_AP_REP exchange without subsequent use of confidentiality and
|
||
integrity mechanisms provides only for authentication of the parties
|
||
to the communication and not confidentiality and integrity of the
|
||
subsequent communication. Applications applying confidentiality and
|
||
integrity protection mechanisms other than KRB_PRIV and KRB_SAFE must
|
||
make sure that the authentication step is appropriately linked with
|
||
the protected communication channel that is established by the
|
||
application.
|
||
|
||
Unless the application server provides its own suitable means to
|
||
protect against replay (for example, a challenge-response sequence
|
||
initiated by the server after authentication, or use of a server-
|
||
generated encryption subkey), the server must utilize a replay cache
|
||
to remember any authenticator presented within the allowable clock
|
||
skew. All services sharing a key need to use the same replay cache.
|
||
If separate replay caches are used, then an authenticator used with
|
||
one such service could later be replayed to a different service with
|
||
the same service principal.
|
||
|
||
If a server loses track of authenticators presented within the
|
||
allowable clock skew, it must reject all requests until the clock
|
||
skew interval has passed, providing assurance that any lost or
|
||
replayed authenticators will fall outside the allowable clock skew
|
||
and can no longer be successfully replayed.
|
||
|
||
Implementations of Kerberos should not use untrusted directory
|
||
servers to determine the realm of a host. To allow this would allow
|
||
the compromise of the directory server to enable an attacker to
|
||
direct the client to accept authentication with the wrong principal
|
||
(i.e., one with a similar name, but in a realm with which the
|
||
legitimate host was not registered).
|
||
|
||
Implementations of Kerberos must not use DNS to map one name to
|
||
another (canonicalize) in order to determine the host part of the
|
||
principal name with which one is to communicate. To allow this
|
||
canonicalization would allow a compromise of the DNS to result in a
|
||
client obtaining credentials and correctly authenticating to the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 120]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
wrong principal. Though the client will know who it is communicating
|
||
with, it will not be the principal with which it intended to
|
||
communicate.
|
||
|
||
If the Kerberos server returns a TGT for a realm 'closer' than the
|
||
desired realm, the client may use local policy configuration to
|
||
verify that the authentication path used is an acceptable one.
|
||
Alternatively, a client may choose its own authentication path rather
|
||
than rely on the Kerberos server to select one. In either case, any
|
||
policy or configuration information used to choose or validate
|
||
authentication paths, whether by the Kerberos server or client, must
|
||
be obtained from a trusted source.
|
||
|
||
The Kerberos protocol in its basic form does not provide perfect
|
||
forward secrecy for communications. If traffic has been recorded by
|
||
an eavesdropper, then messages encrypted using the KRB_PRIV message,
|
||
or messages encrypted using application-specific encryption under
|
||
keys exchanged using Kerberos can be decrypted if the user's,
|
||
application server's, or KDC's key is subsequently discovered. This
|
||
is because the session key used to encrypt such messages, when
|
||
transmitted over the network, is encrypted in the key of the
|
||
application server. It is also encrypted under the session key from
|
||
the user's TGT when it is returned to the user in the KRB_TGS_REP
|
||
message. The session key from the TGT is sent to the user in the
|
||
KRB_AS_REP message encrypted in the user's secret key and embedded in
|
||
the TGT, which was encrypted in the key of the KDC. Applications
|
||
requiring perfect forward secrecy must exchange keys through
|
||
mechanisms that provide such assurance, but may use Kerberos for
|
||
authentication of the encrypted channel established through such
|
||
other means.
