Re: [Emu] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-emu-eap-noob-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2021-07-30 Thread Francesca Palombini
Hi Mohit! 

Thanks for your answer and for addressing my DISCUSS, I will go ahead and 
remove the block now. All the rest of the comments also look good, however I am 
not convinced by 7: see my answer below. However this is minor and 
non-blocking, so I will let you and Roman decide if and how to implement a 
change.

Thanks,
Francesca

>
>Hi Francesca,
>
>We have submitted a new version ( 
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-emu-eap-noob-05 ) which 
>hopefully addresses your comments. Here is the diff for your 
>convenience: 
>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-emu-eap-noob-05.txt
>
>See our answers below.
>
>--Mohit
>
>On 4/20/21 1:37 AM, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker wrote:
>> Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-emu-eap-noob-04: Discuss
>>

...

>> 7. -
>>
>> and truncated to the 16 leftmost bytes of the output.  The message
>>
>> FP: please mention that network byte order is used (either here or in the
>> terminology).
>The byte order is relevant when encoding/decoding things like integers 
>etc. While cryptographic hash functions may use integers or 32- or 
>64-bit words internally, their output is a byte string, and the order of 
>the bytes in that output is defined by each individual hash function 
>specification (e.g. RFC 6234). We don’t think we should say anything 
>that could lead to a programmer mistakenly reordering the bytes in the 
>hash output.

FP: But the fact that you talk about "leftmost" bytes means that you are 
already implying ordering. Talking about leftmost without talking about 
ordering seems imprecise. Maybe you want to talk about the 16 most significant 
bytes instead.


___
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu


[Emu] CoAP-EAP draft

2021-07-30 Thread Dan Garcia Carrillo

Dear EMU WG members,

We thought this document may be of interest to the working group.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-03

"CoAP-EAP" defines an EAP lower layer based on CoAP.

We would appreciate feedback or reviews on it.

Thank you,

Best Regards.

___
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu


Re: [Emu] Identities and draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-03

2021-07-30 Thread Alan DeKok
  Based on comments from the meeting yesterday, I propose changing the last few 
paragraphs to this:


Implementations SHOULD NOT use inner identies which contain an NAI
realm.  The outer identity contains an NAI realm, which ensures that
the inner authentication method is routed to the correct destination.
As such, any NAI realm in the inner identity is usually redundant.

However, if the inner identity does contain an NAI realm, the inner
realm MUST be a subdomain of the outer realm.  The inner realm MUST
NOT be from a different realm than the outer realm.  There are very few
reasons for those realms to be different.

For example, if the outer realm is "@example.com", then the inner
identity could be "username", or "usern...@example.com", or
"usern...@students.example.com".  However, if the outer realm is
"@example.com", then the inner realm cannot be
"usern...@example.org".




> On Jul 26, 2021, at 7:45 AM, Alan DeKok  wrote:
> 
>  I propose to add a new section which discusses identities.
> 
>  As background, an (un-named) vendor recently made changes to their EAP 
> stack.  The configuration for TTLS/PEAP now takes the external (anonymous) 
> identity, and uses that as the inner identity.
> 
>  i.e. instead of sending "@example.com" for the outer identity, and "myname" 
> for the inner one, it just sends "@example.com" for both.
> 
>  Perhaps unsurprisingly, this causes authentication to fail.  The work-around 
> is to reconfigure the supplicant so that the outer identity is the "real" 
> one.  This has privacy implications, as the inner identity is now being 
> exposed.
> 
>  I'm proposing new text which explains some basic ideas about identities, and 
> what should/should not be done.  I don't think that these proposals are 
> controversial, but they are perhaps surprising to some implementors.
> 
> 
> 
> Identities
> 
> 
> [EAPTLS] Sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.7 recommend the use of anonymous NAIs
> [RFC7542] in the EAP Identity Response packet.  However, as EAP-TLS
> does not send application data inside of the TLS tunnel, that
> specification does not address the subject of "inner" identities in
> tunneled EAP methods.  This subject, however, must be addressed for
> the tunneled methods.
> 
> Using an anonymous NAI has two benefits. First, an anonymous identity
> makes it more difficult to track users.  Second, an NAI allows the EAP
> session to be routed in an AAA framework.
> 
> For the purposes of tunneled EAP methods, we can therefore view the
> outer TLS layer as being mainly a secure transport layer.  That
> transport layer is responsible for getting the actual (inner)
> authentication credentials securely from the EAP peer to the EAP
> server.  As the outer identity is simply an anonymous routing
> identifier, there is little reason for it to be the same as the inner
> identity.  We therefore have a few recommendations on the inner
> identity, and its relationship to the outer identity.
> 
> For the purpose of this section, we define the inner identity as the
> identification information carried inside of the tls tunnel.  For
> PEAP, that identity may be an EAP Response Identity.  For TTLS, it may
> be the User-Name attribute.
> 
> Implementations MUST not use anonymous identities for the inner
> identity.  If anonymous network access is desired, eap peers MUST use
> EAP-TLS without peer authentication, as per [EAPTLS] section 2.1.5.
> EAP servers MUST cause authentication to fail if an EAP peer uses an
> anonymous identity.
> 
> Implementations SHOULD NOT use inner identies which contain an NAI
> realm.  The outer identity contains an NAI realm, which ensures that
> the inner authentication method is routed to the correct destination.
> As such, any NAI realm in the inner identity is redundant and
> unnecessary.
> 
> However, if the inner identity does contain an NAI realm, that realm
> MUST be identical to the outer identity NAI realm.  There is no reason
> for these realms to be anything other than bit-for-bit identical.
> 
> ___
> Emu mailing list
> Emu@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

___
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu