Better-Than-Nothing Security (btns) ----------------------------------- Charter Last Modified: 2009-02-11 Current Status: Active Working Group Chair(s): Love Hornquist Astrand Julien Laganier Security Area Director(s): Tim Polk Pasi Eronen Security Area Advisor: Tim Polk Mailing Lists: General Discussion:btns@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/btns Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/btns/current/maillist.html Description of Working Group: Current Internet Protocol security protocol (IPsec) and Internet Key Exchange protocol (IKE) present somewhat of an all-or-nothing alternative; these protocols provide protection from a wide array of possible threats, but are sometimes not deployed because of the need for pre-existing credentials. There is significant interest in providing anonymous (unauthenticated) keying for IPsec to create security associations (SAs) with peers who do not possess authentication credentials that can be validated. Examples of such credentials include self-signed certificates or "bare" public keys. This mode would protect against passive attacks but would be vulnerable to active attacks. The primary purpose of this working group is to specify extensions to the IPsec architecture, and possibly extensions or profiles of IKE, so that IPsec will support creation of unauthenticated SAs. The goal of the resulting RFCs is to enable and encourage simpler and more rapid deployment of IPsec in contexts where use of unauthenticated SAs is deemed appropriate, to enable and encourage the use of network security where it has been difficult to deploy--notably, to enable simpler, more rapid deployment. Any IKE and IPsec extensions/profiles developed in this WG must not undermine the security facilities already defined for IPsec. Specifically, the access control facilities that are central to IPsec must not be degraded when unauthenticated SAs are employed concurrently with authenticated SAs in the same IPsec implementation. Two related problems emerged during the discussion of this problem. First, there is a desire in the KITTEN, RDDP, NFSv4 and potentially other working groups to make use of unauthenticated IPsec SAs, and later cryptographically bind these SAs to applications, which perform their own authentication. The specification of how this binding is performed for IPsec and the specification of how the binding interacts with application authentication protocols are out of scope for this working group. However, interactions between this cryptographic channel binding and IPsec (e.g., the PAD, SPD, SAD, etc.) are expected to be similar to those for the unauthenticated mode with no binding. To avoid duplication of effort, This working group needs to consider how to support channel bindings when developing extensions to IPsec, specifically the PAD and SPD elements. Secondly, BTNS and the channel bindings work both encourage IPsec to be used to secure higher layer protocols. As such we need to determine what information these higher layer protocols need from IPsec. Two proposals are under discussion for providing unauthenticated SA support for IPsec: bare RSA keys transported by IKE and self-signed certificates transported by IKE. The WG has the following specific goals: a) Develop an informational framework document to describe the motivation and goals for having security protocols that support anonymous keying of security associations in general, and IPsec and IKE in particular b) Develop an informational applicability statement, describing a set of threat models with relaxed adversary capability assumptions, to characterize the contexts in which use of unauthenticated SAs is appropriate c) If necessary, specify standards-track IKE extensions or profiles that support one or both of the bare RSA keys or self-signed certificates d) Specify standards-track extensions to the SPD and PAD to support unauthenticated SAs for IPsec and cryptographic channel bindings for IPsec e) Develop an informational document describing the interfaces that IPsec implementations should provide to allow IPsec SAs to be used to secure higher layer protocols The final goal is expected to complement work going on elsewhere in establishing best current practice for higher layer protocols secured by IPsec. Goals and Milestones: Done Confirm on mailing list whether SPD and/or PAD extensions are needed (d) Done First version of problem and applicability statement (a+b) Done First version of SPD and/or PAD extensions draft (if needed) Done First version of IKE extensions draft (if needed) Done WG LC on problem and applicability statement (a+b) Done Submit problem and applicability statement to IESG (a+b) Done First version of IPsec interfaces draft (e) Feb 2007 WG LC on IKE extensions (c) Done WG LC on SPD and/or PAD extensions (d) Mar 2007 Submit IKE extensions to the IESG Done Submit SPD and/or PAD extensions to the IESG Oct 2007 WG LC on IPsec interfaces draft Nov 2007 Submit IPsec interfaces draft to the IESG Nov 2007 Recharter or close the WG Internet-Drafts: Posted Revised I-D Title ------ ------- -------------------------------------------- Feb 2006 Mar 2009 IPsec Channels: Connection Latching Jun 2007 Mar 2009 C-Bindings for IPsec Application Programming Interfaces Jun 2007 Nov 2008 An abstract interface between applications and IPsec Request For Comments: RFC Stat Published Title ------- -- ----------- ------------------------------------ RFC5387 I Nov 2008 Problem and Applicability Statement for Better Than Nothing Security (BTNS) RFC5386 PS Nov 2008 Better-Than-Nothing-Security: An Unauthenticated Mode of IPsec