|
||
|
||
11. Acknowledgements
|
||
|
||
This document is a revision to RFC 1510 which was co-authored with
|
||
John Kohl. The specification of the Kerberos protocol described in
|
||
this document is the result of many years of effort. Over this
|
||
period, many individuals have contributed to the definition of the
|
||
protocol and to the writing of the specification. Unfortunately, it
|
||
is not possible to list all contributors as authors of this document,
|
||
though there are many not listed who are authors in spirit, including
|
||
those who contributed text for parts of some sections, who
|
||
contributed to the design of parts of the protocol, and who
|
||
contributed significantly to the discussion of the protocol in the
|
||
IETF common authentication technology (CAT) and Kerberos working
|
||
groups.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 121]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Among those contributing to the development and specification of
|
||
Kerberos were Jeffrey Altman, John Brezak, Marc Colan, Johan
|
||
Danielsson, Don Davis, Doug Engert, Dan Geer, Paul Hill, John Kohl,
|
||
Marc Horowitz, Matt Hur, Jeffrey Hutzelman, Paul Leach, John Linn,
|
||
Ari Medvinsky, Sasha Medvinsky, Steve Miller, Jon Rochlis, Jerome
|
||
Saltzer, Jeffrey Schiller, Jennifer Steiner, Ralph Swick, Mike Swift,
|
||
Jonathan Trostle, Theodore Ts'o, Brian Tung, Jacques Vidrine, Assar
|
||
Westerlund, and Nicolas Williams. Many other members of MIT Project
|
||
Athena, the MIT networking group, and the Kerberos and CAT working
|
||
groups of the IETF contributed but are not listed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 122]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
A. ASN.1 module
|
||
|
||
KerberosV5Spec2 {
|
||
iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
|
||
security(5) kerberosV5(2) modules(4) krb5spec2(2)
|
||
} DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN
|
||
|
||
-- OID arc for KerberosV5
|
||
--
|
||
-- This OID may be used to identify Kerberos protocol messages
|
||
-- encapsulated in other protocols.
|
||
--
|
||
-- This OID also designates the OID arc for KerberosV5-related OIDs.
|
||
--
|
||
-- NOTE: RFC 1510 had an incorrect value (5) for "dod" in its OID.
|
||
id-krb5 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
|
||
iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
|
||
security(5) kerberosV5(2)
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
Int32 ::= INTEGER (-2147483648..2147483647)
|
||
-- signed values representable in 32 bits
|
||
|
||
UInt32 ::= INTEGER (0..4294967295)
|
||
-- unsigned 32 bit values
|
||
|
||
Microseconds ::= INTEGER (0..999999)
|
||
-- microseconds
|
||
|
||
KerberosString ::= GeneralString (IA5String)
|
||
|
||
Realm ::= KerberosString
|
||
|
||
PrincipalName ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
name-type [0] Int32,
|
||
name-string [1] SEQUENCE OF KerberosString
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KerberosTime ::= GeneralizedTime -- with no fractional seconds
|
||
|
||
HostAddress ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
addr-type [0] Int32,
|
||
address [1] OCTET STRING
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
-- NOTE: HostAddresses is always used as an OPTIONAL field and
|
||
-- should not be empty.
|
||
HostAddresses -- NOTE: subtly different from rfc1510,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 123]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
-- but has a value mapping and encodes the same
|
||
::= SEQUENCE OF HostAddress
|
||
|
||
-- NOTE: AuthorizationData is always used as an OPTIONAL field and
|
||
-- should not be empty.
