Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) :: RFC6353
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) W. Hardaker
Request for Comments: 6353 SPARTA, Inc.
Obsoletes: 5953 July 2011
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for
the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
Abstract
This document describes a Transport Model for the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP), that uses either the Transport Layer
Security protocol or the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
protocol. The TLS and DTLS protocols provide authentication and
privacy services for SNMP applications. This document describes how
the TLS Transport Model (TLSTM) implements the needed features of an
SNMP Transport Subsystem to make this protection possible in an
interoperable way.
This Transport Model is designed to meet the security and operational
needs of network administrators. It supports the sending of SNMP
messages over TLS/TCP and DTLS/UDP. The TLS mode can make use of
TCP's improved support for larger packet sizes and the DTLS mode
provides potentially superior operation in environments where a
connectionless (e.g., UDP) transport is preferred. Both TLS and DTLS
integrate well into existing public keying infrastructures.
This document also defines a portion of the Management Information
Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular,
it defines objects for managing the TLS Transport Model for SNMP.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in 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/rfc6353.
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2. Changes Since RFC 5953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. The Transport Layer Security Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. How the TLSTM Fits into the Transport Subsystem . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Security Capabilities of This Model . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.1. Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.2. Message Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.3. (D)TLS Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. Security Parameter Passing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. Notifications and Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Elements of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1. X.509 Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1.1. Provisioning for the Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2. (D)TLS Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3. SNMP Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.1. SNMP Services for an Outgoing Message . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.2. SNMP Services for an Incoming Message . . . . . . . . 19
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
4.4. Cached Information and References . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.4.1. TLS Transport Model Cached Information . . . . . . . . 20
4.4.1.1. tmSecurityName . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.4.1.2. tmSessionID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.4.1.3. Session State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1. Procedures for an Incoming Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.1. DTLS over UDP Processing for Incoming Messages . . . . 22
5.1.2. Transport Processing for Incoming SNMP Messages . . . 23
5.2. Procedures for an Outgoing SNMP Message . . . . . . . . . 25
5.3. Establishing or Accepting a Session . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.3.1. Establishing a Session as a Client . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.3.2. Accepting a Session as a Server . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.4. Closing a Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. MIB Module Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.1. Structure of the MIB Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.2. Textual Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.3. Statistical Counters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.4. Configuration Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.4.1. Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.5. Relationship to Other MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.5.1. MIB Modules Required for IMPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. MIB Module Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8.1. Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8.2. Notification Receiver Credential Selection . . . . . . . . 54
8.3. contextEngineID Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.4. Transport Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
9.1. Certificates, Authentication, and Authorization . . . . . 55
9.2. (D)TLS Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
9.2.1. TLS Version Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
9.2.2. Perfect Forward Secrecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
9.3. Use with SNMPv1/SNMPv2c Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
9.4. MIB Module Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Appendix A. Target and Notification Configuration Example . . . . 63
A.1. Configuring a Notification Originator . . . . . . . . . . 63
A.2. Configuring TLSTM to Utilize a Simple Derivation of
tmSecurityName . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
A.3. Configuring TLSTM to Utilize Table-Driven Certificate
Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
1. Introduction
It is important to understand the modular SNMPv3 architecture as
defined by [RFC3411] and enhanced by the Transport Subsystem
[RFC5590]. It is also important to understand the terminology of the
SNMPv3 architecture in order to understand where the Transport Model
described in this document fits into the architecture and how it
interacts with the other architecture subsystems. For a detailed
overview of the documents that describe the current Internet-Standard
Management Framework, please refer to Section 7 of [RFC3410].
This document describes a Transport Model that makes use of the
Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] and the Datagram Transport
Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol [RFC4347], within a Transport
Subsystem [RFC5590]. DTLS is the datagram variant of the Transport
Layer Security (TLS) protocol [RFC5246]. The Transport Model in this
document is referred to as the Transport Layer Security Transport
Model (TLSTM). TLS and DTLS take advantage of the X.509 public
keying infrastructure [RFC5280]. While (D)TLS supports multiple
authentication mechanisms, this document only discusses X.509
certificate-based authentication. Although other forms of
authentication are possible, they are outside the scope of this
specification. This transport model is designed to meet the security
and operational needs of network administrators, operating in both
environments where a connectionless (e.g., UDP) transport is
preferred and in environments where large quantities of data need to
be sent (e.g., over a TCP-based stream). Both TLS and DTLS integrate
well into existing public keying infrastructures. This document
supports sending of SNMP messages over TLS/TCP and DTLS/UDP.
