Network Working Group P. Eronen, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4072 Nokia
Category: Standards Track T. Hiller
Lucent Technologies
G. Zorn
Cisco Systems
August 2005
Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application
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 (2005).
Abstract
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) provides a standard
mechanism for support of various authentication methods. This
document defines the Command-Codes and AVPs necessary to carry EAP
packets between a Network Access Server (NAS) and a back-end
authentication server.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ........................3
2. Extensible Authentication Protocol Support in Diameter .........3
2.1. Advertising Application Support ..........................3
2.2. Protocol Overview ........................................4
2.3. Sessions and NASREQ Interaction ..........................6
2.3.1. Scenario 1: Direct Connection .....................7
2.3.2. Scenario 2: Direct Connection with Redirects ......8
2.3.3. Scenario 3: Direct EAP, Authorization via Agents ..9
2.3.4. Scenario 4: Proxy Agents .........................10
2.4. Invalid Packets .........................................10
2.5. Retransmission ..........................................11
2.6. Fragmentation ...........................................12
2.7. Accounting ..............................................12
2.8. Usage Guidelines ........................................13
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
2.8.1. User-Name AVP ....................................13
2.8.2. Conflicting AVPs .................................13
2.8.3. Displayable Messages .............................14
2.8.4. Role Reversal ....................................14
2.8.5. Identifier Space .................................14
3. Command-Codes .................................................14
3.1. Diameter-EAP-Request (DER) Command ......................15
3.2. Diameter-EAP-Answer (DEA) Command .......................16
4. Attribute-Value Pairs .........................................18
4.1. New AVPs ................................................18
4.1.1. EAP-Payload AVP ..................................18
4.1.2. EAP-Reissued-Payload AVP .........................18
4.1.3. EAP-Master-Session-Key AVP .......................19
4.1.4. EAP-Key-Name AVP .................................19
4.1.5. Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method AVP ...................19
5. AVP Occurrence Tables .........................................19
5.1. EAP Command AVP Table ...................................20
5.2. Accounting AVP Table ....................................21
6. RADIUS/Diameter Interactions ..................................22
6.1. RADIUS Request Forwarded as Diameter Request ............22
6.2. Diameter Request Forwarded as RADIUS Request ............23
6.3. Accounting Requests .....................................24
7. IANA Considerations ...........................................24
8. Security Considerations .......................................24
8.1. Overview ................................................24
8.2. AVP Editing .............................................26
8.3. Negotiation Attacks .....................................27
8.4. Session Key Distribution ................................28
8.5. Privacy Issues ..........................................28
8.6. Note about EAP and Impersonation ........................29
9. Acknowledgements ..............................................29
10. References ....................................................30
10.1. Normative References ....................................30
10.2. Informative References ..................................30
1. Introduction
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in [EAP], is an
authentication framework which supports multiple authentication
mechanisms. EAP may be used on dedicated links, switched circuits,
and wired as well as wireless links.
To date, EAP has been implemented with hosts and routers that connect
via switched circuits or dial-up lines using PPP [RFC1661], IEEE 802
wired switches [IEEE-802.1X], and IEEE 802.11 wireless access points
[IEEE-802.11i]. EAP has also been adopted for IPsec remote access in
IKEv2 [IKEv2].
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
This document specifies the Diameter EAP application that carries EAP
packets between a Network Access Server (NAS) working as an EAP
Authenticator and a back-end authentication server. The Diameter EAP
application is based on the Diameter Network Access Server
Application [NASREQ] and is intended for environments similar to
NASREQ.
In the Diameter EAP application, authentication occurs between the
EAP client and its home Diameter server. This end-to-end
authentication reduces the possibility for fraudulent authentication,
such as replay and man-in-the-middle attacks. End-to-end
authentication also provides a possibility for mutual authentication,
which is not possible with PAP and CHAP in a roaming PPP environment.
The Diameter EAP application relies heavily on [NASREQ], and in
earlier versions was part of the Diameter NASREQ application. It can
also be used in conjunction with NASREQ, selecting the application
based on the user authentication mechanism (EAP or PAP/CHAP). The
Diameter EAP application defines new Command-Codes and Attribute-
Value Pairs (AVPs), and can work together with RADIUS EAP support
[RFC3579].
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 [RFC2119].
2. Extensible Authentication Protocol Support in Diameter
2.1. Advertising Application Support
Diameter nodes conforming to this specification MUST advertise
support by including the Diameter EAP Application ID value of 5 in
the Auth-Application-Id AVP of the Capabilities-Exchange-Request and
Capabilities-Exchange-Answer command [BASE].
If the NAS receives a response with the Result-Code set to
DIAMETER_APPLICATION_UNSUPPORTED [BASE], it indicates that the
Diameter server in the home realm does not support EAP. If possible,
the access device MAY attempt to negotiate another authentication
protocol, such as PAP or CHAP. An access device SHOULD be cautious
when determining whether a less secure authentication protocol will
be used, since this could result from a downgrade attack (see
Section 8.3).
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
2.2. Protocol Overview
The EAP conversation between the authenticating peer and the access
device begins with the initiation of EAP within a link layer, such as
PPP [RFC1661] or IEEE 802.11i [IEEE-802.11i]. Once EAP has been
initiated, the access device will typically send a Diameter-EAP-
Request message with an empty EAP-Payload AVP to the Diameter server,
signifying an EAP-Start.
If the Diameter home server is willing to do EAP authentication, it
responds with a Diameter-EAP-Answer message containing an EAP-Payload
AVP that includes an encapsulated EAP packet. The Result-Code AVP in
the message will be set to DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH, signifying that
a subsequent request is expected. The EAP payload is forwarded by
the access device to the EAP client. This is illustrated in the
diagram below.
User NAS Server
| | |
| (initiate EAP) | |
|<------------------------------>| |
| | Diameter-EAP-Request |
| | EAP-Payload(EAP Start) |
| |------------------------------->|
| | |
| | Diameter-EAP-Answer |
| Result-Code=DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH |
| | EAP-Payload(EAP Request #1) |
| |<-------------------------------|
| EAP Request #1 | |
|<-------------------------------| |
: : :
: ...continues... :
The initial Diameter-EAP-Answer in a multi-round exchange normally
includes an EAP-Request/Identity, requesting the EAP client to
identify itself. Upon receipt of the EAP client's EAP-Response, the
access device will then issue a second Diameter-EAP-Request message,
with the client's EAP payload encapsulated within the EAP-Payload
AVP.