|
||
AuthorizationData ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
|
||
ad-type [0] Int32,
|
||
ad-data [1] OCTET STRING
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
PA-DATA ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
-- NOTE: first tag is [1], not [0]
|
||
padata-type [1] Int32,
|
||
padata-value [2] OCTET STRING -- might be encoded AP-REQ
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KerberosFlags ::= BIT STRING (SIZE (32..MAX))
|
||
-- minimum number of bits shall be sent,
|
||
-- but no fewer than 32
|
||
|
||
EncryptedData ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
etype [0] Int32 -- EncryptionType --,
|
||
kvno [1] UInt32 OPTIONAL,
|
||
cipher [2] OCTET STRING -- ciphertext
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
EncryptionKey ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
keytype [0] Int32 -- actually encryption type --,
|
||
keyvalue [1] OCTET STRING
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
Checksum ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
cksumtype [0] Int32,
|
||
checksum [1] OCTET STRING
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
Ticket ::= [APPLICATION 1] SEQUENCE {
|
||
tkt-vno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
realm [1] Realm,
|
||
sname [2] PrincipalName,
|
||
enc-part [3] EncryptedData -- EncTicketPart
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
-- Encrypted part of ticket
|
||
EncTicketPart ::= [APPLICATION 3] SEQUENCE {
|
||
flags [0] TicketFlags,
|
||
key [1] EncryptionKey,
|
||
crealm [2] Realm,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 124]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
cname [3] PrincipalName,
|
||
transited [4] TransitedEncoding,
|
||
authtime [5] KerberosTime,
|
||
starttime [6] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
endtime [7] KerberosTime,
|
||
renew-till [8] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
caddr [9] HostAddresses OPTIONAL,
|
||
authorization-data [10] AuthorizationData OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
-- encoded Transited field
|
||
TransitedEncoding ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
tr-type [0] Int32 -- must be registered --,
|
||
contents [1] OCTET STRING
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TicketFlags ::= KerberosFlags
|
||
-- reserved(0),
|
||
-- forwardable(1),
|
||
-- forwarded(2),
|
||
-- proxiable(3),
|
||
-- proxy(4),
|
||
-- may-postdate(5),
|
||
-- postdated(6),
|
||
-- invalid(7),
|
||
-- renewable(8),
|
||
-- initial(9),
|
||
-- pre-authent(10),
|
||
-- hw-authent(11),
|
||
-- the following are new since 1510
|
||
-- transited-policy-checked(12),
|
||
-- ok-as-delegate(13)
|
||
|
||
AS-REQ ::= [APPLICATION 10] KDC-REQ
|
||
|
||
TGS-REQ ::= [APPLICATION 12] KDC-REQ
|
||
|
||
KDC-REQ ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
-- NOTE: first tag is [1], not [0]
|
||
pvno [1] INTEGER (5) ,
|
||
msg-type [2] INTEGER (10 -- AS -- | 12 -- TGS --),
|
||
padata [3] SEQUENCE OF PA-DATA OPTIONAL
|
||
-- NOTE: not empty --,
|
||
req-body [4] KDC-REQ-BODY
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KDC-REQ-BODY ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
kdc-options [0] KDCOptions,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 125]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
cname [1] PrincipalName OPTIONAL
|
||
-- Used only in AS-REQ --,
|
||
realm [2] Realm
|
||
-- Server's realm
|
||
-- Also client's in AS-REQ --,
|
||
sname [3] PrincipalName OPTIONAL,
|
||
from [4] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
till [5] KerberosTime,
|
||
rtime [6] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
nonce [7] UInt32,
|
||
etype [8] SEQUENCE OF Int32 -- EncryptionType
|
||
-- in preference order --,
|
||
addresses [9] HostAddresses OPTIONAL,
|
||
enc-authorization-data [10] EncryptedData OPTIONAL
|
||
-- AuthorizationData --,
|
||
additional-tickets [11] SEQUENCE OF Ticket OPTIONAL
|
||
-- NOTE: not empty
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KDCOptions ::= KerberosFlags
|
||
-- reserved(0),
|
||
-- forwardable(1),
|
||
-- forwarded(2),
|
||
-- proxiable(3),
|
||
-- proxy(4),
|
||
-- allow-postdate(5),
|
||
-- postdated(6),
|
||
-- unused7(7),
|
||
-- renewable(8),
|
||
-- unused9(9),
|
||
-- unused10(10),
|
||
-- opt-hardware-auth(11),
|
||
-- unused12(12),
|
||
-- unused13(13),
|
||
-- 15 is reserved for canonicalize
|
||
-- unused15(15),
|
||
-- 26 was unused in 1510
|
||
-- disable-transited-check(26),
|
||
--
|
||