This document also defines a portion of the Management Information
Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular,
it defines objects for managing the TLS Transport Model for SNMP.
Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally
accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).
Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the
Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB
module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58:
[RFC2578], [RFC2579], and [RFC2580].
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
The diagram shown below gives a conceptual overview of two SNMP
entities communicating using the TLS Transport Model (shown as
"TLSTM"). One entity contains a command responder and notification
originator application, and the other a command generator and
notification receiver application. It should be understood that this
particular mix of application types is an example only and other
combinations are equally valid.
Note: this diagram shows the Transport Security Model (TSM) being
used as the security model that is defined in [RFC5591].
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Network |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
^ | ^ |
|Notifications |Commands |Commands |Notifications
+---|---------------------|-------+ +--|---------------|--------------+
| | V | | | V |
| +------------+ +------------+ | | +-----------+ +----------+ |
| | (D)TLS | | (D)TLS | | | | (D)TLS | | (D)TLS | |
| | (Client) | | (Server) | | | | (Client) | | (Server) | |
| +------------+ +------------+ | | +-----------+ +----------+ |
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | |
| +-------------+ | | +--------------+ |
| +-----|------------+ | | +-----|------------+ |
| | V | | | | V | |
| | +--------+ | +-----+ | | | +--------+ | +-----+ |
| | | TLS TM |<--------->|Cache| | | | | TLS TM |<--------->|Cache| |
| | +--------+ | +-----+ | | | +--------+ | +-----+ |
| |Transport Subsys. | ^ | | |Transport Subsys. | ^ |
| +------------------+ | | | +------------------+ | |
| ^ | | | ^ | |
| | +--+ | | | +--+ |
| v | | | V | |
| +-----+ +--------+ +-------+ | | | +-----+ +--------+ +-------+ | |
| | | |Message | |Securi.| | | | | | |Message | |Securi.| | |
| |Disp.| |Proc. | |Subsys.| | | | |Disp.| |Proc. | |Subsys.| | |
| | | |Subsys. | | | | | | | | |Subsys. | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | +----+ | | +---+ | | | | | | | +----+ | | +---+ | | |
| | <--->|v3MP|<--> |TSM|<--+ | | | <--->|v3MP|<--->|TSM|<--+ |
| | | | +----+ | | +---+ | | | | | | +----+ | | +---+ | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-----+ +--------+ +-------+ | | +-----+ +--------+ +-------+ |
| ^ | | ^ |
| | | | | |
| +-+------------+ | | +-+----------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| v v | | v V |
| +-------------+ +-------------+ | | +-------------+ +-------------+ |
| | COMMAND | | NOTIFICAT. | | | | COMMAND | | NOTIFICAT. | |
| | RESPONDER | | ORIGINATOR | | | | GENERATOR | | RECEIVER | |
| | application | | application | | | | application | | application | |
| +-------------+ +-------------+ | | +-------------+ +-------------+ |
| SNMP entity | | SNMP entity |
+---------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
1.1. Conventions
For consistency with SNMP-related specifications, this document
favors terminology as defined in STD 62, rather than favoring
terminology that is consistent with non-SNMP specifications. This is
consistent with the IESG decision to not require the SNMPv3
terminology be modified to match the usage of other non-SNMP
specifications when SNMPv3 was advanced to a Full Standard.
"Authentication" in this document typically refers to the English
meaning of "serving to prove the authenticity of" the message, not
data source authentication or peer identity authentication.
The terms "manager" and "agent" are not used in this document
because, in the [RFC3411] architecture, all SNMP entities have the
capability of acting as manager, agent, or both depending on the SNMP
application types supported in the implementation. Where distinction
is required, the application names of command generator, command
responder, notification originator, notification receiver, and proxy
forwarder are used. See "SNMP Applications" [RFC3413] for further
information.
Large portions of this document simultaneously refer to both TLS and
DTLS when discussing TLSTM components that function equally with
either protocol. "(D)TLS" is used in these places to indicate that
the statement applies to either or both protocols as appropriate.
When a distinction between the protocols is needed, they are referred
to independently through the use of "TLS" or "DTLS". The Transport
Model, however, is named "TLS Transport Model" and refers not to the
TLS or DTLS protocol but to the specification in this document, which
includes support for both TLS and DTLS.
