Jim
I am happy with the latest suggestions and the userAgent fields: app /
tech / os
JG – Do you block the connection or new logins attempts? If it’s the
ladder, is there the need for a new Login Security event type to cover
this use case? Something like the following could be returned on a
failed login response due to a blocked client. I view the blocking as a
separate security event from the “stat” event type, since the “stat”
event type is meant to be informative.
<loginSec:event
type=”blocked”
level=”error”
duration=”PT5M”>
Client login blocked for 5 more minutes
</loginSec:event>
MC - In fact we do disconnect the TLS connection immediately (without
even sending a greeting) if the client is in status BLOCKED.
But I was thinking it would maybe be interesting to the client that this
BLOCKED state occurred at the next successful login (which is only
possible after the BLOCKED period has expired).
Maybe there are similar mechanisms in place at other registries that
prevent brute force attacks on the credentials of registrars. I think
this could be handled with the existing stat event.
<loginSec:event
type="stat"
name="failed blocked"
level="warning"
value="x failed commands / y min"
duration="P1D">
Client has been blocked because of too many failed requests
</loginSec:event>
We also do have a rate limit in place that checks that clients only can
send x requests in y seconds... If the rate is exceeded for too long the
response of the current command is delayed x seconds (timeout)
and the new commands are not accepted anymore but answered right away with
<response>
<result code="2500">
<msg lang="en">Command failed; server closing connection</msg>
<extValue>
<value>
<epp />
</value>
<reason lang="en">Too many requests per second! Timeout ms.:
#####</reason>
</extValue>
</result>
<trID>
<dont_check>$dont_check$</dont_check>
</trID>
</response>
this could also result in a waring event at next login but the above
response gives already a hint:
<loginSec:event
type="stat"
name="quota timeout"
level="warning"
value="x commands / y min"
duration="P1D">
Quota was exceeded
</loginSec:event>
Do you have similar mechanisms in place ?
I think draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces would allow to
put loginSec:event in the <extValue> element analogous to the RGP
example in chapter 4.0 so when we are implementing loginSec we would do
it in compliance to the unhandled-namespaces in case the
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:loginSec-0.3 was not specified in
<svcExtension> <svcs>...
Martin
On 08.04.19 15:23, Gould, James wrote:
>
> Martin,
>
>
>
> I include my comments embedded below.
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
> cid:[email protected]
>
> *James Gould
> *Distinguished Engineer
> [email protected]
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>
>
>
> *From: *Martin Casanova <[email protected]>
> *Date: *Monday, April 8, 2019 at 6:28 AM
> *To: *James Gould <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] review of
> draft-ietf-regext-login-security-03
>
>
>
> Jim
>
> Below my comments. Thanks.
>
> MC
>
> On 04.04.19 00:20, Gould, James wrote:
>
> Martin,
>
>
>
> Thank you for doing a detailed review of
> draft-ietf-regext-login-security. I provide my responses to your
> feedback embedded below.
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
> cid:[email protected]
>
> *James Gould
> *Distinguished Engineer
> [email protected]
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>
>
>
> *From: *regext <[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Casanova
> <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 1:56 PM
> *To: *"[email protected]" <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] [regext] review of
> draft-ietf-regext-login-security-03
>
>
>
> Jim
>
> Since we support that draft I started implementing and read it
> again more carefully. I have the following comments / feedback
>
> 1. (comment) Event type "cipher" or "tlsProtocol" :
>
> In case the client uses deprecated protocol or cipher we currently
> hang up the TLS connection immediately so there is no possibility
> to send a type "error" security event.
> At chapter 3.1 near "exDate" is written that "At expiry there MAY
> be an error to connect or MAY be an error to login." So in case of
> an error to connect you run in the same situation and will not be
> able to send back a "error" level event but thats OK. However it
> is useful to warn the client during a transition period when we
> know that we are going to disable a certain cipher or TLS protocol
> on a specific day in the future.
>
> JG – Yes, connectivity events like “cipher”, “tlsProtocol”, and
> “certificate” are really only useful when they are provided as a
> warning with an optional exDate to indicate when the event will
> result in a connection error. The policies for the possible set
> of events can be defined using the Login Security Policy Extension
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-regext-login-security-policy),
> which is an extension of the Registry Mapping
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-carney-regext-registry).
> The clients need to look for the security events in the login
> response to act on them.
>
> MC -Agreed.
>
>
>
> 2 . (comment) Event type “newPw”:
> Here we currently use 2306 “Parameter value policy error” and
> write in the <reason> of <extValue> element that the new password
> was too weak.
> I guess we would use the loginSec Event in the future in case the
> extension was specified at login whether the pw was changed via
> login-security extension or not.
>
> I know that you have foreseen
> draft-gould-regext-login-security-policy to query about password
> complexity but I think for convenience of the registrar it would
> still be nice to somehow include the password requirement in the
> response even if it is redundant. Otherwise one has to implement
> draft-gould-regext-login-security-policy at the same time or
> communicate the requirement out of band.
