| Rfc | 6193 |
|---|
| Title | Media Description for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE) in
the Session Description Protocol (SDP) |
|---|
| Author | M. Saito, D. Wing, M.
Toyama |
|---|
| Date | April 2011 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|---|
|
Independent Submission M. Saito
Request for Comments: 6193 NTT Communications
Category: Informational D. Wing
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems
M. Toyama
NTT Corporation
April 2011
Media Description for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE)
in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
Abstract
This document specifies how to establish a media session that
represents a virtual private network using the Session Initiation
Protocol for the purpose of on-demand media/application sharing
between peers. It extends the protocol identifier of the Session
Description Protocol (SDP) so that it can negotiate use of the
Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE) for media sessions in the SDP
offer/answer model. It also specifies a method to boot up IKE and
generate IPsec security associations using a self-signed certificate.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by
the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6193.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Applicability Statement .........................................3
2. Introduction ....................................................3
2.1. Problem Statement ..........................................4
2.2. Approach to Solution .......................................4
2.3. Alternative Solution under Prior Relationship
between Two Nodes ..........................................6
2.4. Authorization Model ........................................6
2.5. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................6
3. Protocol Overview ...............................................7
4. Protocol Identifiers ............................................8
5. Normative Behavior ..............................................9
5.1. SDP Offer and Answer Exchange ..............................9
5.2. Maintenance and Termination of VPN Session ................10
5.3. Forking ...................................................11
5.4. Port Usage ................................................11
5.5. Multiplexing UDP Messages When Using ICE ..................11
6. Examples .......................................................13
6.1. Example of SDP Offer and Answer Exchange without
IPsec NAT-Traversal .......................................13
6.2. Example of SDP Offer and Answer Exchange with
IPsec NAT-Traversal .......................................14
7. Application to IKE .............................................15
8. Specifications Assuming Prior Relationship between Two Nodes ...16
8.1. Certificates Signed by Trusted Third Party ................16
8.2. Configured Pre-Shared Key .................................16
9. Security Considerations ........................................17
10. IANA Considerations ...........................................19
11. Acknowledgments ...............................................20
12. References ....................................................20
12.1. Normative References .....................................20
12.2. Informative References ...................................21
1. Applicability Statement
This document provides information about a deployed use of the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] for the Internet
community. It is not currently an IETF standards track proposal.
The mechanisms in this document use SIP as a name resolution and
authentication mechanism to initiate an Internet Key Exchange
Protocol (IKE) [RFC5996] session. The purpose of this document is to
establish an on-demand virtual private network (VPN) to a home router
that does not have a fixed IP address using self-signed certificates.
It is only applicable under the condition that the integrity of the
Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] is assured. The method
to ensure this integrity of SDP is outside the scope of this
document. This document specifies the process in which a pair of SIP
user agents resolve each other's names, exchange the fingerprints of
their self-signed certificates securely, and agree to establish an
IPsec-based VPN [RFC4301]. However, this document does not make any
modifications to the specifications of IPsec/IKE. Despite the
limitations of the conditions under which this document can be
applied, there are sufficient use cases in which this specification
is helpful, such as the following:
o Sharing media using a framework developed by Digital Living
Network Alliance (DLNA) or similar protocols over VPN between two
user devices.
o Accessing remote desktop applications over VPN initiated by SIP
call. As an additional function of click-to-call, a customer
service agent can access a customer's PC remotely to troubleshoot
the problem while talking with the customer over the phone.
o Accessing and controlling medical equipment (medical robotics)
remotely to monitor the elderly in a rural area (remote care
services).
o Using a LAN-based gaming protocol based on peer-to-peer rather
than via a gaming server.
2. Introduction
This section describes the problem in accessing home networks and
provides an overview of the proposed solution.
2.1. Problem Statement
Home servers and network-capable consumer electronic devices have
been widely deployed. People using such devices are willing to share
content and applications and are therefore seeking ways to establish
multiple communication channels with each other. However, there are
several obstacles to be overcome in the case of remote home access.
