Quantcast
Channel: BOT24
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 8064

Babel HMAC Cryptographic Authentication

$
0
0


Abstract

   This document describes a cryptographic authentication mechanism for
   Babel routing protocol, updating, but not superceding RFC 6126.  The
   mechanism allocates two new TLV types for the authentication data,
   uses HMAC and is both optional and backward compatible.

1.  Introduction

   Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the author.

   Authentication of routing protocol exchanges is a common mean of
   securing computer networks.  Use of protocol authentication
   mechanisms helps in ascertaining, that only the intended routers
   participate in routing information exchange, and that the exchanged
   routing information is not modified by a third party.

   [BABEL] ("the original specification") defines data structures,
   encoding, and operation of a basic Babel routing protocol instance
   ("instance of the original protocol").  This document ("this
   specification") defines data structures, encoding, and operation of
   an extension to Babel protocol, an authentication mechanism ("this
   mechanism").  Both the instance of the original protocol and this
   mechanism are mostly self-contained and interact only at coupling
   points defined in this specification.

   A major design goal of this mechanism is such a transparency to an
   operator, that is not affected by implementation and configuration
   specifics.  A complying implementation makes all meaningful details
   of authentication-specific processing clear to the operator, even
   when some of the key parameters cannot be changed.

   The currently established (see [RIP2-AUTH], [OSPF2-AUTH],
   [OSPF3-AUTH], and [RFC6039]) approach to authentication mechanism
   design for datagram-based routing protocols such as Babel relies on
   two principal data items embedded into protocol packets, typically as
   two integral parts of a single data structure:

   o  A fixed-length unsigned integer number, typically called a
      cryptographic sequence number, used in replay attack protection.

   o  A variable-length sequence of octets, a result of the HMAC
      construct (see [RFC2104]) computed on meaningful data items of the
      packet (including the cryptographic sequence number) on one hand
      and a secret key on another, used in proving that both the sender
      and the receiver share the same secret key and that the meaningful
      data was not changed in transmission.

   Depending on the design specifics either all protocol packets are
   authenticated or only those protecting the integrity of protocol
   exchange.  This mechanism authenticates all protocol packets.

   This specification defines the use of the cryptographic sequence
   number in details sufficient to make replay attack protection
   strength predictable.  That is, an operator can tell the strength


   from the declared characteristics of an implementation and, whereas
   the implementation allows changing relevant parameters, the effect of
   a reconfiguration.

   This mechanism explicitly allows for multiple HMAC results per an
   authenticated packet.  Since meaningful data items of a given packet
   remain the same, each such HMAC result stands for a different secret
   key and/or a different hash algorithm.  This enables a simultaneous,
   independent authentication within multiple domains.

   An important concern addressed by this mechanism is limiting the
   amount of HMAC computations done per an authenticated packet,
   independently for sending and receiving.  Without these limits the
   number of computations per a packet could be as high as number of
   configured authentication keys (in sending case) or as the number of
   keys multiplied by the number of supplied HMAC results (in receiving
   case).

   These limits establish a basic competition between the configured
   keys and (in receiving case) an additional competition between the
   supplied HMAC results.  This specification defines related data
   structures and procedures in a way to make such competition
   transparent and predictable for an operator.

read more.....http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ovsienko-babel-hmac-authentication-01


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 8064

Trending Articles