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
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
|
Independent Submission G. Zorn
Request for Comments: 6218 Network Zen
Category: Informational T. Zhang
ISSN: 2070-1721 Advista Technologies
J. Walker
Intel Corporation
J. Salowey
Cisco Systems
April 2011
Cisco Vendor-Specific RADIUS Attributes for
the Delivery of Keying Material
Abstract
This document defines a set of vendor-specific RADIUS Attributes
designed to allow both the secure transmission of cryptographic
keying material and strong authentication of any RADIUS message.
These attributes have been allocated from the Cisco vendor-specific
space and have been implemented by multiple vendors.
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/rfc6218.
IESG Note
The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in
the RADEXT WG, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.
The IESG recommends that the RADEXT WG proceed with the work for an
interoperable modern key wrap solution using attributes from the
standard space as part of its charter.
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 1]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
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. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Specification of Requirements ...................................3
3. Attributes ......................................................3
3.1. Keying-Material ............................................4
3.2. MAC-Randomizer .............................................9
3.3. Message-Authentication-Code ...............................11
4. Security Considerations ........................................16
5. Contributors ...................................................16
6. Acknowledgements ...............................................16
7. References .....................................................16
7.1. Normative References ......................................16
7.2. Informative References ....................................17
1. Introduction
This document defines a set of vendor-specific RADIUS Attributes,
allocated from the Cisco vendor space, that can be used to securely
transfer cryptographic keying material using standard techniques with
well-understood security properties. In addition, the Message-
Authentication-Code Attribute may be used to provide strong
authentication for any RADIUS message, including those used for
accounting and dynamic authorization.
These attributes were designed to provide stronger protection and
more flexibility than the currently defined Vendor-Specific
MS-MPPE-Send-Key and MS-MPPE-Recv-Key Attributes in [RFC2548] and the
Message-Authenticator Attribute in [RFC3579].
Many remote access deployments (for example, deployments utilizing
wireless LAN technology) require the secure transmission of
cryptographic keying material from a RADIUS [RFC2865] server to a
network access point. This material is usually produced as a
by-product of an Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748]
authentication and returned in the Access-Accept message following a
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 2]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
successful authentication process. The keying material is of a form
that may be used in virtually any cryptographic algorithm after
appropriate processing. These attributes may also be used in other
cases where an Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)
server needs to deliver keying material to a network access point.
Discussion of this document may be directed to the authors.
2. Specification of Requirements
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. Attributes
The following subsections describe sub-attributes that are
transmitted in RADIUS Attributes of type Vendor-Specific [RFC2865].
The Vendor ID field of the Vendor-Specific Attribute(s) MUST be set
to decimal 9 (Cisco). The general format of the attributes is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (26) | Length | Vendor ID
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor ID (cont'd) | Sub-type (1)| Sub-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
26 for Vendor-Specific
Length
Length of entire attribute including type and length fields
Vendor ID
4 octets encoding the Cisco Vendor ID of 9
Sub-type
Attribute sub-type of 1
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 3]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
Sub-length
Length of the sub-attribute including the sub-type and sub-length
fields
Value
Value of the sub-attribute
This specification concerns the following sub-attributes:
o Keying-Material
o MAC-Randomizer
o Message-Authentication-Code
3.1. Keying-Material
Description
This Attribute MAY be used to transfer cryptographic keying
material from a RADIUS server to a client.
It MAY be sent in request messages (e.g., Access-Request, etc.),
as well; if the Keying-Material (KM) Attribute is present in a
request, it SHOULD be taken as a hint by the server that the
client prefers this method of key delivery over others. The
server is not obligated to honor the hint, however. When the
Keying-Material Attribute is included in a request message, the KM
ID, key-encrypting-key (KEK) ID, Lifetime, Initialization Vector
(IV), and Key Material Data fields MAY be omitted.
In environments where the Keying-Material Attribute is known to be
supported or in cases where the client wants to avoid roll-back
attacks, the client MAY be configured to require the use of the
Keying-Material Attribute. If the client requires the use of the
Keying-Material Attribute for keying material delivery and it is
not present in the Access-Accept or Access-Challenge message, the
client MAY ignore the message in question and end the user
session.
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 4]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
Any packet that contains a Keying-Material Attribute MUST also
include the Message-Authentication-Code Attribute.
Any packet that contains an instance of the Keying-Material
Attribute MUST NOT contain an instance of any other attribute
(e.g., MS-CHAP-MPPE-Keys [RFC2548], Tunnel-Password [RFC2868],
etc.) encapsulating identical keying material.
The Keying-Material Attribute MUST NOT be used to transfer long-
lived keys (i.e., passwords) between RADIUS servers and clients.
A summary of the Keying-Material Attribute format is shown below.
