1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
|
Network Working Group R. Housley
Request for Comments: 3770 Vigil Security
Category: Standards Track T. Moore
Microsoft
May 2004
Certificate Extensions and Attributes Supporting
Authentication in Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
and Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN)
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document defines two EAP extended key usage values and a public
key certificate extension to carry Wireless LAN (WLAN) System Service
identifiers (SSIDs).
1. Introduction
Several Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [EAP] authentication
methods employ X.509 public key certificates. For example, EAP-TLS
[EAP-TLS] can be used with PPP [PPP] as well as IEEE 802.1X [802.1X].
PPP is used for dial-up and VPN environments. IEEE 802.1X defines
port-based, network access control, and it is used to provide
authenticated network access for Ethernet, Token Ring, and Wireless
LANs (WLANs) [802.11].
Automated selection of certificates for PPP and IEEE 802.1X clients
is highly desirable. By using certificate extensions to identify the
intended environment for a particular certificate, the need for user
input is minimized. Further, the certificate extensions facilitate
the separation of administrative functions associated with
certificates used for different environments.
Housley & Moore Standards Track [Page 1]
^L
RFC 3770 PPP and WLAN May 2004
IEEE 802.1X can be used for authentication with multiple networks.
For example, the same wireless station might use IEEE 802.1X to
authenticate to a corporate IEEE 802.11 WLAN and a public IEEE 802.11
"hotspot." Each of these IEEE 802.11 WLANs has a different network
name, called Service Set Identifier (SSID). If the network operators
have a roaming agreement, then cross realm authentication allows the
same certificate to be used on both networks. However, if the
networks do not have a roaming agreement, then the IEEE 802.1X client
needs to select a certificate for the current network environment.
Including a list of SSIDs in a certificate extension facilitates
automated selection of an appropriate X.509 public key certificate
without human user input. Alternatively, a companion attribute
certificate could contain the list of SSIDs.
1.1. 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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[STDWORDS].
1.2. Abstract Syntax Notation
All X.509 certificate [X.509] extensions are defined using ASN.1
[X.208, X.209].
2. EAP Extended Key Usage Values
RFC 3280 [PROFILE] specifies the extended key usage X.509 certificate
extension. The extension indicates one or more purposes for which
the certified public key may be used. The extended key usage
extension can be used in conjunction with key usage extension, which
indicates the intended purpose of the certified public key. For
example, the key usage extension might indicate that the certified
public key ought to be used only for validating digital signatures.
The extended key usage extension definition is repeated here for
convenience:
id-ce-extKeyUsage OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-ce 37}
ExtKeyUsageSyntax ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF KeyPurposeId
KeyPurposeId ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER
This specification defines two KeyPurposeId values: one for EAP over
PPP, and one for EAP over LAN (EAPOL). Inclusion of the EAP over PPP
value indicates that the certified public key is appropriate for use
Housley & Moore Standards Track [Page 2]
^L
RFC 3770 PPP and WLAN May 2004
with EAP in the PPP environment, and the inclusion of the EAPOL value
indicates that the certified public key is appropriate for use with
the EAP in the LAN environment. Inclusion of both values indicates
that the certified public key is appropriate for use in either of the
environments.
id-kp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) identified-organization(3)
dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) 3 }
id-kp-eapOverPPP OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 13 }
id-kp-eapOverLAN OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 14 }
The extended key usage extension may, at the option of the
certificate issuer, be either critical or non-critical. If the
extension is marked as critical, then the certified public key MUST
be used only for the purposes indicated. However, if the extension
is marked as non-critical, then extended key usage extension MAY be
used to support the location of an appropriate certified public key.
If a certificate contains both a critical key usage extension and a
critical extended key usage extension, then both extensions MUST be
processed independently, and the certificate MUST only be used for a
purpose consistent with both extensions. If there is no purpose
consistent with both critical extensions, then the certificate MUST
NOT be used for any purpose.
3. WLAN SSID Public Key Certificate Extension
The Wireless LAN (WLAN) System Service identifiers (SSIDs) public key
certificate extension is always non-critical. It contains a list of
SSIDs. When more than one certificate includes an extended key usage
extension indicating that the certified public key is appropriate for
use with the EAP in the LAN environment, then the list of SSIDs MAY
be used to select the correct certificate for authentication in a
particular WLAN.
Since SSID values are unmanaged, the same SSID can appear in
different certificates that are intended to be used with different
WLANs. When this occurs, automatic selection of the certificate will
fail, and the implementation SHOULD obtain help from the user to
choose the correct certificate. In cases where a human user is
unavailable, each potential certificate MAY be tried until one
succeeds. However, by maintaining a cache of Access Point (AP) MAC
addresses or authentication server identity with which the
certificate has successfully authenticated, user involvement can be
minimized. RADIUS [RADIUS1, RADIUS2] is usually used as the
Housley & Moore Standards Track [Page 3]
^L
RFC 3770 PPP and WLAN May 2004
authentication service in WLAN deployments. The cache can be used to
avoid future human user interaction or certificate selection by
trial-and-error.
The WLAN SSID extension is identified by id-pe-wlanSSID.
id-pe OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) identified-organization(3)
dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) 1 }
id-pe-wlanSSID OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe 13 }
The syntax for the WLAN SSID extension is:
SSIDList ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF SSID
SSID ::= OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..32))
4. WLAN SSID Attribute Certificate Attribute
When the public key certificate does not include the WLAN SSID
certificate extension, then an attribute certificate [ACPROFILE] can
be used to associate a list of SSIDs with the public key certificate.