Throughout this document, the terms "client" and "server" are used to
refer to the two ends of the (D)TLS transport connection. The client
actively opens the (D)TLS connection, and the server passively
listens for the incoming (D)TLS connection. An SNMP entity may act
as a (D)TLS client or server or both, depending on the SNMP
applications supported.
The User-Based Security Model (USM) [RFC3414] is a mandatory-to-
implement Security Model in STD 62. While (D)TLS and USM frequently
refer to a user, the terminology preferred in RFC 3411 and in this
memo is "principal". A principal is the "who" on whose behalf
services are provided or processing takes place. A principal can be,
among other things, an individual acting in a particular role; a set
of individuals, with each acting in a particular role; an application
or a set of applications, or a combination of these within an
administrative domain.
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
Throughout this document, the term "session" is used to refer to a
secure association between two TLS Transport Models that permits the
transmission of one or more SNMP messages within the lifetime of the
session. The (D)TLS protocols also have an internal notion of a
session and although these two concepts of a session are related,
when the term "session" is used this document is referring to the
TLSTM's specific session and not directly to the (D)TLS protocol's
session.
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].
1.2. Changes Since RFC 5953
This document obsoletes [RFC5953].
Since the publication of RFC 5953, a few editorial errata have been
noted. These errata are posted on the RFC Editor web site. These
errors have been corrected in this document.
This document updates the references to RFC 3490 (IDNA 2003) to
[RFC5890] (IDNA 2008), because RFC 3490 was obsoleted by RFC 5890.
References to RFC 1033 were replaced with references to [RFC1123].
Added informative reference to 5953.
Updated MIB dates and revision date.
2. The Transport Layer Security Protocol
(D)TLS provides authentication, data message integrity, and privacy
at the transport layer (see [RFC4347]).
The primary goals of the TLS Transport Model are to provide privacy,
peer identity authentication, and data integrity between two
communicating SNMP entities. The TLS and DTLS protocols provide a
secure transport upon which the TLSTM is based. Please refer to
[RFC5246] and [RFC4347] for complete descriptions of the protocols.
3. How the TLSTM Fits into the Transport Subsystem
A transport model is a component of the Transport Subsystem. The TLS
Transport Model thus fits between the underlying (D)TLS transport
layer and the Message Dispatcher [RFC3411] component of the SNMP
engine.
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
The TLS Transport Model will establish a session between itself and
the TLS Transport Model of another SNMP engine. The sending
transport model passes unencrypted and unauthenticated messages from
the Dispatcher to (D)TLS to be encrypted and authenticated, and the
receiving transport model accepts decrypted and authenticated/
integrity-checked incoming messages from (D)TLS and passes them to
the Dispatcher.
After a TLS Transport Model session is established, SNMP messages can
conceptually be sent through the session from one SNMP message
Dispatcher to another SNMP Message Dispatcher. If multiple SNMP
messages are needed to be passed between two SNMP applications they
MAY be passed through the same session. A TLSTM implementation
engine MAY choose to close the session to conserve resources.
The TLS Transport Model of an SNMP engine will perform the
translation between (D)TLS-specific security parameters and SNMP-
specific, model-independent parameters.