The fields are transmitted from left to right.
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 5]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (26) | Length | Vendor ID
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor ID (cont'd) | Sub-type (1)| Sub-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| String ID ("radius:app-key=")
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd) | Enc Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| App ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| KEK ID
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
KEK ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
KEK ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
KEK ID (cont'd) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| KM ID
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
KM ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
KM ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
KM ID (cont'd) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IV
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IV (cont'd) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Keying Material Data
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 6]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
Type
26 for Vendor-Specific
Length
Length of entire attribute including type and length fields
Vendor ID
4 octets encoding the Cisco Vendor ID of 9
Sub-type
Attribute sub-type of 1
Sub-length
Length of the sub-attribute including the sub-type and sub-length
fields
String-ID
The ASCII characters "radius:app-key=" without quotes or null
termination
Enc Type
The Enc Type field indicates the method used to encrypt the
contents of the Data field. This document defines only one value
(decimal) for this field:
0 AES Key Wrap with 128-bit KEK [RFC3394]
Implementations MUST support Enc Type 0 (AES Key Wrap with 128-bit
KEK).
Implementation Note
A shared secret is used as the key-encrypting-key (KEK) for the
AES key wrap algorithm. Implementations SHOULD provide a means
to provision a key (cryptographically separate from the normal
RADIUS shared secret) to be used exclusively as a KEK.
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 7]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
App ID
The App ID field is 4 octets in length and identifies the type of
application for which the key material is to be used. This allows
for multiple keys for different purposes to be present in the same
message. This document defines two values for the App ID:
0 Reserved
1 EAP MSK
KEK ID
The KEK ID field is 16 octets in length. The combination of the
KEK ID and the client and server IP addresses together uniquely
identify a key shared between the RADIUS client and server. As a
result, the KEK ID need not be globally unique. The KEK ID MUST
refer to an encryption key of a type and length appropriate for
use with the algorithm specified by the Enc Type field (see
above). This key is used to protect the contents of the Data
field (below). The KEK ID is a constant that is configured
through an out-of-band mechanism. The same value is configured on
both the RADIUS client and server. If no KEK ID is configured,
then the field is set to 0. If only a single KEK is configured
for use between a given RADIUS client and server, then 0 can be
used as the default value.
KM ID
The KM ID field is 16 octets in length and contains an identifier
for the contents of the Data field. The KM ID MAY be used by
communicating parties to identify the material being transmitted.
The combination of App ID and KM ID MUST uniquely identify the
keying material between the parties utilizing it. The KM ID is
assumed to be known to the parties that derived the keying
material. If the KM ID is not used, it is set to 0. The KM ID
for the EAP Master Session Key (MSK) application is set to 0.
Another application that uses the KM ID field can be defined in
the future.
Lifetime
The Lifetime field is an integer [RFC2865] representing the period
of time (in seconds) for which the keying material is valid.
Note: Applications using this value SHOULD consider the beginning
of the lifetime to be the point in time when the keying material
is first used.
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 8]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
IV
The length of the IV field depends upon the value of the Enc Type
field, but is fixed for any given value thereof. When the value
of the Enc Type field is 0 (decimal), the IV field MUST be 8
octets in length (as illustrated above), and the value of the IV
field MUST be as specified in [RFC3394]. If the IV for Enc Type 0
does not match [RFC3394], then the receiver MUST NOT use the key
material from this attribute.
Keying Material Data
The Keying Material Data field is of variable length and contains
the actual encrypted keying material.
3.2. MAC-Randomizer
Description
The MAC-Randomizer Attribute MUST be present in any message that
includes an instance of the Message-Authentication-Code Attribute.
The Random field MUST contain a 32-octet random number that SHOULD
satisfy the requirements of [RFC4086].
Implementation Note
The Random field MUST be filled in before the Message
Authentication Code (MAC) is computed. The MAC-Randomizer
Attribute SHOULD be placed at the beginning of the RADIUS
message if possible.
A summary of the MAC-Randomizer Attribute format is shown below.
The fields are transmitted from left to right.
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 9]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (26) | Length | Vendor ID
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor ID (cont'd) | Sub-type (1)| Sub-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| String ID ("radius:random-nonce=")
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Random...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
26 for Vendor-Specific
Length
Length of entire attribute including type and length fields
Vendor ID
4 octets encoding the Cisco Vendor ID of 9
Sub-type
Attribute sub-type of 1
Sub-length
Length of the sub-attribute including the sub-type and
sub-length fields
String-ID
The ASCII characters "radius:random-nonce=" without quotes or
null termination
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 10]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
Random
This field MUST contain a 32 octet random number that SHOULD
satisfy the requirements of [RFC4086].