It is often not possible for a device outside the home network to
connect to another device inside the home network because the home
device is behind a network address translation (NAT) or firewall that
allows outgoing connections but blocks incoming connections. One
effective solution for this problem is VPN remote access to the NAT
device, which is usually a home router. With this approach, once the
external device joins the home network securely, establishing
connections with all the devices inside the home will become easy
because popular LAN-based communication methods such as DLNA can be
used transparently. However, there are more difficult cases in which
a home router itself is located behind the NAT. In such cases, it is
also necessary to consider NAT traversal of the remote access to the
home router. In many cases, because the global IP address of the
home router is not always fixed, it is necessary to make use of an
effective name resolution mechanism.
In addition, there is the problem of how a remote client and a home
router authenticate each other over IKE to establish IPsec for remote
access. It is not always possible for the two devices to securely
exchange a pre-shared key in advance. Administrative costs can make
it impractical to distribute authentication certificates signed by a
well-known root certification authority (CA) to all the devices. In
addition, it is inefficient to publish a temporary certificate to a
device that does not have a fixed IP address or hostname. To resolve
these authentication issues, this document proposes a mechanism that
enables the devices to authenticate each other using self-signed
certificates.
2.2. Approach to Solution
This document proposes the use of SIP as a name resolution and
authentication mechanism because of three main advantages:
o Delegation of Authentication to Third Party
Devices can be free from managing their signed certificates and
whitelists by taking advantage of authentication and authorization
mechanisms supported by SIP.
o UDP Hole Punching for IKE/IPsec
SIP has a cross-NAT rendezvous mechanism, and Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245] has a function to open
ports through the NAT. The combination of these effective
functions can be used for general applications as well as real-
time media. It is difficult to set up a session between devices
without SIP if the devices are behind various types of NAT.
o Reuse of Existing SIP Infrastructure
SIP servers are widely distributed as a scalable infrastructure,
and it is quite practical to reuse them without any modifications.
Today, SIP is applied to not only Voice over IP (VoIP) but also
various applications and is recognized as a general protocol for
session initiation. Therefore, it can also be used to initiate
IKE/IPsec sessions.
However, there is also a specification that uses a self-signed
certificate for authentication in the SIP/SDP framework.
"Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the Transport Layer
Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)"
[RFC4572] (hereafter referred to as comedia-tls) specifies a method
to exchange the fingerprint of a self-signed certificate to establish
a Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] connection. This
specification defines a mechanism by which self-signed certificates
can be used securely, provided that the integrity of the SDP
description is assured. Because a certificate itself is used for
authentication not only in TLS but also in IKE, this mechanism will
be applied to the establishment of an IPsec security association (SA)
by extending the protocol identifier of SDP so that it can specify
IKE.
One easy method to protect the integrity of the SDP description,
which is the premise of this specification, is to use the SIP
identity [RFC4474] mechanism. This approach is also referred to in
[RFC5763]. Because the SIP identity mechanism can protect the
integrity of a body part as well as the value of the From header in a
SIP request by using a valid Identity header, the receiver of the
request can establish secure IPsec connections with the sender by
confirming that the hash value of the certificate sent during IKE
negotiation matches the fingerprint in the SDP. Although SIP
identity does not protect the identity of the receiver of the SIP
request, SIP-connected identity [RFC4916] does. Note that the
possible deficiencies discussed in [RFC4474-Concerns] could affect
this specification if SIP identity is used for the security
mechanism.
Considering the above background, this document defines new media
formats "ike-esp" and "ike-esp-udpencap", which can be used when the
protocol identifier is "udp", to enable the negotiation of using IKE
for media sessions over SDP exchange on the condition that the
integrity of the SDP description is assured. It also specifies the
method to set up an IPsec SA by exchanging fingerprints of self-
signed certificates based on comedia-tls, and it notes the example of
SDP offer/answer [RFC3264] and the points that should be taken care
of by implementation. Because there is a chance that devices are
behind NAT, this document also covers the method to combine IKE/IPsec
NAT-Traversal [RFC3947][RFC3948] with ICE. In addition, it defines
the attribute "ike-setup" for IKE media sessions, similar to the
"setup" attribute for TCP-based media transport defined in RFC 4145
[RFC4145]. This attribute is used to negotiate the role of each
endpoint in the IKE session.
2.3. Alternative Solution under Prior Relationship between Two Nodes
Under quite limited conditions, certificates signed by trusted third
parties or pre-shared keys between endpoints could be used for
authentication in IKE, using SIP servers only for name resolution and
authorization of session initiation. Such limited cases are
addressed in Section 8.