-- renewable-ok(27),
|
||
-- enc-tkt-in-skey(28),
|
||
-- renew(30),
|
||
-- validate(31)
|
||
|
||
AS-REP ::= [APPLICATION 11] KDC-REP
|
||
|
||
TGS-REP ::= [APPLICATION 13] KDC-REP
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 126]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
KDC-REP ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (11 -- AS -- | 13 -- TGS --),
|
||
padata [2] SEQUENCE OF PA-DATA OPTIONAL
|
||
-- NOTE: not empty --,
|
||
crealm [3] Realm,
|
||
cname [4] PrincipalName,
|
||
ticket [5] Ticket,
|
||
enc-part [6] EncryptedData
|
||
-- EncASRepPart or EncTGSRepPart,
|
||
-- as appropriate
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
EncASRepPart ::= [APPLICATION 25] EncKDCRepPart
|
||
|
||
EncTGSRepPart ::= [APPLICATION 26] EncKDCRepPart
|
||
|
||
EncKDCRepPart ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
key [0] EncryptionKey,
|
||
last-req [1] LastReq,
|
||
nonce [2] UInt32,
|
||
key-expiration [3] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
flags [4] TicketFlags,
|
||
authtime [5] KerberosTime,
|
||
starttime [6] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
endtime [7] KerberosTime,
|
||
renew-till [8] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
srealm [9] Realm,
|
||
sname [10] PrincipalName,
|
||
caddr [11] HostAddresses OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
LastReq ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
|
||
lr-type [0] Int32,
|
||
lr-value [1] KerberosTime
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
AP-REQ ::= [APPLICATION 14] SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (14),
|
||
ap-options [2] APOptions,
|
||
ticket [3] Ticket,
|
||
authenticator [4] EncryptedData -- Authenticator
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
APOptions ::= KerberosFlags
|
||
-- reserved(0),
|
||
-- use-session-key(1),
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 127]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
-- mutual-required(2)
|
||
|
||
-- Unencrypted authenticator
|
||
Authenticator ::= [APPLICATION 2] SEQUENCE {
|
||
authenticator-vno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
crealm [1] Realm,
|
||
cname [2] PrincipalName,
|
||
cksum [3] Checksum OPTIONAL,
|
||
cusec [4] Microseconds,
|
||
ctime [5] KerberosTime,
|
||
subkey [6] EncryptionKey OPTIONAL,
|
||
seq-number [7] UInt32 OPTIONAL,
|
||
authorization-data [8] AuthorizationData OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
AP-REP ::= [APPLICATION 15] SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (15),
|
||
enc-part [2] EncryptedData -- EncAPRepPart
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
EncAPRepPart ::= [APPLICATION 27] SEQUENCE {
|
||
ctime [0] KerberosTime,
|
||
cusec [1] Microseconds,
|
||
subkey [2] EncryptionKey OPTIONAL,
|
||
seq-number [3] UInt32 OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KRB-SAFE ::= [APPLICATION 20] SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (20),
|
||
safe-body [2] KRB-SAFE-BODY,
|
||
cksum [3] Checksum
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KRB-SAFE-BODY ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
user-data [0] OCTET STRING,
|
||
timestamp [1] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
usec [2] Microseconds OPTIONAL,
|
||
seq-number [3] UInt32 OPTIONAL,
|
||
s-address [4] HostAddress,
|
||
r-address [5] HostAddress OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KRB-PRIV ::= [APPLICATION 21] SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (21),
|
||
-- NOTE: there is no [2] tag
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 128]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
enc-part [3] EncryptedData -- EncKrbPrivPart
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
EncKrbPrivPart ::= [APPLICATION 28] SEQUENCE {
|
||
user-data [0] OCTET STRING,
|
||
timestamp [1] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
usec [2] Microseconds OPTIONAL,
|
||
seq-number [3] UInt32 OPTIONAL,
|
||
s-address [4] HostAddress -- sender's addr --,
|
||
r-address [5] HostAddress OPTIONAL -- recip's addr
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KRB-CRED ::= [APPLICATION 22] SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (22),
|
||
tickets [2] SEQUENCE OF Ticket,
|
||
enc-part [3] EncryptedData -- EncKrbCredPart
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
EncKrbCredPart ::= [APPLICATION 29] SEQUENCE {
|
||
ticket-info [0] SEQUENCE OF KrbCredInfo,
|
||
nonce [1] UInt32 OPTIONAL,
|
||