3.3. Message-Authentication-Code
Description
This Attribute MAY be used to "sign" messages to prevent spoofing.
If it is present in a request, the receiver should take this as a
hint that the sender prefers the use of this Attribute for message
authentication; the receiver is not obligated to do so, however.
The Message-Authentication-Code Attribute MUST be included in any
message that contains a Keying-Material Attribute.
If both the Message-Authentication-Code and Message-Authenticator
Attributes are to be included in a message (e.g., for backward
compatibility in a network containing both old and new clients),
the value of the Message-Authentication-Code Attribute MUST be
computed first.
If any message is received containing an instance of the Message-
Authentication-Code Attribute, the receiver MUST calculate the
correct value of the Message-Authentication-Code and silently
discard the packet if the computed value does not match the value
received.
If a received message contains an instance of the MAC-Randomizer
Attribute (Section 3.2), the received MAC-Randomizer Attribute
SHOULD be included in the computation of the Message-
Authentication-Code Attribute sent in the response, as described
below.
A summary of the Message-Authentication-Code Attribute format is
shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 11]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (26) | Length | Vendor ID
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor ID (cont'd) | Sub-type (1)| Sub-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| String ID ("radius:message-authenticator-code=")
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String ID (cont'd) | MAC Type | MAC Key ID
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAC Key ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MAC Key ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MAC Key ID (cont'd)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MAC Key ID (cont'd) | MAC
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAC (cont'd) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
26 for Vendor-Specific
Length
Length of entire attribute including type and length fields
Vendor ID
4 octets encoding the Cisco Vendor ID of 9
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 12]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
Sub-type
Attribute sub-type of 1
Sub-length
Length of the sub-attribute including the sub-type and
sub-length fields
String-ID
The ASCII characters "radius:message-authenticator-code="
without quotes or null termination
MAC Type
The MAC Type field specifies the algorithm used to create the
value in the MAC field. This document defines six values for
the MAC Type field:
0 HMAC-SHA-1 [FIPS] [RFC2104]
1 HMAC-SHA-256 [FIPS] [RFC4231]
2 HMAC-SHA-512 [FIPS] [RFC4231]
3 CMAC-AES-128 [NIST]
4 CMAC-AES-192 [NIST]
5 CMAC-AES-256 [NIST]
Implementations MUST support MAC Type 0 (HMAC-SHA-1).
MAC Key ID
The MAC Key ID field is 16 octets in length and contains an
identifier for the key. The combination of the MAC Key ID and
the client and server IP addresses together uniquely identify a
key shared between the RADIUS client and server. As a result,
the MAC Key ID need not be globally unique. The MAC Key ID
MUST refer to a key of a type and length appropriate for use
with the algorithm specified by the MAC Type field (see above).
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 13]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
The MAC Key ID is a constant that is configured through an out-
of-band mechanism. The same value is configured on both the
RADIUS client and server. If no MAC Key ID is configured, then
the field is set to 0. If only a single MAC Key ID is
configured for use between a given RADIUS client and server,
then 0 can be used as the default value.
MAC
Both the length and value of the MAC field depend upon the
algorithm specified by the value of the MAC Type field. If the
algorithm specified is HMAC-SHA-1, HMAC-SHA-256, or
HMAC-SHA-512, the MAC field MUST be 20, 32, or 64 octets in
length, respectively. If the algorithm specified is
CMAC-AES-128, CMAC-AES-192, or CMAC-AES-256, the MAC field
SHOULD be 64 octets in length. The derivation of the MAC field
value for all the algorithms specified in this document is
identical, except for the algorithm used. There are
differences, however, depending upon whether the MAC is being
computed for a request message or a response. These
differences are detailed below, with the free variable HASH-ALG
representing the actual algorithm used.
Request Messages
For requests (e.g., CoA-Request [RFC5176], Accounting-
Request [RFC2866], etc.), the value of the MAC field is a
hash of the entire packet except the Request Authenticator
in the header of the RADIUS packet, using a shared secret as
the key, as follows.
MAC = MAC-ALG(Key, Type + Identifier + Length + Attributes)
where '+' represents concatenation
The MAC-Randomizer Attribute (Section 3.2) MUST be included
in any request in which the Message-Authentication-Code
Attribute is used. The Random field of the MAC-Randomizer
Attribute MUST be filled in before the value of the MAC
field is computed.
If the Message-Authenticator-Code Attribute is included in a
client request, the server SHOULD ignore the contents of the
Request Authenticator.
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 14]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
Implementation Notes
When the hash is calculated, both the MAC field of the
Message-Authenticator-Code Attribute and the String field
of the Message-Authenticator Attribute (if any) MUST be
considered to be zero-filled.