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
The diagram below depicts where the TLS Transport Model (shown as
"(D)TLS TM") fits into the architecture described in RFC 3411 and the
Transport Subsystem:
+------------------------------+
| Network |
+------------------------------+
^ ^ ^
| | |
v v v
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| +--------------------------------------------------+ |
| | Transport Subsystem | +--------+ |
| | +-----+ +-----+ +-------+ +-------+ | | | |
| | | UDP | | SSH | |(D)TLS | . . . | other |<--->| Cache | |
| | | | | TM | | TM | | | | | | |
| | +-----+ +-----+ +-------+ +-------+ | +--------+ |
| +--------------------------------------------------+ ^ |
| ^ | |
| | | |
| Dispatcher v | |
| +--------------+ +---------------------+ +----------------+ | |
| | Transport | | Message Processing | | Security | | |
| | Dispatch | | Subsystem | | Subsystem | | |
| | | | +------------+ | | +------------+ | | |
| | | | +->| v1MP |<--->| | USM | | | |
| | | | | +------------+ | | +------------+ | | |
| | | | | +------------+ | | +------------+ | | |
| | | | +->| v2cMP |<--->| | Transport | | | |
| | Message | | | +------------+ | | | Security |<--+ |
| | Dispatch <---->| +------------+ | | | Model | | |
| | | | +->| v3MP |<--->| +------------+ | |
| | | | | +------------+ | | +------------+ | |
| | PDU Dispatch | | | +------------+ | | | Other | | |
| +--------------+ | +->| otherMP |<--->| | Model(s) | | |
| ^ | +------------+ | | +------------+ | |
| | +---------------------+ +----------------+ |
| v |
| +-------+-------------------------+---------------+ |
| ^ ^ ^ |
| | | | |
| v v v |
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
| +-------------+ +---------+ +--------------+ +-------------+ |
| | COMMAND | | ACCESS | | NOTIFICATION | | PROXY | |
| | RESPONDER |<->| CONTROL |<->| ORIGINATOR | | FORWARDER | |
| | application | | | | applications | | application | |
| +-------------+ +---------+ +--------------+ +-------------+ |
| ^ ^ |
| | | |
| v v |
| +----------------------------------------------+ |
| | MIB instrumentation | SNMP entity |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
3.1. Security Capabilities of This Model
3.1.1. Threats
The TLS Transport Model provides protection against the threats
identified by the RFC 3411 architecture [RFC3411]:
1. Modification of Information - The modification threat is the
danger that an unauthorized entity may alter in-transit SNMP
messages generated on behalf of an authorized principal in such a
way as to effect unauthorized management operations, including
falsifying the value of an object.
(D)TLS provides verification that the content of each received
message has not been modified during its transmission through the
network, data has not been altered or destroyed in an
unauthorized manner, and data sequences have not been altered to
an extent greater than can occur non-maliciously.
2. Masquerade - The masquerade threat is the danger that management
operations unauthorized for a given principal may be attempted by
assuming the identity of another principal that has the
appropriate authorizations.
The TLSTM verifies the identity of the (D)TLS server through the
use of the (D)TLS protocol and X.509 certificates. A TLS
Transport Model implementation MUST support the authentication of
both the server and the client.
3. Message stream modification - The re-ordering, delay, or replay
of messages can and does occur through the natural operation of
many connectionless transport services. The message stream
modification threat is the danger that messages may be
maliciously re-ordered, delayed, or replayed to an extent that is
greater than can occur through the natural operation of
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
connectionless transport services, in order to effect
unauthorized management operations.
(D)TLS provides replay protection with a Message Authentication
Code (MAC) that includes a sequence number. Since UDP provides
no sequencing ability, DTLS uses a sliding window protocol with
the sequence number used for replay protection (see [RFC4347]).
4. Disclosure - The disclosure threat is the danger of eavesdropping
on the exchanges between SNMP engines.
(D)TLS provides protection against the disclosure of information
to unauthorized recipients or eavesdroppers by allowing for
encryption of all traffic between SNMP engines. A TLS Transport
Model implementation MUST support message encryption to protect
sensitive data from eavesdropping attacks.
5. Denial of Service - The RFC 3411 architecture [RFC3411] states
that denial-of-service (DoS) attacks need not be addressed by an
SNMP security protocol. However, connectionless transports (like
DTLS over UDP) are susceptible to a variety of DoS attacks
because they are more vulnerable to spoofed IP addresses. See
Section 4.2 for details on how the cookie mechanism is used.
Note, however, that this mechanism does not provide any defense
against DoS attacks mounted from valid IP addresses.
See Section 9 for more detail on the security considerations
associated with the TLSTM and these security threats.
3.1.2. Message Protection
The RFC 3411 architecture recognizes three levels of security:
o without authentication and without privacy (noAuthNoPriv)
o with authentication but without privacy (authNoPriv)
o with authentication and with privacy (authPriv)
The TLS Transport Model determines from (D)TLS the identity of the
authenticated principal, the transport type, and the transport
address associated with an incoming message. The TLS Transport Model
provides the identity and destination type and address to (D)TLS for
outgoing messages.
When an application requests a session for a message, it also
requests a security level for that session. The TLS Transport Model
MUST ensure that the (D)TLS connection provides security at least as
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
high as the requested level of security. How the security level is
translated into the algorithms used to provide data integrity and
privacy is implementation dependent. However, the NULL integrity and
encryption algorithms MUST NOT be used to fulfill security level
requests for authentication or privacy. Implementations MAY choose
to force (D)TLS to only allow cipher_suites that provide both
authentication and privacy to guarantee this assertion.