A preferred approach is for the access device to issue the
EAP-Request/Identity message to the EAP client, and forward the
EAP-Response/Identity packet, encapsulated within the EAP-Payload
AVP, as a Diameter-EAP-Request to the Diameter server (see the
diagram below). This alternative reduces the number of Diameter
message round trips. When the EAP-Request/Identity message is issued
by the access device, it SHOULD interpret the EAP-Response/Identity
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
packet returned by the authenticating peer, and copy its value to a
User-Name AVP in Diameter-EAP-Request. This is useful in roaming
environments, since the Destination-Realm is needed for routing
purposes. Note that this alternative cannot be universally employed,
as there are circumstances in which a user's identity is not needed
(such as when authorization occurs based on a calling or called phone
number).
User NAS Server
| | |
| (initiate EAP) | |
|<------------------------------>| |
| | |
| EAP Request(Identity) | |
|<-------------------------------| |
| | |
| EAP Response(Identity) | |
|------------------------------->| |
| | Diameter-EAP-Request |
| | EAP-Payload(EAP Response) |
| |------------------------------->|
: : :
: ...continues... :
The conversation continues until the Diameter server sends a
Diameter-EAP-Answer with a Result-Code AVP indicating success or
failure, and an optional EAP-Payload. The Result-Code AVP is used by
the access device to determine whether service is to be provided to
the EAP client. The access device MUST NOT rely on the contents of
the optional EAP-Payload to determine whether service is to be
provided.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
: ...continued... :
: : :
| EAP Response #N | |
|------------------------------->| |
| | Diameter-EAP-Request |
| | EAP-Payload(EAP Response #N) |
| |------------------------------->|
| | |
| | Diameter-EAP-Answer |
| | Result-Code=DIAMETER_SUCCESS |
| | EAP-Payload(EAP Success) |
| | [EAP-Master-Session-Key] |
| | (authorization AVPs) |
| |<-------------------------------|
| | |
| EAP Success | |
|<-------------------------------| |
If authorization was requested, a Diameter-EAP-Answer with
Result-Code set to DIAMETER_SUCCESS SHOULD also include the
appropriate authorization AVPs required for the service requested
(see Section 5 and [NASREQ]). In some cases, the home server may not
be able to provide all necessary authorization AVPs; in this case, a
separate authorization step MAY be used as described in
Section 2.3.3. Diameter-EAP-Answer messages whose Result-Code AVP is
set to DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH MAY include authorization AVPs.
A Diameter-EAP-Answer with successful Result-Code MAY also include an
EAP-Master-Session-Key AVP that contains keying material for
protecting the communication between the user and the NAS. Exactly
how this keying material is used depends on the link layer in
question, and is beyond the scope of this document.
A home Diameter server MAY request EAP re-authentication by issuing
the Re-Auth-Request [BASE] message to the Diameter client.
Should an EAP authentication session be interrupted due to a home
server failure, the session MAY be directed to an alternate server,
but the authentication session will have to be restarted from the
beginning.
2.3. Sessions and NASREQ Interaction
The previous section introduced the basic protocol between the NAS
and the home server. Since the Diameter-EAP-Answer message may
include a Master Session Key (MSK) for protecting the communication
between the user and the NAS, one must ensure that this key does not
fall into wrong hands.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
Basic Diameter security mechanisms (IPsec and TLS) protect Diameter
messages hop-by-hop. Since there are currently no end-to-end
(NAS-to-home server) security mechanisms defined for Diameter, this
section describes possible scenarios on how the messages could be
transport protected using these hop-by-hop mechanisms.
This list of scenarios is not intended to be exhaustive, and it is
possible to combine them. For instance, the first proxy agent after
the NAS could use redirects as in Scenario 2 to bypass any additional
proxy agents.
2.3.1. Scenario 1: Direct Connection
The simplest case is when the NAS contacts the home server directly.
All authorization AVPs and EAP keying material are delivered by the
home server.
NAS home server
| |
| Diameter-EAP-Request |
| Auth-Request-Type=AUTHORIZE_AUTHENTICATE |
| EAP-Payload(EAP Start) |
|---------------------------------------------------------------->|
| |
| Diameter-EAP-Answer |
| Result-Code=DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH |
| EAP-Payload(EAP Request) |
|<----------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
: ...more EAP Request/Response pairs... :
| |
| Diameter-EAP-Request |
| EAP-Payload(EAP Response) |
|---------------------------------------------------------------->|
| |
| Diameter-EAP-Answer |
| Result-Code=DIAMETER_SUCCESS |
| EAP-Payload(EAP Success) |
| EAP-Master-Session-Key |
| (authorization AVPs) |
|<----------------------------------------------------------------|
This scenario is the most likely to be used in small networks, or in
cases where Diameter agents are not needed to provide routing or
additional authorization AVPs.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
2.3.2. Scenario 2: Direct Connection with Redirects
In this scenario the NAS uses a redirect agent to locate the home
server. The rest of the session proceeds as before.
NAS Local redirect agent Home server
| | |
| Diameter-EAP-Request | |
| Auth-Request-Type=AUTHORIZE_AUTHENTICATE |
| EAP-Payload(EAP Start) | |
|------------------------------->| |
| | |
| Diameter-EAP-Answer |
| Redirect-Host=homeserver.example.com |
| Redirect-Host-Usage=REALM_AND_APPLICATION |
|<-------------------------------| |
| : |
| Diameter-EAP-Request : |
| Auth-Request-Type=AUTHORIZE_AUTHENTICATE |
| EAP-Payload(EAP Start) : |
|---------------------------------------------------------------->|
| : |
: ...rest of the session continues as in first case... :
: : :
The advantage of this scenario is that knowledge of realms and home
servers is centralized to a redirect agent, and it is not necessary
to modify the NAS configuration when, for example, a new roaming
agreement is made.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
2.3.3. Scenario 3: Direct EAP, Authorization via Agents
In this scenario the EAP authentication is done directly with the
home server (with Auth-Request-Type set to AUTHENTICATE_ONLY), and
authorization AVPs are retrieved from local proxy agents. This
scenario is intended for environments in which the home server cannot
provide all the necessary authorization AVPs to the NAS.