2.4. Authorization Model
In this document, SIP servers are used for authorization of each SIP
call. The actual media sessions of IPsec/IKE are not authorized by
SIP servers but by the remote client and the home router based on the
information in SIP/SDP. For example, the home router recognizes the
remote client with its SIP-URI and IP address in the SDP. If it
decides to accept the remote client as a peer of a VPN session, it
will accept the following IKE session. Then, during the IKE
negotiation, the certificate fingerprint in the SDP is compared with
the certificate exchanged in the IKE session. If they match, IKE
negotiation continues. Only a successful IKE negotiation establishes
an IPsec session with the remote peer.
2.5. Conventions Used in This Document
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].
3. Protocol Overview
Figure 1 shows a case of VPN remote access from a device outside the
home to a home router whose IP address is not fixed. In this case,
the external device, a remote client, recognizes the Address of
Record of the home router but does not have any information about its
contact address and certificate. Generally, establishing an IPsec SA
dynamically and securely in this situation is difficult. However, as
specified in comedia-tls [RFC4572], if the integrity of SDP session
descriptions is assured, it is possible for the home router and the
remote client to have a prior relationship with each other by
exchanging certificate fingerprints, i.e., secure one-way hashes of
the distinguished encoding rules (DER) form of the certificates.
REGISTRATION REGISTRATION
(1) +----------+ (1)
+------------->| |<---------+
| INVITE(2) | | |
| +----------->| SIP |--------+ |
| | 200 OK(2) | Proxy | | |
| | +----------| |<-----+ | |
| | | | | | | | _________
| | V +----------+ | V | / \
+----------+ IKE (Media Session) +---------+ \
| Remote |<---------(3)------->| Home | Home \
| Client | | Router | Network |
| ============(4)==================== |
|(SIP UAC) | VPN (IPsec SA) |(SIP UAS)| /
+----------+ +---------+ /
\_________/
Figure 1: Remote Access to Home Network
(1) Both Remote Client and Home Router generate secure signaling
channels. They may REGISTER to SIP Proxy using TLS.
(2) Remote Client sends an offer SDP with an INVITE request to Home
Router, and Home Router returns an answer SDP with a reliable
response (e.g., 200 OK). Both exchange the fingerprints of
their self-signed certificates in SDP during this transaction.
Remote Client does not accept an answer SDP with an unreliable
response as the final response.
(3) After the SDP exchange, Remote Client, which has the active
role, initiates IKE with Home Router, which has the passive
role, to establish an IPsec SA. Both validate that the
certificate presented in the IKE exchange has a fingerprint that
matches the fingerprint from SDP. If they match, IKE
negotiation proceeds as normal.
(4) Remote Client joins the Home Network.
By this method, the self-signed certificates of both parties are used
for authentication in IKE, but SDP itself is not concerned with all
the negotiations related to key-exchange, such as those of encryption
and authentication algorithms. These negotiations are up to IKE. In
many cases where IPsec is used for remote access, a remote client
needs to dynamically obtain a private address inside the home network
while initiating the remote access. Therefore, the IPsec security
policy also needs to be set dynamically at the same time. However,
such a management function of the security policy is the
responsibility of the high-level application. SDP is not concerned
with it. The roles of SDP here are to determine the IP addresses of
both parties used for IKE connection with c-line in SDP and to
exchange the fingerprints of the certificates used for authentication
in IKE with the fingerprint attribute in SDP.
4. Protocol Identifiers
This document defines two SDP media formats for the "udp" protocol
under the "application" media type: "ike-esp" and "ike-esp-udpencap".
The format "ike-esp" indicates that the media described is IKE for
the establishment of an IPsec security association as described in
IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303]. In contrast,
"ike-esp-udpencap" indicates that the media described is IKE, which
is capable of NAT traversal for the establishment of UDP
encapsulation of IPsec packets through NAT boxes as specified in
[RFC3947] and [RFC3948]. Even if the offerer and answerer exchange
"ike-esp-udpencap", IKE conforming to [RFC3947] and [RFC3948] can end
up establishing a normal IPsec tunnel when there is no need to use
UDP encapsulation of IPsec. Both the offerer and answerer can
negotiate IKE by specifying "udp" in the "proto" field and "ike-esp"
or "ike-esp-udpencap" in the "fmt" field in SDP.