timestamp [2] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
usec [3] Microseconds OPTIONAL,
|
||
s-address [4] HostAddress OPTIONAL,
|
||
r-address [5] HostAddress OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KrbCredInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
key [0] EncryptionKey,
|
||
prealm [1] Realm OPTIONAL,
|
||
pname [2] PrincipalName OPTIONAL,
|
||
flags [3] TicketFlags OPTIONAL,
|
||
authtime [4] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
starttime [5] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
endtime [6] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
renew-till [7] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
srealm [8] Realm OPTIONAL,
|
||
sname [9] PrincipalName OPTIONAL,
|
||
caddr [10] HostAddresses OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
KRB-ERROR ::= [APPLICATION 30] SEQUENCE {
|
||
pvno [0] INTEGER (5),
|
||
msg-type [1] INTEGER (30),
|
||
ctime [2] KerberosTime OPTIONAL,
|
||
cusec [3] Microseconds OPTIONAL,
|
||
stime [4] KerberosTime,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 129]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
susec [5] Microseconds,
|
||
error-code [6] Int32,
|
||
crealm [7] Realm OPTIONAL,
|
||
cname [8] PrincipalName OPTIONAL,
|
||
realm [9] Realm -- service realm --,
|
||
sname [10] PrincipalName -- service name --,
|
||
e-text [11] KerberosString OPTIONAL,
|
||
e-data [12] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
METHOD-DATA ::= SEQUENCE OF PA-DATA
|
||
|
||
TYPED-DATA ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF SEQUENCE {
|
||
data-type [0] Int32,
|
||
data-value [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
-- preauth stuff follows
|
||
|
||
PA-ENC-TIMESTAMP ::= EncryptedData -- PA-ENC-TS-ENC
|
||
|
||
PA-ENC-TS-ENC ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
patimestamp [0] KerberosTime -- client's time --,
|
||
pausec [1] Microseconds OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
ETYPE-INFO-ENTRY ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
etype [0] Int32,
|
||
salt [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
ETYPE-INFO ::= SEQUENCE OF ETYPE-INFO-ENTRY
|
||
|
||
ETYPE-INFO2-ENTRY ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
etype [0] Int32,
|
||
salt [1] KerberosString OPTIONAL,
|
||
s2kparams [2] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
ETYPE-INFO2 ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF ETYPE-INFO2-ENTRY
|
||
|
||
AD-IF-RELEVANT ::= AuthorizationData
|
||
|
||
AD-KDCIssued ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
ad-checksum [0] Checksum,
|
||
i-realm [1] Realm OPTIONAL,
|
||
i-sname [2] PrincipalName OPTIONAL,
|
||
elements [3] AuthorizationData
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 130]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
AD-AND-OR ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
condition-count [0] Int32,
|
||
elements [1] AuthorizationData
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
AD-MANDATORY-FOR-KDC ::= AuthorizationData
|
||
|
||
END
|
||
|
||
B. Changes since RFC 1510
|
||
|
||
This document replaces RFC 1510 and clarifies specification of items
|
||
that were not completely specified. Where changes to recommended
|
||
implementation choices were made, or where new options were added,
|
||
those changes are described within the document and listed in this
|
||
section. More significantly, "Specification 2" in Section 8 changes
|
||
the required encryption and checksum methods to bring them in line
|
||
with the best current practices and to deprecate methods that are no
|
||
longer considered sufficiently strong.
|
||
|
||
Discussion was added to Section 1 regarding the ability to rely on
|
||
the KDC to check the transited field, and on the inclusion of a flag
|
||
in a ticket indicating that this check has occurred. This is a new
|
||
capability not present in RFC 1510. Pre-existing implementations may
|
||
ignore or not set this flag without negative security implications.
|
||
|
||
The definition of the secret key says that in the case of a user the
|
||
key may be derived from a password. In RFC 1510, it said that the
|
||
key was derived from the password. This change was made to
|
||
accommodate situations where the user key might be stored on a
|
||
smart-card, or otherwise obtained independently of a password.
|
||
|
||
The introduction mentions the use of public key cryptography for
|
||
initial authentication in Kerberos by reference. RFC 1510 did not
|
||
include such a reference.
|
||
|
||
Section 1.3 was added to explain that while Kerberos provides
|
||
authentication of a named principal, it is still the responsibility
|
||
of the application to ensure that the authenticated name is the
|
||
entity with which the application wishes to communicate.
|
||
|
||
Discussion of extensibility has been added to the introduction.
|
||
|
||
Discussion of how extensibility affects ticket flags and KDC options
|
||
was added to the introduction of Section 2. No changes were made to
|
||
existing options and flags specified in RFC 1510, though some of the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 131]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
sections in the specification were renumbered, and text was revised
|
||
to make the description and intent of existing options clearer,
|
||
especially with respect to the ENC-TKT-IN-SKEY option (now section
|
||
2.9.2) which is used for user-to-user authentication. The new option
|
||
and ticket flag transited policy checking (Section 2.7) was added.
|
||
|
||
A warning regarding generation of session keys for application use
|
||
was added to Section 3, urging the inclusion of key entropy from the
|
||
KDC generated session key in the ticket. An example regarding use of
|
||
the sub-session key was added to Section 3.2.6. Descriptions of the
|
||
pa-etype-info, pa-etype-info2, and pa-pw-salt pre-authentication data
|
||
items were added. The recommendation for use of pre-authentication
|
||
was changed from "MAY" to "SHOULD" and a note was added regarding
|
||
known plaintext attacks.
|
||
|
||
In RFC 1510, Section 4 described the database in the KDC. This
|
||
discussion was not necessary for interoperability and unnecessarily
|
||
constrained implementation. The old Section 4 was removed.
|
||
|
||
The current Section 4 was formerly Section 6 on encryption and
|
||
checksum specifications. The major part of this section was brought
|
||
up to date to support new encryption methods, and moved to a separate
|
||
document. Those few remaining aspects of the encryption and checksum
|
||
specification specific to Kerberos are now specified in Section 4.
|
||
|
||
Significant changes were made to the layout of Section 5 to clarify
|
||
the correct behavior for optional fields. Many of these changes were
|
||
made necessary because of improper ASN.1 description in the original
|
||
Kerberos specification which left the correct behavior
|
||
underspecified. Additionally, the wording in this section was
|
||
tightened wherever possible to ensure that implementations conforming
|
||
to this specification will be extensible with the addition of new
|
||
fields in future specifications.
|
||
|
||
Text was added describing time_t=0 issues in the ASN.1. Text was
|
||
also added, clarifying issues with implementations treating omitted
|
||
optional integers as zero. Text was added clarifying behavior for
|
||
optional SEQUENCE or SEQUENCE OF that may be empty. Discussion was
|
||
added regarding sequence numbers and behavior of some
|
||
implementations, including "zero" behavior and negative numbers. A
|
||
compatibility note was added regarding the unconditional sending of
|
||
EncTGSRepPart regardless of the enclosing reply type. Minor changes
|
||
were made to the description of the HostAddresses type. Integer
|
||
types were constrained. KerberosString was defined as a
|
||
(significantly) constrained GeneralString. KerberosFlags was defined
|
||
to reflect existing implementation behavior that departs from the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 132]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
definition in RFC 1510. The transited-policy-checked(12) and the
|
||
ok-as-delegate(13) ticket flags were added. The disable-transited-
|
||
check(26) KDC option was added.
|
||
|
||
Descriptions of commonly implemented PA-DATA were added to Section 5.
|
||
The description of KRB-SAFE has been updated to note the existing
|
||
implementation behavior of double-encoding.
|
||
|
||
There were two definitions of METHOD-DATA in RFC 1510. The second
|
||
one, intended for use with KRB_AP_ERR_METHOD was removed leaving the
|
||
SEQUENCE OF PA-DATA definition.
|
||
|
||
Section 7, naming constraints, from RFC 1510 was moved to Section 6.
|
||
|
||
Words were added describing the convention that domain-based realm
|
||
names for newly-created realms should be specified as uppercase.
|
||
This recommendation does not make lowercase realm names illegal.