NAS Local proxy agent Home server
| : |
| Diameter-EAP-Request : |
| Auth-Request-Type=AUTHENTICATE_ONLY |
| EAP-Payload(EAP Start) : |
|---------------------------------------------------------------->|
| : |
| : Diameter-EAP-Answer |
| Result-Code=DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH |
| : EAP-Payload(EAP Request) |
|<----------------------------------------------------------------|
| : |
: ...more EAP Request/Response pairs... :
| : |
| Diameter-EAP-Request : |
| EAP-Payload(EAP Response) : |
|---------------------------------------------------------------->|
| : |
| : Diameter-EAP-Answer |
| : Result-Code=DIAMETER_SUCCESS |
| : EAP-Payload(EAP Success) |
| : EAP-Master-Session-Key |
| : (authorization AVPs) |
|<----------------------------------------------------------------|
| | |
| AA-Request | |
| Auth-Request-Type=AUTHORIZE_ONLY |
| (some AVPs from first session) | |
|------------------------------->| |
| | |
| AA-Answer | |
| Result-Code=DIAMETER_SUCCESS | |
| (authorization AVPs) | |
|<-------------------------------| |
The NASREQ application is used here for authorization because the
realm-specific routing table supports routing based on application,
not on Diameter commands.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
2.3.4. Scenario 4: Proxy Agents
This scenario is the same as Scenario 1, but the NAS contacts the
home server through proxies. Note that the proxies can see the EAP
session keys, thus it is not suitable for environments where proxies
cannot be trusted.
NAS Local proxy/relay agent Home server
| | |
| Diameter-EAP-Request | |
| Auth-Request-Type=AUTHORIZE_AUTHENTICATE |
| EAP-Payload(EAP Start) | |
|------------------------------->|------------------------------->|
| | |
| | Diameter-EAP-Answer |
| Result-Code=DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH |
| | EAP-Payload(EAP Request) |
|<-------------------------------|<-------------------------------|
| : |
: ...more EAP Request/Response pairs... :
| : |
| Diameter-EAP-Request | |
| EAP-Payload(EAP Response) | |
|------------------------------->|------------------------------->|
| | |
| | Diameter-EAP-Answer |
| | Result-Code=DIAMETER_SUCCESS |
| | EAP-Payload(EAP Success) |
| | EAP-Master-Session-Key |
| | (authorization AVPs) |
|<-------------------------------|<-------------------------------|
2.4. Invalid Packets
While acting as a pass-through, the NAS MUST validate the EAP header
fields (Code, Identifier, Length) prior to forwarding an EAP packet
to or from the Diameter server. On receiving an EAP packet from the
peer, the NAS checks the Code (Code 2=Response) and Length fields,
and matches the Identifier value against the current Identifier,
supplied by the Diameter server in the most recently validated EAP
Request. On receiving an EAP packet from the Diameter server
(encapsulated within a Diameter-EAP-Answer), the NAS checks the Code
(Code 1=Request) and Length fields, then updates the current
Identifier value. Pending EAP Responses that do not match the
current Identifier value are silently discarded by the NAS.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
Since EAP method fields (Type, Type-Data) are typically not validated
by a NAS operating as a pass-through, despite these checks it is
possible for a NAS to forward an invalid EAP packet to or from the
Diameter server.
A Diameter server receiving an EAP-Payload AVP that it does not
understand SHOULD determine whether the error is fatal or non-fatal
based on the EAP Type. A Diameter server determining that a fatal
error has occurred MUST send a Diameter-EAP-Answer with a failure
Result-Code and an EAP-Payload AVP encapsulating an EAP Failure
packet. A Diameter server determining that a non-fatal error has
occurred MUST send a Diameter-EAP-Answer with
DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH Result-Code, but no EAP-Payload AVP. To
simplify RADIUS translation, this message MUST also include an
EAP-Reissued-Payload AVP encapsulating the previous EAP Request sent
by the server.
When receiving a Diameter-EAP-Answer without an EAP-Payload AVP (and
DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH Result-Code), the NAS SHOULD discard the
EAP-Response packet most recently transmitted to the Diameter server
and check whether additional EAP Response packets that match the
current Identifier value have been received. If so, a new EAP
Response packet, if available, MUST be sent to the Diameter server
within an Diameter-EAP-Request. If no EAP Response packet is
available, then the previous EAP Request is resent to the peer, and
the retransmission timer is reset.
In order to provide protection against Denial of Service (DoS)
attacks, it is advisable for the NAS to allocate a finite buffer for
EAP packets received from the peer, and to discard packets according
to an appropriate policy once that buffer has been exceeded. Also,
the Diameter server is advised to permit only a modest number of
invalid EAP packets within a single session, prior to terminating the
session with DIAMETER_AUTHENTICATION_REJECTED Result-Code. By
default, a value of 5 invalid EAP packets is recommended.
2.5. Retransmission
As noted in [EAP], if an EAP packet is lost in transit between the
authenticating peer and the NAS (or vice versa), the NAS will
retransmit.
It may be necessary to adjust retransmission strategies and
authentication time-outs in certain cases. For example, when a token
card is used, additional time may be required to allow the user to
find the card and enter the token. Since the NAS will typically not
have knowledge of the required parameters, these need to be provided
by the Diameter server.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
If a Multi-Round-Time-Out AVP [BASE] is present in a Diameter-EAP-
Answer message that also contains an EAP-Payload AVP, that value is
used to set the EAP retransmission timer for that EAP Request and
that Request alone.
2.6. Fragmentation
Using the EAP-Payload AVP, it is possible for the Diameter server to
encapsulate an EAP packet that is larger than the MTU on the link
between the NAS and the peer. Since it is not possible for the
Diameter server to use MTU discovery to ascertain the link MTU, a
Framed-MTU AVP may be included in a Diameter-EAP-Request message in
order to provide the Diameter server with this information.
A Diameter server having received a Framed-MTU AVP in a
Diameter-EAP-Request message MUST NOT send any subsequent packet in
this EAP conversation containing EAP-Payload AVP whose length exceeds
that specified by the Framed-MTU value, taking the link type
(specified by the NAS-Port-Type AVP) into account. For example, as
noted in [RFC3580] Section 3.10, for a NAS-Port-Type value of IEEE
802.11, the RADIUS server may send an EAP packet as large as
Framed-MTU minus four (4) octets, taking into account the additional
overhead for the IEEE 802.1X Version (1 octet), Type (1 octet) and
Body Length (2 octets) fields.
2.7. Accounting
When a user is authenticated using EAP, the NAS MAY include an
Accounting-Auth-Method AVP [NASREQ] with value 5 (EAP) in
Accounting-Request messages. This document specifies one additional
AVP for accounting messages. One or more Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method
AVPs (see Section 4.1.5) MAY be included in Accounting-Request
messages to indicate the EAP method(s) used to authenticate the user.
If the NAS has authenticated the user with a locally implemented EAP
method, it knows the method used and SHOULD include it in an
Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method AVP.
If the authentication was done using Diameter-EAP-Request/Answer
messages, the Diameter server SHOULD include one or more
Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method AVPs in Diameter-EAP-Answer packets with a
successful result code. In this case, the NAS SHOULD include these
AVPs in Accounting-Request messages.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
2.8. Usage Guidelines
2.8.1. User-Name AVP
Unless the access device interprets the EAP-Response/Identity packet
returned by the authenticating peer, it will not have access to the
user's identity. Furthermore, some EAP methods support identity
protection where the user's real identity is not included in
EAP-Response/Identity. Therefore, the Diameter Server SHOULD return
the user's identity by inserting a User-Name AVP to
Diameter-EAP-Answer messages that have a Result-Code of
DIAMETER_SUCCESS. A separate billing identifier or pseudonym MAY be
used for privacy reasons (see Section 8.5). If the user's identity
is not available to the NAS, the Session-Id AVP MAY be used for
accounting and billing; however operationally this could be very
difficult to manage.
2.8.2. Conflicting AVPs
A Diameter-EAP-Answer message containing an EAP-Payload of type
EAP-Success or EAP-Failure MUST NOT have the Result-Code AVP set to
DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH.
Some lower layers assume that the authorization decision is made by
the EAP server, and thus the peer considers EAP Success as an
indication that access was granted. In this case, the Result-Code
SHOULD match the contained EAP packet: a successful Result-Code for
EAP-Success, and a failure Result-Code for EAP-Failure. If the
encapsulated EAP packet does not match the result implied by the
Result-Code AVP, the combination is likely to cause confusion,
because the NAS and peer will conclude the outcome of the
authentication differently. For example, if the NAS receives a
failure Result-Code with an encapsulated EAP Success, it will not
grant access to the peer. However, on receiving the EAP Success, the
peer will be led to believe that access was granted.
This situation can be difficult to avoid when Diameter proxy agents
make authorization decisions (that is, proxies can change the
Result-Code AVP sent by the home server). Because it is the
responsibility of the Diameter server to avoid conflicts, the NAS
MUST NOT "manufacture" EAP result packets in order to correct the
contradictory messages that it receives. This behavior, originally
mandated within [IEEE-802.1X], is now deprecated.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
2.8.3. Displayable Messages
The Reply-Message AVP [NASREQ] MUST NOT be included in any Diameter
message containing an EAP-Payload AVP.
2.8.4. Role Reversal
Some environments in which EAP is used, such as PPP, support
peer-to-peer operation. Both parties act as authenticators and
authenticatees at the same time, in two simultaneous and independent
EAP conversations.
This specification is intended for communication between EAP
(passthrough) authenticator and backend authentication server. A
Diameter client MUST NOT send a Diameter-EAP-Request encapsulating an
EAP Request packet, and a Diameter server receiving such a packet
MUST respond with a failure Result-Code.
2.8.5. Identifier Space
In EAP, each session has its own unique Identifier space. Diameter
server implementations MUST be able to distinguish between EAP
packets with the same Identifier existing within distinct EAP
sessions and originating on the same NAS. This is done by using the
Session-Id AVP.
If a Diameter NAS is in the middle of a multi-round authentication
exchange, and it detects that the EAP session between the client and
the NAS has been terminated, it MUST select a new Diameter Session-Id
for any subsequent EAP sessions. This is necessary in order to
distinguish a restarted EAP authentication process from the
continuation of an ongoing process (by the same user on the same NAS
and port).
In RADIUS, the same functionality can be achieved through the
inclusion or omission of the State attribute. Translation rules in
[NASREQ] ensure that an Access-Request without the State attribute
maps to a new Diameter Session-Id AVP value. Furthermore, a
translation agent will always include a State attribute in
Access-Challenge messages, making sure that the State attribute is
available for a RADIUS NAS.
3. Command-Codes
This section defines new Command-Code values that MUST be supported
by all Diameter implementations conforming to this specification.
The following commands are defined in this section:
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
Command-Name Abbrev. Code Reference
--------------------------------------------------------
Diameter-EAP-Request DER 268 3.1
Diameter-EAP-Answer DEA 268 3.2
When the NASREQ AA-Request (AAR) or AA-Answer (AAA) commands are used
for AUTHORIZE_ONLY messages in conjunction with EAP (see
Section 2.3.3), an Application Identifier value of 1 (NASREQ) is
used, and the commands follow the rules and ABNF defined in [NASREQ].
When the Re-Auth-Request (RAR), Re-Auth-Answer (RAA),
Session-Termination-Request (STR), Session-Termination-Answer (STA),
Abort-Session-Request (ASR), Abort-Session-Answer (ASA),
Accounting-Request (ACR), and Accounting-Answer (ACA) commands are
used together with the Diameter EAP application, they follow the
rules in [NASREQ] and [BASE]. The accounting commands use
Application Identifier value of 3 (Diameter Base Accounting); the
others use 0 (Diameter Common Messages).
3.1. Diameter-EAP-Request (DER) Command
The Diameter-EAP-Request (DER) command, indicated by the Command-Code
field set to 268 and the 'R' bit set in the Command Flags field, is
sent by a Diameter client to a Diameter server, and conveys an
EAP-Response from the EAP client. The Diameter-EAP-Request MUST
contain one EAP-Payload AVP containing the actual EAP payload. An
EAP-Payload AVP with no data MAY be sent to the Diameter server to
initiate an EAP authentication session.
The DER message MAY be the result of a multi-round authentication
exchange that occurs when the DEA is received with the Result-Code
AVP set to DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH [BASE]. A subsequent DER
message MUST include any State AVPs [NASREQ] that were present in the
DEA. For re-authentication, it is recommended that the Identity
request be skipped in order to reduce the number of authentication
round trips. This is only possible when the user's identity is
already known by the home Diameter server.
Message format
::= < Diameter Header: 268, REQ, PXY >
< Session-Id >
{ Auth-Application-Id }
{ Origin-Host }
{ Origin-Realm }
{ Destination-Realm }
{ Auth-Request-Type }
[ Destination-Host ]
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
[ NAS-Identifier ]
[ NAS-IP-Address ]
[ NAS-IPv6-Address ]
[ NAS-Port ]
[ NAS-Port-Id ]
[ NAS-Port-Type ]
[ Origin-State-Id ]
[ Port-Limit ]
[ User-Name ]
{ EAP-Payload }
[ EAP-Key-Name ]
[ Service-Type ]
[ State ]
[ Authorization-Lifetime ]
[ Auth-Grace-Period ]
[ Auth-Session-State ]
[ Callback-Number ]
[ Called-Station-Id ]
[ Calling-Station-Id ]
[ Originating-Line-Info ]
[ Connect-Info ]
* [ Framed-Compression ]
[ Framed-Interface-Id ]
[ Framed-IP-Address ]
* [ Framed-IPv6-Prefix ]
[ Framed-IP-Netmask ]
[ Framed-MTU ]
[ Framed-Protocol ]
* [ Tunneling ]
* [ Proxy-Info ]
* [ Route-Record ]
* [ AVP ]
3.2. Diameter-EAP-Answer (DEA) Command
The Diameter-EAP-Answer (DEA) message, indicated by the Command-Code
field set to 268 and the 'R' bit cleared in the Command Flags field,
is sent by the Diameter server to the client for one of the following
reasons:
1. The message is part of a multi-round authentication exchange, and
the server is expecting a subsequent Diameter-EAP-Request. This
is indicated by setting the Result-Code to
DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH, and MAY include zero or more State
AVPs.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
2. The EAP client has been successfully authenticated and
authorized, in which case the message MUST include the
Result-Code AVP indicating success, and SHOULD include an
EAP-Payload of type EAP-Success. This event MUST cause the
access device to provide service to the EAP client.
3. The EAP client has not been successfully authenticated and/or
authorized, and the Result-Code AVP is set to indicate failure.
This message SHOULD include an EAP-Payload, but this AVP is not
used to determine whether service is to be provided.
If the message from the Diameter client included a request for
authorization, a successful response MUST include the authorization
AVPs that are relevant to the service being provided.
Message format
::= < Diameter Header: 268, PXY >
< Session-Id >
{ Auth-Application-Id }
{ Auth-Request-Type }
{ Result-Code }
{ Origin-Host }
{ Origin-Realm }
[ User-Name ]
[ EAP-Payload ]
[ EAP-Reissued-Payload ]
[ EAP-Master-Session-Key ]
[ EAP-Key-Name ]
[ Multi-Round-Time-Out ]
[ Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method ]
[ Service-Type ]
* [ Class ]
* [ Configuration-Token ]
[ Acct-Interim-Interval ]
[ Error-Message ]
[ Error-Reporting-Host ]
* [ Failed-AVP ]
[ Idle-Timeout ]
[ Authorization-Lifetime ]
[ Auth-Grace-Period ]
[ Auth-Session-State ]
[ Re-Auth-Request-Type ]
[ Session-Timeout ]
[ State ]
* [ Reply-Message ]
[ Origin-State-Id ]
* [ Filter-Id ]
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
[ Port-Limit ]
[ Callback-Id ]
[ Callback-Number ]
[ Framed-Appletalk-Link ]
* [ Framed-Appletalk-Network ]
[ Framed-Appletalk-Zone ]
* [ Framed-Compression ]
[ Framed-Interface-Id ]
[ Framed-IP-Address ]
* [ Framed-IPv6-Prefix ]
[ Framed-IPv6-Pool ]
* [ Framed-IPv6-Route ]
[ Framed-IP-Netmask ]
* [ Framed-Route ]
[ Framed-Pool ]
[ Framed-IPX-Network ]
[ Framed-MTU ]
[ Framed-Protocol ]
[ Framed-Routing ]
* [ NAS-Filter-Rule ]
* [ QoS-Filter-Rule ]
* [ Tunneling ]
* [ Redirect-Host ]
[ Redirect-Host-Usage ]
[ Redirect-Max-Cache-Time ]
* [ Proxy-Info ]
* [ AVP ]
4. Attribute-Value Pairs
This section both defines new AVPs, unique to the EAP Diameter
application and describes the usage of AVPs defined elsewhere (if
that usage in the EAP application is noteworthy).
4.1. New AVPs
4.1.1. EAP-Payload AVP
The EAP-Payload AVP (AVP Code 462) is of type OctetString and is used
to encapsulate the actual EAP packet that is being exchanged between
the EAP client and the home Diameter server.
4.1.2. EAP-Reissued-Payload AVP
The EAP-Reissued-Payload AVP (AVP Code 463) is of type OctetString.
The use of this AVP is described in Section 2.4.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
4.1.3. EAP-Master-Session-Key AVP
The EAP-Master-Session-Key AVP (AVP Code 464) is of type OctetString.
It contains keying material for protecting the communications between
the user and the NAS. Exactly how this keying material is used
depends on the link layer in question, and is beyond the scope of
this document.
4.1.4. EAP-Key-Name AVP
The EAP-Key-Name AVP (Radius Attribute Type 102) is of type
OctetString. It contains an opaque key identifier (name) generated
by the EAP method. Exactly how this name is used depends on the link
layer in question, and is beyond the scope of this document (see
[EAPKey] for more discussion).
Note that not all link layers use this name, and currently most EAP
methods do not generate it. Since the NAS operates in pass-through
mode, it cannot know the Key-Name before receiving it from the AAA
server. As a result, a Key-Name AVP sent in a Diameter-EAP-Request
MUST NOT contain any data. A home Diameter server receiving a
Diameter-EAP-Request with a Key-Name AVP with non-empty data MUST
silently discard the AVP. In addition, the home Diameter server
SHOULD include this AVP in Diameter-EAP-Response only if an empty
EAP-Key-Name AVP was present in Diameter-EAP-Request.
4.1.5. Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method AVP
The Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method AVP (AVP Code 465) is of type
Unsigned64. In case of expanded types [EAP, Section 5.7], this AVP
contains the value ((Vendor-Id * 2^32) + Vendor-Type).
The use of this AVP is described in Section 2.7.
5. AVP Occurrence Tables
The following tables use these symbols:
0 The AVP MUST NOT be present in the message
0+ Zero or more instances of the AVP MAY be present in the message
0-1 Zero or one instance of the AVP MAY be present in the message
1 One instance of the AVP MUST be present in the message
Note that AVPs that can only be present within a Grouped AVP are not
represented in these tables.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
5.1. EAP Command AVP Table
The following table lists the AVPs that may be present in the DER and
DEA Commands, as defined in this document; the AVPs listed are
defined both here and in [NASREQ].
+---------------+
| Command-Code |
|-------+-------+
Attribute Name | DER | DEA |
------------------------------------|-------+-------|
Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method | 0 | 0+ |
Acct-Interim-Interval [BASE] | 0 | 0-1 |
Auth-Application-Id [BASE] | 1 | 1 |
Auth-Grace-Period [BASE] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
Auth-Request-Type [BASE] | 1 | 1 |
Auth-Session-State [BASE] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
Authorization-Lifetime [BASE] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
Callback-Id [NASREQ] | 0 | 0-1 |
Callback-Number [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
Called-Station-Id [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0 |
Calling-Station-Id [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0 |
Class [BASE] | 0 | 0+ |
Configuration-Token [NASREQ] | 0 | 0+ |
Connect-Info [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0 |
Destination-Host [BASE] | 0-1 | 0 |
Destination-Realm [BASE] | 1 | 0 |
EAP-Master-Session-Key | 0 | 0-1 |
EAP-Key-Name | 0-1 | 0-1 |
EAP-Payload | 1 | 0-1 |
EAP-Reissued-Payload | 0 | 0-1 |
Error-Message [BASE] | 0 | 0-1 |
Error-Reporting-Host [BASE] | 0 | 0-1 |
Failed-AVP [BASE] | 0 | 0+ |
Filter-Id [NASREQ] | 0 | 0+ |
Framed-Appletalk-Link [NASREQ] | 0 | 0-1 |
Framed-Appletalk-Network [NASREQ] | 0 | 0+ |
Framed-Appletalk-Zone [NASREQ] | 0 | 0-1 |
Framed-Compression [NASREQ] | 0+ | 0+ |
Framed-Interface-Id [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
Framed-IP-Address [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
Framed-IP-Netmask [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
Framed-IPv6-Prefix [NASREQ] | 0+ | 0+ |
Framed-IPv6-Pool [NASREQ] | 0 | 0-1 |
Framed-IPv6-Route [NASREQ] | 0 | 0+ |
Framed-IPX-Network [NASREQ] | 0 | 0-1 |
Framed-MTU [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
Framed-Pool [NASREQ] | 0 | 0-1 |
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
Framed-Protocol [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
Framed-Route [NASREQ] | 0 | 0+ |
Framed-Routing [NASREQ] | 0 | 0-1 |
Idle-Timeout [NASREQ] | 0 | 0-1 |
Multi-Round-Time-Out [BASE] | 0 | 0-1 |
NAS-Filter-Rule [NASREQ] | 0 | 0+ |
NAS-Identifier [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0 |
NAS-IP-Address [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0 |
NAS-IPv6-Address [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0 |
NAS-Port [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0 |
NAS-Port-Id [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0 |
NAS-Port-Type [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0 |
Originating-Line-Info [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0 |
Origin-Host [BASE] | 1 | 1 |
Origin-Realm [BASE] | 1 | 1 |
Origin-State-Id [BASE] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
Port-Limit [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
Proxy-Info [BASE] | 0+ | 0+ |
QoS-Filter-Rule [NASREQ] | 0 | 0+ |
Re-Auth-Request-Type [BASE] | 0 | 0-1 |
Redirect-Host [BASE] | 0 | 0+ |
Redirect-Host-Usage [BASE] | 0 | 0-1 |
Redirect-Max-Cache-Time [BASE] | 0 | 0-1 |
Reply-Message [NASREQ] | 0 | 0+ |
Result-Code [BASE] | 0 | 1 |
Route-Record [BASE] | 0+ | 0+ |
Service-Type [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
Session-Id [BASE] | 1 | 1 |
Session-Timeout [BASE] | 0 | 0-1 |
State [NASREQ] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
Tunneling [NASREQ] | 0+ | 0+ |
User-Name [BASE] | 0-1 | 0-1 |
5.2. Accounting AVP Table
The table in this section is used to represent which AVPs defined in
this document are to be present in the Accounting messages, as
defined in [BASE].
+-----------+
| Command |
| Code |
|-----+-----+
Attribute Name | ACR | ACA |
---------------------------------------|-----+-----+
Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method | 0+ | 0 |
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
6. RADIUS/Diameter Interactions
Section 9 of [NASREQ] describes basic guidelines for translation
agents that translate between RADIUS and Diameter protocols. These
guidelines SHOULD be followed for Diameter EAP application as well,
with some additional guidelines given in this section. Note that
this document does not restrict implementations from creating
additional methods, as long as the translation function does not
violate the RADIUS or the Diameter protocols.
6.1. RADIUS Request Forwarded as Diameter Request
RADIUS Access-Request to Diameter-EAP-Request:
o RADIUS EAP-Message attribute(s) are translated to a Diameter
EAP-Payload AVP. If multiple RADIUS EAP-Message attributes are
present, they are concatenated and translated to a single Diameter
EAP-Payload AVP.
o An empty RADIUS EAP-Message attribute (with length 2) signifies
EAP-Start, and it is translated to an empty EAP-Payload AVP.
Diameter-EAP-Answer to RADIUS Access-Accept/Reject/Challenge:
o Diameter EAP-Payload AVP is translated to RADIUS EAP-Message
attribute(s). If necessary, the value is split into multiple
RADIUS EAP-Message attributes.
o Diameter EAP-Reissued-Payload AVP is translated to a message that
contains RADIUS EAP-Message attribute(s), and a RADIUS Error-Cause
attribute [RFC3576] with value 202 (decimal), "Invalid EAP Packet
(Ignored)" [RFC3579].
o As described in [NASREQ], if the Result-Code AVP set to
DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH and the Multi-Round-Time-Out AVP is
present, it is translated to the RADIUS Session-Timeout attribute.
o Diameter EAP-Master-Session-Key AVP can be translated to the
vendor-specific RADIUS MS-MPPE-Recv-Key and MS-MPPE-Send-Key
attributes [RFC2548]. The first up to 32 octets of the key is
stored into MS-MPPE-Recv-Key, and the next up to 32 octets (if
present) are stored into MS-MPPE-Send-Key. The encryption of this
attribute is described in [RFC2548].
o Diameter Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method AVPs, if present, are
discarded.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
6.2. Diameter Request Forwarded as RADIUS Request
Diameter-EAP-Request to RADIUS Access-Request:
o The Diameter EAP-Payload AVP is translated to RADIUS EAP-Message
attribute(s).
o An empty Diameter EAP-Payload AVP signifies EAP-Start, and is
translated to an empty RADIUS EAP-Message attribute.
o The type (or expanded type) field from the EAP-Payload AVP can be
saved either in a local state table, or encoded in a RADIUS
Proxy-State attribute. This information is needed to construct an
Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method AVP for the answer message (see below).
RADIUS Access-Accept/Reject/Challenge to Diameter-EAP-Answer:
o If the RADIUS Access-Challenge message does not contain an
Error-Cause attribute [RFC3576] with value 202 (decimal), "Invalid
EAP Packet (Ignored)" [RFC3579], any RADIUS EAP-Message attributes
are translated to a Diameter EAP-Payload AVP, concatenating them
if multiple attributes are present.
o If the Error-Cause attribute with value 202 is present, any RADIUS
EAP-Message attributes are translated to a Diameter
EAP-Reissued-Payload AVP, concatenating them if multiple
attributes are present.
o As described in [NASREQ], if the Session-Timeout attribute is
present in a RADIUS Access-Challenge message, it is translated to
the Diameter Multi-Round-Time-Out AVP.
o If the vendor-specific RADIUS MS-MPPE-Recv-Key and/or
MS-MPPE-Send-Key attributes [RFC2548] are present, they can be
translated to a Diameter EAP-Master-Session-Key AVP. The
attributes have to be decrypted before conversion, and the Salt,
Key-Length and Padding sub-fields are discarded. The Key
sub-fields are concatenated (MS-MPPE-Recv-Key first,
MS-MPPE-Send-Key next), and the concatenated value is stored into
a Diameter EAP-Master-Session-Key AVP.
o If the Diameter-EAP-Answer will have a successful result code, the
saved state (see above) can be used to construct an
Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method AVP.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
6.3. Accounting Requests
In Accounting-Requests, the vendor-specific RADIUS MS-Acct-EAP-Type
attribute [RFC2548] can be translated to a Diameter
Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method AVP, and vice versa.
When translating from Diameter to RADIUS, note that the
MS-Acct-EAP-Type attribute does not support expanded EAP types. Type
values greater than 255 should be translated to type 254.
7. IANA Considerations
This document does not create any new namespaces to be maintained by
IANA, but it requires new values in namespaces that have been defined
in the Diameter Base protocol and RADIUS specifications.
o This document defines one new Diameter command (in Section 3)
whose Command Code is allocated from the Command Code namespace
defined in [BASE]. The Command Code for DER / DEA is 268.
o This document defines four new AVPs whose AVP Codes are allocated
from the AVP Code namespace defined in [BASE] as follows:
462 for EAP-Payload (defined in Section 4.1.1),
463 for EAP-Reissued-Payload (defined in Section 4.1.2),
464 for EAP-Master-Session-Key (defined in Section 4.1.3), and
465 for Accounting-EAP-Auth-Method (defined in Section 4.1.5).
o This document defines one new AVP (attribute) whose AVP Code
(Attribute Type) is to be allocated from the Attribute Type
namespace defined in [RFC2865] and [RFC3575]. The Radius
Attribute Type for EAP-Key-Name (defined in Section 4.1.4) is 102.
o This document defines one new Diameter application (in
Section 2.1) whose Application ID is to be allocated from the
Application Identifier namespace defined in [BASE]. The
Application ID for Diameter EAP is 5.
8. Security Considerations
8.1. Overview
Diameter peer-to-peer connections can be protected with IPsec or TLS.
These mechanisms are believed to provide sufficient protection under
the normal Internet threat model, that is, assuming the authorized
nodes engaging in the protocol have not been compromised, but the
attacker has complete control over the communication channels between
them. This includes eavesdropping, message modification, insertion,
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
man-in-the-middle and replay attacks. The details and related
security considerations are discussed in [BASE].
In addition to authentication provided by IPsec or TLS, authorization
is also required. Here, authorization means determining if a
Diameter message received from an authenticated Diameter peer should
be accepted (and not authorization of users requesting network access
from a NAS). In other words, when a Diameter server receives a
Diameter-EAP-Request, it has to decide if the client is authorized to
act as a NAS for the specific user, service type, and so on.
Correspondingly, when a NAS contacts a server to send a
Diameter-EAP-Request, it has to determine whether the server is
authorized to act as home server for the realm in question.
Authorization can involve local Access Control Lists (ACLs),
information contained in certificates, or some other means. See
[BASE] for more discussion and related security considerations. Note
that authorization issues are particularly relevant when Diameter
redirects are used. While redirection reduces the number of nodes
which have access to the contents of Diameter messages, a compromised
Diameter agent may not supply the right home server's address. If
the Diameter client is unable to tell whether this particular server
is authorized to act as the home server for this particular user, the
security of the communications rests on the redirect agent.
The hop-by-hop security mechanisms (IPsec and TLS) combined with
proper authorization provide good protection against "outside"
attackers, except for denial-of-service attacks. The remaining part
of this section deals with attacks by nodes that have been properly
authorized (to function as a NAS, Diameter agent, or Diameter
server), but abuse their authorization or have been compromised. In
general, it is not possible to completely protect against attacks by
compromised nodes, but this section offers advice on limiting the
extent of the damage.
Attacks involving eavesdropping or modification of EAP messages are
beyond the scope of these document. See [EAP] for discussion of
these security considerations (including method negotiation,
dictionary attacks, and privacy issues). While these attacks can be
carried out by an attacker between the client and the NAS,
compromised NASes and Diameter agents are naturally also in a good
position to modify and eavesdrop on the EAP messages.
Similarly, attacks involving the link layer protocol used between the
client and the NAS, such as PPP or IEEE 802.11, are beyond the scope
of this document.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
8.2. AVP Editing
Diameter agents can modify, insert, and delete AVPs. Diameter agents
are usually meant to modify AVPs, and the protocol cannot distinguish
well-intentioned and malicious modifications (see [RFC2607] for more
discussion). Similarly, a compromised NAS or server can naturally
include a different set of AVPs than expected.
Therefore, the question is what an attacker who compromises an
authorized NAS, agent, or server can do using Diameter EAP messages.
Some of the consequences are rather obvious. For instance, a
Diameter agent can give access to unauthorized users by changing the
Result-Code to DIAMETER_SUCCESS. Other consequences are less obvious
and are discussed below and authentication method negotiation attacks
are discussed in the next section.
By including suitable AVPs in an AA-Answer/Diameter-EAP-Answer
messages, an attacker may be able (depending on implementation and
configuration details) to:
o Give unauthorized users access, or deny access to authorized users
(Result-Code).
o Give an attacker a login session to a host otherwise protected by
firewalls, or redirect an authorized user's login session to a
host controlled by the attacker (Login-Host).
o Route an authorized user's traffic through a host controlled by
the attacker (various tunneling AVPs).
o Redirect an authorized user's DNS requests to a malicious DNS
server (various vendor-specific AVPs).
o Modify routing tables at the NAS and thus redirect packets
destined for someone else (Framed-Route, Framed-Routing).
o Remove packet filters and other restrictions for user (Filter,
Callback, various vendor-specific AVPs).
o Cause the NAS to call some number, possibly an expensive toll
number controlled by the attacker (callback AVPs).
o Execute Command Line Interface (CLI) commands on the NAS (various
vendor-specific attributes).
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
By modifying an AA-Request/Diameter-EAP-Request, an attacker may be
able to:
o Change NAS-Identifier/NAS-Port/Origin-Host (or another attribute)
so that a valid user appears to be accessing the network from a
different NAS than in reality.
o Modify Calling-Station-ID (either to hide the true value, gain
access, or frame someone else).
o Modify password change messages (some vendor-specific attributes).
o Modify usage information in accounting messages.
o Modify contents of Class and State AVPs.
Some of these attacks can be prevented if the NAS or server is
configured to not accept some particular AVPs, or accepts them only
from some nodes.