Implementations SHOULD provide a means to provision a key
(cryptographically separate from the normal RADIUS shared
secret) to be used exclusively in the generation of the
Message-Authentication-Code.
Response Messages
For responses (e.g., CoA-ACK [RFC5176], Accounting-Response
[RFC2866], etc.), the value of the MAC field is a hash of
the entire packet except the Response Authenticator in the
header of the RADIUS packet using a shared secret as the
key, as follows.
MAC = HASH-ALG(Key, Type + Identifier + Length + Attributes)
where '+' represents concatenation
If the request contained an instance of the MAC-Randomizer
Attribute and the responder wishes to include an instance of
the Message-Authentication-Code Attribute in the
corresponding response, then the MAC-Randomizer Attribute
from the request MUST be included in the response.
If the Message-Authenticator-Code Attribute is included in a
server response, the client SHOULD ignore the contents of
the Response Authenticator.
Implementation Notes
When the hash is calculated, both the MAC field of the
Message-Authenticator-Code Attribute and the String field
of the Message-Authenticator Attribute (if any) MUST be
considered to be zero-filled.
The Message-Authentication-Code Attribute MUST be created
and inserted in the packet before the Response
Authenticator is calculated.
Implementations SHOULD provide a means to provision a key
(cryptographically separate from the normal RADIUS shared
secret) to be used exclusively in the generation of the
Message-Authentication-Code.
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 15]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
4. Security Considerations
It is RECOMMENDED in this memo that two new keys, a key encrypting
key and a message authentication key, be shared by the RADIUS client
and server. If implemented, these two keys MUST be different from
each other and SHOULD NOT be based on a password. These two keys
MUST be cryptographically independent of the RADIUS shared secret
used in calculating the Response Authenticator [RFC2865], Request
Authenticator [RFC2866] [RFC5176], and Message-Authenticator
Attribute [RFC3579]; otherwise, if the shared secret is broken, all
is lost.
To avoid the possibility of collisions, the same MAC key SHOULD NOT
be used with more than 2^(n/2) messages, where 'n' is the length of
the MAC value in octets.
If a packet that contains an instance of the Keying-Material
Attribute also contains an instance of another, weaker key transport
attribute (e.g., MS-MPPE-Recv-Key [RFC2548]) encapsulating identical
keying material, then breaking the weaker attribute might facilitate
a known-plaintext attack against the KEK.
5. Contributors
Hao Zhou, Nancy Cam-Winget, Alex Lam, Paul Funk, and John Fossaceca
all contributed to this document.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks (in no particular order) to Keith McCloghrie, Kaushik Narayan,
Murtaza Chiba, Bill Burr, Russ Housley, David McGrew, Pat Calhoun,
Joel Halpern, Jim Schaad, Greg Weber, and Bernard Aboba for useful
feedback.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[FIPS] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure
Hash Standard (SHS)", FIPS PUB 180-3, October 2008.
[NIST] Dworkin, M., "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of
Operation: The CMAC Mode for Authentication", NIST SP800-
38B, May 2005.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
February 1997.
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 16]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RFC2866] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[RFC2868] Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J., Holdrege,
M., and I. Goyret, "RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol
Support", RFC 2868, June 2000.
[RFC3394] Schaad, J. and R. Housley, "Advanced Encryption Standard
(AES) Key Wrap Algorithm", RFC 3394, September 2002.
[RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication
Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
June 2005.
[RFC4231] Nystrom, M., "Identifiers and Test Vectors for
HMAC-SHA-224, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384, and
HMAC-SHA-512", RFC 4231, December 2005.
[RFC5176] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D., and B.
Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 5176,
January 2008.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC2548] Zorn, G., "Microsoft Vendor-specific RADIUS Attributes",
RFC 2548, March 1999.
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP)", RFC 3748, June 2004.
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 17]
^L
RFC 6218 RADIUS Keying Material Transfer VSA April 2011
Authors' Addresses
Glen Zorn
Network Zen
227/358 Thanon Sanphawut
Bang Na, Bangkok 10260
Thailand
Phone: +66 (0) 87 040 4617
EMail: gwz@net-zen.net
Tiebing Zhang
Advista Technologies
5252 Orange Ave., Suite 106
Cypress, CA 90630
US
Phone: +1 (949) 242 0391
EMail: tzhang@advistatech.com
Jesse Walker
Intel Corporation
JF2-55
2111 N.E. 25th Ave.
Hillsboro, OR 97214-5961
US
Phone: +1 (503) 712-1849
EMail: jesse.walker@intel.com
Joseph Salowey
Cisco Systems
2901 Third Avenue
SEA1/6/
Seattle, WA 98121
US
Phone: +1 (206) 256-3380
EMail: jsalowey@cisco.com
Zorn, et al. Informational [Page 18]
^L
|