If a suitable interface between the TLS Transport Model and the
(D)TLS Handshake Protocol is implemented to allow the selection of
security-level-dependent algorithms (for example, a security level to
cipher_suites mapping table), then different security levels may be
utilized by the application.
The authentication, integrity, and privacy algorithms used by the
(D)TLS Protocols may vary over time as the science of cryptography
continues to evolve and the development of (D)TLS continues over
time. Implementers are encouraged to plan for changes in operator
trust of particular algorithms. Implementations SHOULD offer
configuration settings for mapping algorithms to SNMPv3 security
levels.
3.1.3. (D)TLS Connections
(D)TLS connections are opened by the TLS Transport Model during the
elements of procedure for an outgoing SNMP message. Since the sender
of a message initiates the creation of a (D)TLS connection if needed,
the (D)TLS connection will already exist for an incoming message.
Implementations MAY choose to instantiate (D)TLS connections in
anticipation of outgoing messages. This approach might be useful to
ensure that a (D)TLS connection to a given target can be established
before it becomes important to send a message over the (D)TLS
connection. Of course, there is no guarantee that a pre-established
session will still be valid when needed.
DTLS connections, when used over UDP, are uniquely identified within
the TLS Transport Model by the combination of transportDomain,
transportAddress, tmSecurityName, and requestedSecurityLevel
associated with each session. Each unique combination of these
parameters MUST have a locally chosen unique tlstmSessionID for each
active session. For further information, see Section 5. TLS over
TCP sessions, on the other hand, do not require a unique pairing of
address and port attributes since their lower-layer protocols (TCP)
already provide adequate session framing. But they must still
provide a unique tlstmSessionID for referencing the session.
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
The tlstmSessionID MUST NOT change during the entire duration of the
session from the TLSTM's perspective, and MUST uniquely identify a
single session. As an implementation hint: note that the (D)TLS
internal SessionID does not meet these requirements, since it can
change over the life of the connection as seen by the TLSTM (for
example, during renegotiation), and does not necessarily uniquely
identify a TLSTM session (there can be multiple TLSTM sessions
sharing the same D(TLS) internal SessionID).
3.2. Security Parameter Passing
For the (D)TLS server-side, (D)TLS-specific security parameters
(i.e., cipher_suites, X.509 certificate fields, IP addresses, and
ports) are translated by the TLS Transport Model into security
parameters for the TLS Transport Model and security model (e.g.,
tmSecurityLevel, tmSecurityName, transportDomain, transportAddress).
The transport-related and (D)TLS-security-related information,
including the authenticated identity, are stored in a cache
referenced by tmStateReference.
For the (D)TLS client side, the TLS Transport Model takes input
provided by the Dispatcher in the sendMessage() Abstract Service
Interface (ASI) and input from the tmStateReference cache. The
(D)TLS Transport Model converts that information into suitable
security parameters for (D)TLS and establishes sessions as needed.
The elements of procedure in Section 5 discuss these concepts in much
greater detail.
3.3. Notifications and Proxy
(D)TLS connections may be initiated by (D)TLS clients on behalf of
SNMP applications that initiate communications, such as command
generators, notification originators, proxy forwarders. Command
generators are frequently operated by a human, but notification
originators and proxy forwarders are usually unmanned automated
processes. The targets to whom notifications and proxied requests
should be sent are typically determined and configured by a network
administrator.
The SNMP-TARGET-MIB module [RFC3413] contains objects for defining
management targets, including transportDomain, transportAddress,
securityName, securityModel, and securityLevel parameters, for
notification originator, proxy forwarder, and SNMP-controllable
command generator applications. Transport domains and transport
addresses are configured in the snmpTargetAddrTable, and the
securityModel, securityName, and securityLevel parameters are
configured in the snmpTargetParamsTable. This document defines a MIB
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
module that extends the SNMP-TARGET-MIB's snmpTargetParamsTable to
specify a (D)TLS client-side certificate to use for the connection.