8.3. Negotiation Attacks
This section deals with attacks where the NAS, any Diameter agents,
or Diameter server attempt to cause the authenticating user to choose
some authentication method other than EAP, such as PAP or CHAP
(negotiation attacks within EAP are discussed in [EAP], Section 7.8).
The vulnerability can be mitigated via implementation of a per-
connection policy by the authenticating peer, and a per-user policy
by the Diameter server. For the authenticating peer, the
authentication policy should be set on a per-connection basis.
With a per-connection policy, an authenticating peer will only
attempt to negotiate EAP for a session in which EAP support is
expected. As a result, it is presumed that an authenticating peer
selecting EAP requires that level of security. If it cannot be
provided, there is likely a misconfiguration, or the authenticating
peer may be contacting the wrong server. In this case, the
authenticating peer simply disconnects.
Similarly, with a per-user policy, the home server will not accept
authentication methods other than EAP for users for which EAP support
is expected.
For a NAS, it may not be possible to determine whether a peer is
required to authenticate with EAP until the peer's identity is known.
For example, for shared-uses NASes one reseller may implement EAP
while another does not. Alternatively, some peer might be
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
authenticated locally by the NAS while other peers are authenticated
via Diameter. In such cases, if any peers of the NAS MUST do EAP,
then the NAS MUST attempt to negotiate EAP for every session. This
avoids forcing a peer to support more than one authentication type,
which could weaken security.
8.4. Session Key Distribution
Since there are currently no end-to-end (NAS-to-home server) security
mechanisms specified for Diameter, any agents that process
Diameter-EAP-Answer messages can see the contents of the
EAP-Master-Session-Key AVP. For this reason, this specification
strongly recommends avoiding Diameter agents when they cannot be
trusted to keep the keys secret.
In environments where agents are present, several factors should be
considered when deciding whether the agents that are authorized (and
considered "trustworthy enough") to grant access to users and specify
various authorization and tunneling AVPs are also "trustworthy
enough" to handle the session keys. These factors include (but are
not limited to) the type of access provided (e.g., public Internet or
corporate internet), security level of the agents, and the
possibilities for attacking user's traffic after it has been
decrypted by the NAS.
Note that the keys communicated in Diameter messages are usually
short-term session keys (or short-term master keys that are used to
derive session keys). To actually cause any damage, those session
keys must end up with some malicious party that must be able to
eavesdrop, modify, or insert traffic between the user and the NAS
during the lifetime of those keys (for example, in 802.11i the
attacker must also eavesdrop the "four-way handshake").
8.5. Privacy Issues
Diameter messages can contain AVPs that can be used to identify the
user (e.g., User-Name) and approximate location of the user (e.g.,
Origin-Host for WLAN access points, Calling-Station-Id for fixed
phone lines). Thus, any Diameter nodes that process the messages may
be able to determine the geographic location of users.
Note that in many cases, the user identity is also sent in clear
inside EAP-Payload AVPs, and it may be possible to eavesdrop this
between the user and the NAS.
This can be mitigated somewhat by using EAP methods that provide
identity protection (see [EAP], Section 7.3), and using Session-Id or
pseudonyms for accounting.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
8.6. Note about EAP and Impersonation
If the EAP method used does not provide mutual authentication,
obviously anyone can impersonate the network to the user. Even when
EAP mutual authentication is used, it occurs between the user and the
Diameter home server. See [EAPKey] for an extensive discussion about
the details and their implications.
One issue is worth pointing out here. As described in [EAPKey], the
current EAP architecture does not allow the home server to restrict
what service parameters or identities (such as SSID or BSSID in
802.11 wireless LANs) are advertised by the NAS to the client. That
is, a compromised NAS can change its BSSID or SSID, and thus appear
to offer a different service than intended. Even if these parameters
are included in Diameter-EAP-Answer messages, the NAS can tell
different values to the client.
Therefore, the NAS's possession of the session keys proves that the
user is talking to an authorized NAS, but a compromised NAS can lie
about its exact identity. See [EAPKey] for discussion on how
individual EAP methods can provide authentication of NAS service
parameters and identities.
Note that the usefulness of this authentication may be rather limited
in many environments. For instance, in wireless LANs the user does
not usually securely know the identity (such as BSSID) of the "right"
access point; it is simply picked from a beacon message that has the
correct SSID and good signal strength (something that is easy to
spoof). Thus, simply authenticating the identity may not allow the
user to distinguish the "right" access point from all others.
9. Acknowledgements
This Diameter application relies heavily on earlier work on Diameter
NASREQ application [NASREQ] and RADIUS EAP support [RFC3579]. Much
of the material in this specification has been copied from these
documents.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the following people for
their contributions to this document: Bernard Aboba, Jari Arkko,
Julien Bournelle, Pat Calhoun, Henry Haverinen, John Loughney,
Yoshihiro Ohba, and Joseph Salowey.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[BASE] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and
J. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588,
September 2003.
[EAP] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and
H. Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP)", RFC 3748, June 2004.
[NASREQ] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton,
"Diameter Network Access Server Application", RFC
4005, August 2005.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
10.2. Informative References
[EAPKey] Aboba, B., Simon, D., Arkko, J., Eronen, P., and H.
Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)
Key Management Framework", Work in Progress, July
2004.
[IEEE-802.1X] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
"Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Port-Based
Network Access Control", IEEE Standard 802.1X,
September 2001.
[IEEE-802.11i] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
"IEEE Standard for Information technology -
Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems - Local and metropolitan area networks -
Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless Medium
Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
Specifications: Amendment 6: Medium Access Control
(MAC) Security Enhancements", IEEE Standard
802.11i-2004, July 2004.
[IKEv2] Kaufman, C., Ed., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2)
Protocol", Work in Progress, June 2004.
[RFC1661] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)",
STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
[RFC2548] Zorn, G., "Microsoft Vendor-specific RADIUS
Attributes", RFC 2548, March 1999.
[RFC2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and
Policy Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607,
June 1999.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RFC3575] Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service)", RFC 3575,
July 2003.
[RFC3576] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D., and B.
Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 3576, July 2003.
[RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service) Support For
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579,
September 2003.
[RFC3580] 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.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
Authors' Addresses
Pasi Eronen (editor)
Nokia Research Center
P.O. Box 407
FIN-00045 Nokia Group
Finland
EMail: pasi.eronen@nokia.com
Tom Hiller
Lucent Technologies
1960 Lucent Lane
Naperville, IL 60566
USA
Phone: +1 630 979 7673
EMail: tomhiller@lucent.com
Glen Zorn
Cisco Systems
500 108th Avenue N.E., Suite 500
Bellevue, WA 98004
USA
Phone: +1 425 344 8113
EMail: gwz@cisco.com
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 4072 Diameter EAP Application August 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
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.
Eronen, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC, FYI, BCP