In addition, this document defines a new attribute "ike-setup", which
can be used when the protocol identifier is "udp" and the "fmt" field
is "ike-esp" or "ike-esp-udpencap", in order to describe how
endpoints should perform the IKE session setup procedure. The "ike-
setup" attribute indicates which of the end points should initiate
the establishment of an IKE session. The "ike-setup" attribute is
charset-independent and can be a session- or media-level attribute.
The following is the ABNF of the "ike-setup" attribute.
ike-setup-attr = "a=ike-setup:" role
role = "active" / "passive" / "actpass"
'active': The endpoint will initiate an outgoing session.
'passive': The endpoint will accept an incoming session.
'actpass': The endpoint is willing to accept an incoming
session or to initiate an outgoing session.
Both endpoints use the SDP offer/answer model to negotiate the value
of "ike-setup", following the procedures determined for the "setup"
attribute defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC4145]. However, "holdconn",
as defined in [RFC4145], is not defined for the "ike-setup"
attribute.
Offer Answer
----------------------------
active passive
passive active
actpass active / passive
The semantics for the "ike-setup" attribute values of "active",
"passive", and "actpass" in the offer/answer exchange are the same as
those described for the "setup" attribute in Section 4.1 of
[RFC4145], except that "ike-setup" applies to an IKE session instead
of a TCP connection. The default value of the "ike-setup" attribute
is "active" in the offer and "passive" in the answer.
5. Normative Behavior
In this section, a method to negotiate the use of IKE for media
sessions in the SDP offer/answer model is described.
5.1. SDP Offer and Answer Exchange
An offerer and an answerer negotiate the use of IKE following the
usage of the protocol identifiers defined in Section 4. If IPsec
NAT-Traversal is not necessary, the offerer MAY use the media format
"ike-esp" to indicate an IKE session.
If either of the endpoints that negotiate IKE is behind the NAT, the
endpoints need to transmit both IKE and IPsec packets over the NAT.
That mechanism is specified in [RFC3947] and [RFC3948]: both
endpoints encapsulate IPsec-ESP packets with a UDP header and
multiplex them into the UDP path that IKE generates.
To indicate this type of IKE session, the offerer uses "ike-esp-
udpencap" media lines. In this case, the offerer MAY decide their
transport addresses (combination of IP address and port) before
starting IKE, making use of the ICE framework. Because UDP-
encapsulated ESP packets and IKE packets go through the same UDP hole
of a NAT, IPsec NAT-Traversal works if ICE reserves simply one UDP
path through the NAT. However, those UDP packets need to be
multiplexed with Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) [RFC5389]
packets if ICE is required to use STUN. A method to coordinate IPsec
NAT-Traversal and ICE is described in Sections 5.4 and 5.5.
The offer MAY contain media lines for media other than "ike-esp" or
"ike-esp-udpencap". For example, audio stream may be included in the
same SDP to have a voice session when establishing the VPN. This may
be useful to verify that the connected device is indeed operated by
somebody who is authorized to access it, as described in Section 9.
If that occurs, the negotiation described in this specification
occurs only for the "ike-esp" or "ike-esp-udpencap" media lines;
other media lines are negotiated and set up normally. If the
answerer determines it will refuse the IKE session without beginning
the IKE negotiation (e.g., the From address is not on the permitted
list), it SHOULD reject the "ike-esp" or "ike-esp-udpencap" media
line in the normal manner by setting the port number in the SDP
answer to 0 and SHOULD process the other media lines normally (only
if it is still reasonable to establish that media without VPN).
If the offerer and the answerer agree to start an IKE session by the
offer/answer exchange, they will start the IKE setup. Following the
comedia-tls specification [RFC4572], the fingerprint attribute, which
may be either a session- or a media-level SDP attribute, is used to
exchange fingerprints of self-signed certificates. If the
fingerprint attribute is a session-level attribute, it applies to all
IKE sessions and TLS sessions for which no media-level fingerprint
attribute is defined.