When configuring a (D)TLS target, the snmpTargetAddrTDomain and
snmpTargetAddrTAddress parameters in snmpTargetAddrTable SHOULD be
set to the snmpTLSTCPDomain or snmpDTLSUDPDomain object and an
appropriate snmpTLSAddress value. When used with the SNMPv3 message
processing model, the snmpTargetParamsMPModel column of the
snmpTargetParamsTable SHOULD be set to a value of 3. The
snmpTargetParamsSecurityName SHOULD be set to an appropriate
securityName value, and the snmpTlstmParamsClientFingerprint
parameter of the snmpTlstmParamsTable SHOULD be set to a value that
refers to a locally held certificate (and the corresponding private
key) to be used. Other parameters, for example, cryptographic
configuration such as which cipher_suites to use, must come from
configuration mechanisms not defined in this document.
The securityName defined in the snmpTargetParamsSecurityName column
will be used by the access control model to authorize any
notifications that need to be sent.
4. Elements of the Model
This section contains definitions required to realize the (D)TLS
Transport Model defined by this document.
4.1. X.509 Certificates
(D)TLS can make use of X.509 certificates for authentication of both
sides of the transport. This section discusses the use of X.509
certificates in the TLSTM.
While (D)TLS supports multiple authentication mechanisms, this
document only discusses X.509-certificate-based authentication; other
forms of authentication are outside the scope of this specification.
TLSTM implementations are REQUIRED to support X.509 certificates.
4.1.1. Provisioning for the Certificate
Authentication using (D)TLS will require that SNMP entities have
certificates, either signed by trusted Certification Authorities
(CAs), or self signed. Furthermore, SNMP entities will most commonly
need to be provisioned with root certificates that represent the list
of trusted CAs that an SNMP entity can use for certificate
verification. SNMP entities SHOULD also be provisioned with an X.509
certificate revocation mechanism which can be used to verify that a
certificate has not been revoked. Trusted public keys from either CA
certificates and/or self-signed certificates MUST be installed into
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
the server through a trusted out-of-band mechanism and their
authenticity MUST be verified before access is granted.
Having received a certificate from a connecting TLSTM client, the
authenticated tmSecurityName of the principal is derived using the
snmpTlstmCertToTSNTable. This table allows mapping of incoming
connections to tmSecurityNames through defined transformations. The
transformations defined in the SNMP-TLS-TM-MIB include:
o Mapping a certificate's subjectAltName or CommonName components to
a tmSecurityName, or
o Mapping a certificate's fingerprint value to a directly specified
tmSecurityName
As an implementation hint: implementations may choose to discard any
connections for which no potential snmpTlstmCertToTSNTable mapping
exists before performing certificate verification to avoid expending
computational resources associated with certificate verification.
Deployments SHOULD map the "subjectAltName" component of X.509
certificates to the TLSTM specific tmSecurityNames. The
authenticated identity can be obtained by the TLS Transport Model by
extracting the subjectAltName(s) from the peer's certificate. The
receiving application will then have an appropriate tmSecurityName
for use by other SNMPv3 components like an access control model.
An example of this type of mapping setup can be found in Appendix A.
This tmSecurityName may be later translated from a TLSTM specific
tmSecurityName to an SNMP engine securityName by the security model.
A security model, like the TSM security model [RFC5591], may perform
an identity mapping or a more complex mapping to derive the
securityName from the tmSecurityName offered by the TLS Transport
Model.
The standard View-Based Access Control Model (VACM) access control
model constrains securityNames to be 32 octets or less in length. A
TLSTM generated tmSecurityName, possibly in combination with a
messaging or security model that increases the length of the
securityName, might cause the securityName length to exceed 32
octets. For example, a 32-octet tmSecurityName derived from an IPv6
address, paired with a TSM prefix, will generate a 36-octet
securityName. Such a securityName will not be able to be used with
standard VACM or TARGET MIB modules. Operators should be careful to
select algorithms and subjectAltNames to avoid this situation.
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
A pictorial view of the complete transformation process (using the
TSM security model for the example) is shown below:
+-------------+ +-------+ +-----+
| Certificate | | | | |
| Path | | TLSTM | tmSecurityName | TSM |
| Validation | --> | | ----------------->| |
+-------------+ +-------+ +-----+
|
| securityName
V
+-------------+
| application |
+-------------+
4.2. (D)TLS Usage
(D)TLS MUST negotiate a cipher_suite that uses X.509 certificates for
authentication, and MUST authenticate both the client and the server.