|
||
Words were added highlighting that the slash-separated components in
|
||
the X.500 style of realm names is consistent with existing RFC 1510
|
||
based implementations, but that it conflicts with the general
|
||
recommendation of X.500 name representation specified in RFC 2253.
|
||
|
||
Section 8, network transport, constants and defined values, from RFC
|
||
1510 was moved to Section 7. Since RFC 1510, the definition of the
|
||
TCP transport for Kerberos messages was added, and the encryption and
|
||
checksum number assignments have been moved into a separate document.
|
||
|
||
"Specification 2" in Section 8 of the current document changes the
|
||
required encryption and checksum methods to bring them in line with
|
||
the best current practices and to deprecate methods that are no
|
||
longer considered sufficiently strong.
|
||
|
||
Two new sections, on IANA considerations and security considerations
|
||
were added.
|
||
|
||
The pseudo-code has been removed from the appendix. The pseudo-code
|
||
was sometimes misinterpreted to limit implementation choices and in
|
||
RFC 1510, it was not always consistent with the words in the
|
||
specification. Effort was made to clear up any ambiguities in the
|
||
specification, rather than to rely on the pseudo-code.
|
||
|
||
An appendix was added containing the complete ASN.1 module drawn from
|
||
the discussion in Section 5 of the current document.
|
||
|
||
END NOTES
|
||
|
||
(*TM) Project Athena, Athena, and Kerberos are trademarks of the
|
||
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 133]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Normative References
|
||
|
||
[RFC3961] Raeburn, K., "Encryption and Checksum
|
||
Specifications for Kerberos 5", RFC 3961, February
|
||
2005.
|
||
|
||
[RFC3962] Raeburn, K., "Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
|
||
Encryption for Kerberos 5", RFC 3962, February
|
||
2005.
|
||
|
||
[ISO-646/ECMA-6] International Organization for Standardization,
|
||
"7-bit Coded Character Set for Information
|
||
Interchange", ISO/IEC 646:1991.
|
||
|
||
[ISO-2022/ECMA-35] International Organization for Standardization,
|
||
"Character code structure and extension
|
||
techniques", ISO/IEC 2022:1994.
|
||
|
||
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation
|
||
and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November
|
||
1987.
|
||
|
||
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
|
||
Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
|
||
March 1997.
|
||
|
||
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
|
||
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
|
||
BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
|
||
|
||
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS
|
||
RR for specifying the location of services (DNS
|
||
SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000.
|
||
|
||
[RFC2253] Wahl, M., Kille, S., and T. Howes, "Lightweight
|
||
Directory Access Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String
|
||
Representation of Distinguished Names", RFC 2253,
|
||
December 1997.
|
||
|
||
[RFC3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol
|
||
Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC
|
||
3513, April 2003.
|
||
|
||
[X680] Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1):
|
||
Specification of Basic Notation, ITU-T
|
||
Recommendation X.680 (1997) | ISO/IEC
|
||
International Standard 8824-1:1998.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 134]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
[X690] ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic
|
||
Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules
|
||
(CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER),
|
||
ITU-T Recommendation X.690 (1997)| ISO/IEC
|
||
International Standard 8825-1:1998.
|
||
|
||
Informative References
|
||
|
||
[ISO-8859] International Organization for Standardization,
|
||
"8-bit Single-byte Coded Graphic Character Sets --
|
||
Latin Alphabet", ISO/IEC 8859.
|
||
|
||
[RFC1964] Linn, J., "The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API
|
||
Mechanism", RFC 1964, June 1996.
|
||
|
||
[DGT96] Don Davis, Daniel Geer, and Theodore Ts'o,
|
||
"Kerberos With Clocks Adrift: History, Protocols,
|
||
and Implementation", USENIX Computing Systems 9:1,
|
||
January 1996.
|
||
|
||
[DS81] Dorothy E. Denning and Giovanni Maria Sacco,
|
||
"Time-stamps in Key Distribution Protocols,"
|
||
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 24 (8), p. 533-
|
||
536, August 1981.