Note that it is possible for an offerer to become the IKE responder
and an answerer to become the IKE initiator. For example, when a
Remote Access Server (RAS) sends an INVITE to an RAS client, the
server may expect the client to become an IKE initiator. In this
case, the server sends an offer SDP with ike-setup:passive and the
client returns an answer SDP with ike-setup:active.
5.2. Maintenance and Termination of VPN Session
If the high-level application recognizes a VPN session as the media
session, it MAY discard the IPsec SA and terminate IKE when that
media session is terminated by a BYE request. Therefore, the
application aware of the VPN session MUST NOT send a BYE request as
long as it needs the IPsec SA. On the other hand, if the high-level
application detects that a VPN session is terminated, it MAY
terminate the media associated with the VPN or the entire SIP
session. Session timers in SIP [RFC4028] MAY be used for the session
maintenance of the SIP call, but this does not necessarily ensure
that the VPN session is alive. If the VPN session needs session
maintenance such as keep-alive and rekeying, it MUST be done
utilizing its own maintenance mechanisms. SIP re-INVITE MUST NOT be
used for this purpose. Note that each party can cache the
certificate of the other party as described in the Security
Considerations section of comedia-tls [RFC4572].
5.3. Forking
Forking to multiple registered instances is outside the scope of this
document. At least, it is assumed that a User Agent Client (UAC)
establishes a session with only one User Agent Server (UAS).
Encountering forked answers should be treated as an illegal process,
and the UAC should cancel the session.
5.4. Port Usage
IKE generally uses local UDP port 500, but the IPsec NAT-Traversal
specification requires a port transition to local UDP port 4500
during IKE negotiation because IPsec-aware NAT may multiplex IKE
sessions using port 500 without changing the port number. If using
ICE for IPsec Nat-Traversal, this port transition of IKE means ICE
has to generate an additional UDP path for port 4500, and this would
be unnecessary overhead. However, IPsec NAT-Traversal allows an IKE
session to use local UDP port 4500 from the beginning without using
port 500. Therefore, the endpoints SHOULD use their local UDP port
4500 for an IKE session from the beginning, and ICE will only need to
generate a UDP path of port 4500.
When using ICE, a responder's IKE port observed by an initiator is
not necessarily 500 or 4500. Therefore, an IKE initiator MUST allow
any destination ports in addition to 500 and 4500 for the IKE packets
that it sends. An IKE initiator just initiates an IKE session to the
port number decided by an SDP offer/answer or ICE.
5.5. Multiplexing UDP Messages When Using ICE
Conforming to ICE, an offerer and an answerer start a STUN
connectivity check after SDP exchange. Then the offerer initiates
the IKE session making use of the UDP path generated by STUN packets.
In addition, UDP-encapsulated ESP packets are multiplexed into the
same UDP path as IKE. Thus, it is necessary to multiplex the three
different packets, STUN, IKE, and UDP-encapsulated ESP, into the same
UDP path. This section describes how to demultiplex these three
packets.
At the first step, the endpoint that received a UDP packet at the
multiplexed port MUST check the first 32 bits (bits 0-31) of the UDP
payload. If they are all 0, which is defined as a non-ESP marker,
that packet MUST be treated as an IKE packet.
Otherwise, it is judged as an ESP packet in the IPsec NAT-Traversal
specification. It is furthermore necessary to distinguish STUN from
ESP. Therefore, the bits 32-63 from the beginning of the UDP payload
MUST be checked. If the bits do not match the magic cookie of STUN
0x2112A442 (most packets do not match), the packet is treated as an
ESP packet because it is no longer a STUN packet.
However, if the bits do match the magic cookie, an additional test is
necessary to determine if the packet is STUN or ESP. The magic
cookie field of STUN overlaps the sequence number field of ESP, so a
possibility still remains that the sequence number of ESP coincides
with 0x2112A442. In this additional test, the validity of the
fingerprint attribute of the STUN message MUST be checked. If there
is a valid fingerprint in the message, it is judged as a STUN packet;
otherwise, it is an ESP packet.