>
> Maybe like that
>
> S: <loginSec:event
>
> S: type=”newPW”
>
> S: value=”expression:
> (?=.*\d)(?=.*[a-zA-Z])(?=.*[\x21-\x2F\x3A-\x40\x5B-\x60\x7B-\x7E]) (?!^\s+)
> (?!.*\s+$)(?!.*\s{2,})^[\x20-\x7e]{16,128}$”
>
> S: level=”error”>
>
> S: New password does not meet complexity requirements
>
> S: </loginSec:event>
>
> S: <result code=”2200”>
>
> S: <msg>Authentication error</msg>
>
>
> Are you sure you want to return a 2200 and not a 2306 Parameter
> value policy error in this case (page 10). I don’t see a reason
> why this should be another return code with or without extension.
>
> JG – On the first part of your feedback, I’m not sure that we want
> to inject policy elements into the error response. Of course the
> policy information could be embedded within the human readable
> message, such as below. I don’t recommend the client parsing the
> human readable message for policy information, but this would be
> useful for logging and troubleshooting on the client-side. One
> issue is that the client can only receive the password complexity
> expression upon an error. It’s best to handle the password
> complexity expression out-of-band or via the Login Security Policy
> Extension (draft-gould-regext-login-security-policy) to enable the
> client to know about the policy prior to an error.
>
> S: <loginSec:event
>
> S: type=”newPW”
>
> S: level=”error”>
>
> S: New password does not meet complexity requirement:
> (?=.*\d)(?=.*[a-zA-Z])(?=.*[\x21-\x2F\x3A-\x40\x5B-\x60\x7B-\x7E]) (?!^\s+)
> (?!.*\s+$)(?!.*\s{2,})^[\x20-\x7e]{16,128}$
>
> S: </loginSec:event>
>
> MC - agreed: - useful for logging and troubleshooting on the
> client-side, shouldn't be parsed.. Generally I think error feedback
> should be as indicative of the problem as possible so the registrar
> would not open a ticket at the registry to ask why the error occurred
> or how it could be prevented. The out of band documentation is a must
> anyway so these tickets will be answered by RTFM! as in many cases :)
> I guess this is a "nice to have" but I also don't see a problem with
> including this piece of policy information. It's not a policy
> information that is enforced by XML Schema or so..
>
>
>
> JG – Inclusion of the password complexity policy can be included in
> the event message as a “nice to have”, but I recommend that we leave
> this out of the draft.
>
> JG – On the second part of your feedback, I believe that the login
> should fail if an invalid new password is passed with a 2200
> “Authentication error”. The use of 2200 is not normative, so the
> server could choose a different result code, such as 2306. The
> Login Security Extension will provide more specific information
> associated with the error. Are there thoughts from others related
> to which error result code (2200, 2306, or other) should be used
> for an invalid new password and whether it should be normative?
>
>
> MC - RFC 5730
>
> 2200 "Authentication error"
>
> This response code MUST be returned when a server notes an
> error when validating client credentials.
>
>
> So I think 2200 is OK if you see <newpw> already as client
> credentials. However a client could get confused with 2200 thinking
> the error code relates to the <pw> filed which is correct. (if it
> wasn't for the <loginSec:event>) What is your current return code when
> pw complexity is not OK without using loginSec extension ? Ours is 2306..
>
>
>
> JG – If passing an invalid new password results in a failure of
> the login, then we would return a 2200. Inclusion of the “newPw”
> Login Security Extension event in the error response should help
> to clarify the cause of the 2200.
>
>
>
> 3. (question) Event type "stat" :
>
> How often would you send back this event
>
> <loginSec:event
>
> type="stat"
>
> name="failedLogins"
>
> level="warning"
>
> value="100"
>
> duration="P1D">
>
> Excessive invalid daily logins
>
> </loginSec:event>
>
> Only once with first successful login after the series of failed
> ones or for a whole day ? I suggest one time with first successful
> login.
>
> JG – My thought is that returning the statistical information
> should not be stateful, so that means that the interval would be
> up to the server (e.g., for a one day duration start calculating
> the statistic based on a start / end of midnight UTC), but all
> applicable events would be returned in all login responses. I do
> not recommend the server keeping track of which events have been
> returned and which have not been returned. What are your thoughts
> on this?
>
> MC - Agreed that this should not be stateful and I wouldn't want to
> persist anything for this. Currently we have a mechanism in place that
> hangs up the existing session and blocks new TLS sessions for x
> seconds when there were too many failed request in the past y seconds.
> We do have a "sliding window" algorithm in place to determine whether
> a client is currently blocked or nor not. We could use the same to
> inform at every successful login that a blocking event occurred in
> the last 24 hours (since now)
>
>
>
> JG – Do you block the connection or new logins attempts? If it’s the
> ladder, is there the need for a new Login Security event type to cover
> this use case? Something like the following could be returned on a
> failed login response due to a blocked client. I view the blocking as
> a separate security event from the “stat” event type, since the “stat”
> event type is meant to be informative.