|
||
|
||
[KNT94] John T. Kohl, B. Clifford Neuman, and Theodore Y.
|
||
Ts'o, "The Evolution of the Kerberos
|
||
Authentication System". In Distributed Open
|
||
Systems, pages 78-94. IEEE Computer Society Press,
|
||
1994.
|
||
|
||
[MNSS87] S. P. Miller, B. C. Neuman, J. I. Schiller, and J.
|
||
H. Saltzer, Section E.2.1: Kerberos Authentication
|
||
and Authorization System, M.I.T. Project Athena,
|
||
Cambridge, Massachusetts, December 21, 1987.
|
||
|
||
[NS78] Roger M. Needham and Michael D. Schroeder, "Using
|
||
Encryption for Authentication in Large Networks of
|
||
Computers," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 21
|
||
(12), pp. 993-999, December 1978.
|
||
|
||
[Neu93] B. Clifford Neuman, "Proxy-Based Authorization and
|
||
Accounting for Distributed Systems," in
|
||
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference
|
||
on Distributed Computing Systems, Pittsburgh, PA,
|
||
May 1993.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 135]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
[NT94] B. Clifford Neuman and Theodore Y. Ts'o, "An
|
||
Authentication Service for Computer Networks,"
|
||
IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 32 (9), p. 33-
|
||
38, September 1994.
|
||
|
||
[Pat92] J. Pato, Using Pre-Authentication to Avoid
|
||
Password Guessing Attacks, Open Software
|
||
Foundation DCE Request for Comments 26 (December
|
||
1992.
|
||
|
||
[RFC1510] Kohl, J. and C. Neuman, "The Kerberos Network
|
||
Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 1510, September
|
||
1993.
|
||
|
||
[RFC4086] Eastlake, D., 3rd, Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
|
||
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106,
|
||
RFC 4086, June 2005.
|
||
|
||
[SNS88] J. G. Steiner, B. C. Neuman, and J. I. Schiller,
|
||
"Kerberos: An Authentication Service for Open
|
||
Network Systems," p. 191-202, Usenix Conference
|
||
Proceedings, Dallas, Texas, February 1988.
|
||
|
||
[RFC4121] Zhu, L., Jaganathan, K., and S. Hartman, "The
|
||
Kerberos Version 5 Generic Security Service
|
||
Application Program Interface (GSS-API) Mechanism:
|
||
Version 2", RFC 4121, July 2005.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 136]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Authors' Addresses
|
||
|
||
Clifford Neuman
|
||
Information Sciences Institute
|
||
University of Southern California
|
||
4676 Admiralty Way
|
||
Marina del Rey, CA 90292, USA
|
||
|
||
EMail: bcn@isi.edu
|
||
|
||
|
||
Tom Yu
|
||
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
|
||
77 Massachusetts Avenue
|
||
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
|
||
|
||
EMail: tlyu@mit.edu
|
||
|
||
|
||
Sam Hartman
|
||
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
|
||
77 Massachusetts Avenue
|
||
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
|
||
|
||
EMail: hartmans-ietf@mit.edu
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kenneth Raeburn
|
||
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
|
||
77 Massachusetts Avenue
|
||
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
|
||
|
||
EMail: raeburn@mit.edu
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 137]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4120 Kerberos V5 July 2005
|
||
|
||
|
||
Full Copyright Statement
|
||
|
||
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
|
||
|
||
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
|
||
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
|
||
retain all their rights.
|
||
|
||
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
|
||
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
|
||
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
|
||
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
|
||
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
|
||
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
|
||
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
|
||
|
||
Intellectual Property
|
||
|
||
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
|
||
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
|
||
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
|
||
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
|
||
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
|
||
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
|
||
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
|
||
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
|
||
|
||
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
|
||
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
|
||
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
|
||
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
|
||
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
|
||
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
|
||
|
||
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
|
||
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
|
||
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
|
||
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
|
||
ipr@ietf.org.
|
||
|
||
Acknowledgement
|
||
|
||
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
|
||
Internet Society.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Neuman, et al. Standards Track [Page 138]
|
||
|