The above logic is expressed as follows.
if SPI-field-is-all-zeros
{ packet is IKE }
else
{
if bits-32-through-63 == stun-magic-cookie-value and
bits-0-through-1 == 0 and
bits-2-through-15 == a STUN message type and
bits-16-through-31 == length of this UDP packet
{
fingerprint_found == parse_for_stun_fingerprint();
if fingerprint_found == 1
{ packet is STUN }
else
{ packet is ESP }
}
else
{ packet is ESP }
}
6. Examples
6.1. Example of SDP Offer and Answer Exchange without IPsec NAT-
Traversal
If IPsec NAT-Traversal is not necessary, SDP negotiation to set up
IKE is quite simple. Examples of SDP exchange are as follows.
(Note: Due to RFC formatting conventions, this document splits SDP
across lines whose content would exceed 72 characters. A backslash
character marks where this line folding has taken place. This
backslash and its trailing CRLF and whitespace would not appear in
actual SDP content.)
offer SDP
...
m=application 500 udp ike-esp
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.10
a=ike-setup:active
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02:12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB
...
answer SDP
...
m=application 500 udp ike-esp
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.20
a=ike-setup:passive
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
D2:9F:6F:1E:CD:D3:09:E8:70:65:1A:51:7C:9D:30:4F:21:E4:4A:8E
...
Figure 2: SDP Example When Offerer Is an IKE Initiator
offer SDP
...
m=application 500 udp ike-esp
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.10
a=ike-setup:passive
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02:12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB
...
answer SDP
...
m=application 500 udp ike-esp
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.20
a=ike-setup:active
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
D2:9F:6F:1E:CD:D3:09:E8:70:65:1A:51:7C:9D:30:4F:21:E4:4A:8E
...
Figure 3: SDP Example When Offerer Is an IKE Responder
6.2. Example of SDP Offer and Answer Exchange with IPsec NAT-Traversal
We consider the following scenario here.
+---------------------+
| |
| Internet |
| |
+---------------------+
| |
| |(192.0.2.20:45664)
| +---------+
| | NAT |
| +---------+
| |
(192.0.2.10:4500)| |(192.0.2.100:4500)
+---------+ +----------+
| offerer | | answerer |
+---------+ +----------+
Figure 4: NAT-Traversal Scenario
As shown above, an offerer is on the Internet, but an answerer is
behind the NAT. The offerer cannot initiate an IKE session unless
the answerer prepares a global routable transport address that
accepts IKE packets. In this case, the following offer/answer
exchange will take place.
offer SDP
...
a=ice-pwd:YH75Fviy6338Vbrhrlp8Yh
a=ice-ufrag:9uB6
m=application 4500 udp ike-esp-udpencap
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.10
a=ike-setup:active
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02:12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB
a=candidate:1 1 udp 2130706431 192.0.2.10 4500 typ host
...
answer SDP
...
a=ice-pwd:asd88fgpdd777uzjYhagZg
a=ice-ufrag:8hhY
m=application 45664 udp ike-esp-udpencap
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.20
a=ike-setup:passive
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
D2:9F:6F:1E:CD:D3:09:E8:70:65:1A:51:7C:9D:30:4F:21:E4:4A:8E
a=candidate:1 1 udp 2130706431 192.0.2.100 4500 typ host
a=candidate:2 1 udp 1694498815 192.0.2.20 45664 typ srflx \
raddr 192.0.2.100 rport 4500
...
Figure 5: SDP Example with IPsec NAT-Traversal
7. Application to IKE
After the fingerprints of both parties are securely shared over the
SDP exchange, the IKE initiator MAY start the IKE session with the
other party. To follow this specification, a digital signature MUST
be chosen as an authentication method in IKE phase 1. In this
process, a certificate whose hash value matches the fingerprint
exchanged over SDP MUST be used. If the certificate used in IKE does
not match the original fingerprint, the endpoint MUST terminate the
IKE session by detecting an authentication failure.
In addition, each party MUST present a certificate and be
authenticated by each other.
The example described in Section 3 is for tunnel mode IPsec used for
remote access, but the mode of negotiated IPsec is not limited to
tunnel mode. For example, IKE can negotiate transport mode IPsec to
encrypt multiple media sessions between two parties with only a pair
of IPsec security associations. The only thing for which the SDP
offer/answer model is responsible is to exchange the fingerprints of
certificates used for IKE; therefore, the SDP offer/answer is not
responsible for setting the security policy.