>
> <loginSec:event
> type=”blocked”
> level=”error”
> duration=”PT5M”>
> Client login blocked for 5 more minutes
> </loginSec:event>
>
>
>
> 4. (question) In chapter 4.1 EPP <login> Command is written
>
> ..
>
> internal contiguous
>
> whitespace that includes #x9 (tab), #xA (linefeed), #xD (carriage
>
> return), and #x20 (space) is replaced with a single #x20 (space).
>
> ...
>
> Since this is “normal” XML parsing behavior should there not be
> reference to where this is described for general XML processing.
> (I don’t know where that would be though)
>
> JG – The choice was to directly include the definition within the
> draft in place of referencing out. I’m not aware of an RFC that
> can be referenced for the XML processing of an XML schema “token”
> type. My recommendation is to leave the definition directly in
> the draft without an external reference.
>
> MC – OK
>
> 5. (suggestion) The element <loginSec:userAgent> could be more
> structured to make it easier for the registry to parse the
> different fields and to give a hint to the registrar what
> information should be provided.
>
> Therefore I suggest child elements for example
>
> <os> Operating System
> <client> Client technology (eg. Java)
> <version> Client software version (eg. 1.8.0) etc.
>
> JG – If we were going to make the <loginSec:userAgent> structured,
> my recommendation is to handle it with the following definition:
>
> <complexType name=”userAgentType”>
>
> <sequence>
>
> <element name=”client” type=”token”
>
> minOccurs=”0”/>
>
> <element name=”lang” type=”token”
>
> minOccurs=”0”/>
>
> <element name=”os” type=”token”
>
> minOccurs=”0”/>
>
> </sequence>
>
> </complexType>
>
> JG – Below would be an example structured <loginSec:userAgent>
> element:
>
> <loginSec:userAgent>
>
> <loginSec:client>EPP SDK 1.0.0</loginSec:client>
>
> <loginSec:lang>Java 11.0.2</loginSec:lang>
>
> <loginSec:os>x86_64 Mac OS X 10.21</loginSec:os>
>
> </loginSec:userAgent>
>
> JG – What are your thoughts on the structured version of the
> <loginSec:userAgent> element. If this works, I will revise the
> draft to support it.
>
> MC - Maybe the “lang” field is a bit misleading since “lang” also
> exists in RFC 5730 where it has another meaning.
>
> <element name=”lang” type=”language”
> maxOccurs=”unbounded”/>
>
> Hopefully nobody would fill it out with “EN”.. So maybe we could find
> another terminology. How about “tec” for technology ?
>
> The information that would be interesting to us is
>
> - Client application and version (eg. EPP SDK 1.0.0)
> - Client technology and version (eg. Openjdk version “1.8.0_191” or
> Perl or ?)
> - Client OS and version (eg.Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description:
> Ubuntu 16.04.5 LTS))
>
> So the version is important too to decide if a client is affected by
> some security issues but maybe this would be an overkill to enforce /
> “ask for” or not ?
>
> JG – The <loginSec:client> element can be changed to the
> <loginSec:app> element. To remove confusion for “lang”, how about
> changing the <loginSec:lang> element to the <loginSec:tech> element.
> The description of the app, tech, and os elements would encourage the
> inclusion of the version. The following is the proposed description
> of the elements:
>
> <loginSec:app>: OPTIONAL name of the client application
> software with version if available, such as the name of the client SDK
> "EPP SDK 1.0.0".
>
> <loginSec:tech>: OPTIONAL technology used for the client
> software with version if available, such as "Java 11.0.2".
>
> <loginSec:os>: OPTIONAL client operating system used with
> version if available, such as "x86_64 Mac OS X 10.11.6"
>
> The resulting <loginSec:userAgent> would be:
>
> <loginSec:userAgent>
>
> <loginSec:app>EPP SDK 1.0.0</loginSec:app>
>
> <loginSec:tech>Java 11.0.2</loginSec:tech>
>
> <loginSec:os>x86_64 Mac OS X 10.21</loginSec:os>
>
> </loginSec:userAgent>
>
> Does this work?
>
>
>
> Other than that I have currently no feedback - so looking forward to
> the next next revision..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Martin Casanova
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---
>
> SWITCH
>
> Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
>
> Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
>
> phone +41 44 268 15 55, direct +41 44 268 16 25
>
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>,
> www.switch.ch <http://www.switch.ch>
>
>
>
> Working for a better digital world
>
> --
> ---
> SWITCH
> Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
> Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
> phone +41 44 268 15 55, direct +41 44 268 16 25
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, www.switch.ch
> <http://www.switch.ch>
>
> Working for a better digital world
--
---
SWITCH
Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
phone +41 44 268 15 55, direct +41 44 268 16 25
[email protected], www.switch.ch
Working for a better digital world
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