The WLAN SSIDs attribute certificate attribute contains a list of
SSIDs, and the list of SSIDs MAY be used to select the correct
certificate for authentication in a particular WLAN environment.
The WLAN SSID attribute certificate attribute is identified by
id-aca-wlanSSID.
id-aca OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) identified-organization(3)
dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) 10 }
id-aca-wlanSSID OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-aca 6 }
The syntax for the WLAN SSID attribute certificate attribute is
exactly the same as the WLAN SSID extension:
SSIDList ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF SSID
SSID ::= OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..32))
5. Security Considerations
The procedures and practices employed by the certification authority
(CA) MUST ensure that the correct values for the extended key usage
extension and SSID extension are inserted in each certificate that is
issued. Relying parties may accept or reject a particular
certificate for an intended use based on the information provided in
Housley & Moore Standards Track [Page 4]
^L
RFC 3770 PPP and WLAN May 2004
these extensions. Incorrect representation of the information in
either extension could cause the relying party to reject an otherwise
appropriate certificate or accept a certificate that ought to be
rejected.
If multiple SSIDs are included in a certificate, then information can
be obtained from a certificate about the SSIDs associated with
several WLANs, not the WLAN that is currently being accessed. The
intended use of the SSID extensions is to help a client determine the
correct certificate to present when trying to gain access to a WLAN.
In most situations, including EAP-TLS, the client will have the
opportunity to validate the certificate provided by the server before
transmitting one of its own certificates to the server. While the
client may not be sure that the server has access to the
corresponding private key until later in the protocol exchange, the
identity information in the server certificate can be used to
determine whether or not the client certificate ought to be provided.
When the same client certificate is used to authenticate to multiple
WLANs, the list of SSIDs is available from servers associated with
each WLAN. Of course, the list of SSIDs is also made available to
any eavesdroppers on the WLAN. Whenever this SSID disclosure is a
concern, different client certificates ought to be used for the each
WLAN.
SSID values are unmanaged; therefore SSIDs may not be unique. Hence,
it is possible for client certificates that are intended to be used
with different WLANs to contain the same SSID. In this case,
automatic selection of the certificate will fail, and the
implementation SHOULD obtain help from the user to choose the correct
certificate. In cases where a human user is unavailable, each
potential certificate MAY be tried until one succeeds, disclosing the
list of SSIDs associated with each certificate, which might otherwise
not be disclosed. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that sequentially
trying each certificate only be employed when user selection is
unavailable or impractical.
In practice, disclosure of the SSID is of little concern. Some WLAN
security experts recommend that the SSID be masked in the beacon sent
out by Access Points (APs). The intent is to make it harder for an
attacker to find the correct AP to target. However, other WLAN
management messages include the SSID, so this practice only forces
the attacker to eavesdrop on the WLAN management messages instead of
the beacon. Therefore, placing the SSID in the certificate does not
make matters worse.
Housley & Moore Standards Track [Page 5]
^L
RFC 3770 PPP and WLAN May 2004
6. IANA Considerations
Certificate extensions and extended key usage values are identified
by object identifiers (OIDs). Some of the OIDs used in this document
are copied from X.509 [X.509]. Other OIDs were assigned from an arc
delegated by the IANA. No further action by the IANA is necessary
for this document or any anticipated updates.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[ACPROFILE] Farrell, S. and R. Housley, "An Internet Attribute
Certificate Profile for Authorization", RFC 3281, April
2002.
[PROFILE] Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W. and D. Solo, "Internet
X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and
Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280,
April 2002.
[STDWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[X.208] CCITT. Recommendation X.208: Specification of Abstract
Syntax Notation One (ASN.1), 1988.
[X.209] CCITT. Recommendation X.209: Specification of Basic
Encoding Rules for Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1),
1988.
[X.509] ITU-T. Recommendation X.509: The Directory -
Authentication Framework, 2000.
7.2. Informative References
[802.11] IEEE Std 802.11, "Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", 1999.
[802.1X] IEEE Std 802.1X, "Port-based Network Access Control",
2001.
[EAP] Blunk, L. and J. Vollbrecht, "PPP Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 2284, March 1998.
Housley & Moore Standards Track [Page 6]
^L
RFC 3770 PPP and WLAN May 2004
[EAP-TLS] Aboba, B. and D. Simon, "PPP EAP TLS Authentication
Protocol", RFC 2716, October 1999.
[PPP] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)",
STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
[RADIUS1] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RADIUS2] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G. and J. Roese,
"IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service
(RADIUS) Usage Guidelines", RFC 3580, September 2003.
8. ASN.1 Module
WLANCertExtn
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
id-mod-wlan-extns(24) }
DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=
BEGIN
-- OID Arcs
id-pe OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) 1 }
id-kp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) 3 }
id-aca OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) 10 }
-- Extended Key Usage Values
id-kp-eapOverPPP OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 13 }
id-kp-eapOverLAN OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 14 }
Housley & Moore Standards Track [Page 7]
^L
RFC 3770 PPP and WLAN May 2004
-- Wireless LAN SSID Extension
id-pe-wlanSSID OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe 13 }
SSIDList ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF SSID
SSID ::= OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..32))
-- Wireless LAN SSID Attribute Certificate Attribute
-- Uses same syntax as the certificate extension: SSIDList
id-aca-wlanSSID OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-aca 6 }
END
9. Author's Address
Russell Housley
Vigil Security, LLC
918 Spring Knoll Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
USA
EMail: housley@vigilsec.com
Tim Moore
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
EMail: timmoore@microsoft.com
Housley & Moore Standards Track [Page 8]
^L
RFC 3770 PPP and WLAN May 2004
10. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Housley & Moore Standards Track [Page 9]
^L
|