8. Specifications Assuming Prior Relationship between Two Nodes
This section describes the specification for the limited cases in
which certificates signed by trusted third parties or pre-shared keys
between endpoints can be used for authentication in IKE. Because the
endpoints already have a prior relationship in this case, they use
SIP servers for only name resolution and authorization. However,
even in this case, the integrity of the SDP description MUST be
assured.
8.1. Certificates Signed by Trusted Third Party
The protocol overview in this case is the same as in Section 3. The
SDP offer/answer procedure is also the same as in Sections 5 and 6.
Both endpoints have a prior relationship through the trusted third
parties, and SIP servers are used for name resolution and
authorization of session initiation. Even so, they MAY exchange
fingerprints in the SDP because one device can have several
certificates and it would be necessary to specify in advance which
certificate will be used for the following IKE authentication. This
process also ensures that the certificate offered in the IKE process
is the same as that owned by the peer that has been authorized at the
SIP/SDP layer. By this process, authorization in SIP and
authentication in IKE become consistent with each other.
8.2. Configured Pre-Shared Key
If a pre-shared key for IKE authentication is installed in both
endpoints in advance, they need not exchange the fingerprints of
their certificates. However, they may still need to specify which
pre-shared key they will use in the following IKE authentication in
SDP because they may have several pre-shared keys. Therefore, a new
attribute, "psk-fingerprint", is defined to exchange the fingerprint
of a pre-shared key over SDP. This attribute also has the role of
making authorization in SIP consistent with authentication in IKE.
Attribute "psk-fingerprint" is applied to pre-shared keys as the
"fingerprint" defined in [RFC4572] is applied to certificates. The
following is the ABNF of the "psk-fingerprint" attribute. The use of
"psk-fingerprint" is OPTIONAL.
attribute =/ psk-fingerprint-attribute
psk-fingerprint-attribute = "psk-fingerprint" ":" hash-func SP
psk-fingerprint
hash-func = "sha-1" / "sha-224" / "sha-256" /
"sha-384" / "sha-512" / token
; Additional hash functions can only come
; from updates to RFC 3279
psk-fingerprint = 2UHEX *(":" 2UHEX)
; Each byte in upper-case hex, separated
; by colons.
UHEX = DIGIT / %x41-46 ; A-F uppercase
An example of SDP negotiation for IKE with pre-shared key
authentication without IPsec NAT-Traversal is as follows.
offer SDP
...
m=application 500 udp ike-esp
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.10
a=ike-setup:active
a=psk-fingerprint:SHA-1 \
12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB:4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02
...
answer SDP
...
m=application 500 udp ike-esp
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.20
a=ike-setup:passive
a=psk-fingerprint:SHA-1 \
12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB:4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02
...
Figure 6: SDP Example of IKE with Pre-Shared Key Authentication
9. Security Considerations
This entire document concerns security, but the security
considerations applicable to SDP in general are described in the SDP
specification [RFC4566]. The security issues that should be
considered in using comedia-tls are described in Section 7 in its
specification [RFC4572]. This section mainly describes the security
considerations specific to the negotiation of IKE using comedia-tls.
Offering IKE in SDP (or agreeing to one in the SDP offer/answer
model) does not create an obligation for an endpoint to accept any
IKE session with the given fingerprint. However, the endpoint must
engage in the standard IKE negotiation procedure to ensure that the
chosen IPsec security associations (including encryption and
authentication algorithms) meet the security requirements of the
higher-level application. When IKE has finished negotiating, the
decision to conclude IKE and establish an IPsec security association
with the remote peer is entirely the decision of each endpoint. This
procedure is similar to how VPNs are typically established in the
absence of SIP.
In the general authentication process in IKE, subject DN or
subjectAltName is recognized as the identity of the remote party.
However, by using SIP identity and SIP-connected identity mechanisms
in this spec, certificates are used simply as carriers for the public
keys of the peers and there is no need for the information about who
is the signer of the certificate and who is indicated by subject DN.
In this document, the purpose of using IKE is to launch the IPsec SA;
it is not for the security mechanism of RTP and RTCP [RFC3550]
packets. In fact, this mechanism cannot provide end-to-end security
inside the VPN as long as the VPN uses tunnel mode IPsec. Therefore,
other security methods such as the Secure Real-time Transport
Protocol (SRTP) [RFC3711] must be used to secure the packets.
When using the specification defined in this document, it needs to be
considered that under the following circumstances, security based on
SIP authentication provided by SIP proxy may be breached.
o If a legitimate user's terminal is used by another person, it may
be able to establish a VPN with the legitimate identity
information. This issue also applies to the general VPN cases
based on the shared secret key. Furthermore, in SIP we have a
similar problem when file transfer, IM, or comedia-tls where non-
voice/video is used as a means of communication.
o If a malicious user hijacks the proxy, he or she can use whatever
credential is on the Access Control List (ACL) to gain access to
the home network.
For countermeasures to these issues, it is recommended to use unique
information such as a password that only a legitimate user knows for
VPN establishment. Validating the originating user by voice or video
before establishing VPN would be another method.
10. IANA Considerations
IANA has registered the following new SDP attributes and media
formats.
Attribute name: ike-setup
Long form name: IKE setup extensions
Type of attribute: Session-level and media-level
Subject to charset: No
Purpose: Attribute to indicate initiator and responder
of IKE-based media session
Appropriate values: See Section 4 of RFC 6193
Contact name: Makoto Saito, ma.saito@nttv6.jp
Media format name: ike-esp
Long form name: IKE followed by IPsec ESP
Associated media: application
Associated proto: udp
Subject to charset: No
Purpose: Media format that indicates IKE and IPsec ESP
as a VPN session
Reference to the spec: See Section 5 of RFC 6193
Contact name: Makoto Saito, ma.saito@nttv6.jp
Media format name: ike-esp-udpencap
Long form name: IKE followed by IPsec ESP or UDP encapsulated
IPsec ESP
Associated media: application
Associated proto: udp
Subject to charset: No
Purpose: Media format that indicates IKE that
supports NAT-Traversal and IPsec ESP or UDP
encapsulation of IPsec ESP packets as a VPN
session
Reference to the spec: See Section 5 of RFC 6193
Contact name: Makoto Saito, ma.saito@nttv6.jp
Attribute name: psk-fingerprint
Long form name: Fingerprint of pre-shared key extensions
Type of attribute: Session-level and media-level
Subject to charset: No
Purpose: Attribute to indicate a pre-shared key that
will be used in the following media session
Appropriate values: See Section 8.2. of RFC 6193
Contact name: Makoto Saito, ma.saito@nttv6.jp
11. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Remi Denis-Courmont, Dale Worley, Richard
Barnes, David Hancock, Stuart Hoggan, Jean-Francois Mule, Gonzalo
Camarillo, and Robert Sparks for providing comments and suggestions
contributing to this document. Eric Rescorla especially gave
insightful comments from a security point of view. Shintaro Mizuno
and Shida Schubert also contributed a lot of effort to improving this
document.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June
2002.
[RFC3947] Kivinen, T., Swander, B., Huttunen, A., and V. Volpe,
"Negotiation of NAT-Traversal in the IKE", RFC 3947,
January 2005.
[RFC3948] Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and M.
Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets", RFC
3948, January 2005.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC
4303, December 2005.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC4572] Lennox, J., "Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the
Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4572, July 2006.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April
2010.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
October 2008.
[RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
"Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC
5996, September 2010.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC4474-Concerns]
Rosenberg, J., "Concerns around the Applicability of RFC
4474", Work in Progress, February 2008.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004.
[RFC4028] Donovan, S. and J. Rosenberg, "Session Timers in the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4028, April 2005.
[RFC4145] Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in
the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145,
September 2005.
[RFC4474] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for
Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, August 2006.
[RFC4916] Elwell, J., "Connected Identity in the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4916, June 2007.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC5763] Fischl, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Rescorla, "Framework
for Establishing a Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
(SRTP) Security Context Using Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS)", RFC 5763, May 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Makoto Saito
NTT Communications
1-1-6 Uchisaiwai-Cho, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8019
Japan
EMail: ma.saito@nttv6.jp
Dan Wing
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
United States
EMail: dwing@cisco.com
Masashi Toyama
NTT Corporation
9-11 Midori-Cho 3-Chome, Musashino-Shi
Tokyo 180-8585
Japan
EMail: toyama.masashi@lab.ntt.co.jp