The mandatory-to-implement cipher_suite is specified in the TLS
specification [RFC5246].
TLSTM verifies the certificates when the connection is opened (see
Section 5.3). For this reason, TLS renegotiation with different
certificates MUST NOT be done. That is, implementations MUST either
disable renegotiation completely (RECOMMENDED), or they MUST present
the same certificate during renegotiation (and MUST verify that the
other end presented the same certificate).
For DTLS over UDP, each SNMP message MUST be placed in a single UDP
datagram; it MAY be split to multiple DTLS records. In other words,
if a single datagram contains multiple DTLS application_data records,
they are concatenated when received. The TLSTM implementation SHOULD
return an error if the SNMP message does not fit in the UDP datagram,
and thus cannot be sent.
For DTLS over UDP, the DTLS server implementation MUST support DTLS
cookies ([RFC4347] already requires that clients support DTLS
cookies). Implementations are not required to perform the cookie
exchange for every DTLS handshake; however, enabling it by default is
RECOMMENDED.
For DTLS, replay protection MUST be used.
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
4.3. SNMP Services
This section describes the services provided by the TLS Transport
Model with their inputs and outputs. The services are between the
Transport Model and the Dispatcher.
The services are described as primitives of an abstract service
interface (ASI) and the inputs and outputs are described as abstract
data elements as they are passed in these abstract service
primitives.
4.3.1. SNMP Services for an Outgoing Message
The Dispatcher passes the information to the TLS Transport Model
using the ASI defined in the Transport Subsystem:
statusInformation =
sendMessage(
IN destTransportDomain -- transport domain to be used
IN destTransportAddress -- transport address to be used
IN outgoingMessage -- the message to send
IN outgoingMessageLength -- its length
IN tmStateReference -- reference to transport state
)
The abstract data elements returned from or passed as parameters into
the abstract service primitives are as follows:
statusInformation: An indication of whether the sending of the
message was successful. If not, it is an indication of the
problem.
destTransportDomain: The transport domain for the associated
destTransportAddress. The Transport Model uses this parameter to
determine the transport type of the associated
destTransportAddress. This document specifies the
snmpTLSTCPDomain and the snmpDTLSUDPDomain transport domains.
destTransportAddress: The transport address of the destination TLS
Transport Model in a format specified by the SnmpTLSAddress
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION.
outgoingMessage: The outgoing message to send to (D)TLS for
encapsulation and transmission.
outgoingMessageLength: The length of the outgoingMessage.
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
tmStateReference: A reference used to pass model-specific and
mechanism-specific parameters between the Transport Subsystem and
transport-aware Security Models.
4.3.2. SNMP Services for an Incoming Message
The TLS Transport Model processes the received message from the
network using the (D)TLS service and then passes it to the Dispatcher
using the following ASI:
statusInformation =
receiveMessage(
IN transportDomain -- origin transport domain
IN transportAddress -- origin transport address
IN incomingMessage -- the message received
IN incomingMessageLength -- its length
IN tmStateReference -- reference to transport state
)
The abstract data elements returned from or passed as parameters into
the abstract service primitives are as follows:
statusInformation: An indication of whether the passing of the
message was successful. If not, it is an indication of the
problem.
transportDomain: The transport domain for the associated
transportAddress. This document specifies the snmpTLSTCPDomain
and the snmpDTLSUDPDomain transport domains.
transportAddress: The transport address of the source of the
received message in a format specified by the SnmpTLSAddress
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION.
incomingMessage: The whole SNMP message after being processed by
(D)TLS.
incomingMessageLength: The length of the incomingMessage.
tmStateReference: A reference used to pass model-specific and
mechanism-specific parameters between the Transport Subsystem and
transport-aware Security Models.
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
4.4. Cached Information and References
When performing SNMP processing, there are two levels of state
information that may need to be retained: the immediate state linking
a request-response pair, and potentially longer-term state relating
to transport and security. "Transport Subsystem for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)" [RFC5590] defines general
requirements for caches and references.
4.4.1. TLS Transport Model Cached Information
The TLS Transport Model has specific responsibilities regarding the
cached information. See the Elements of Procedure in Section 5 for
detailed processing instructions on the use of the tmStateReference
fields by the TLS Transport Model.
4.4.1.1. tmSecurityName
The tmSecurityName MUST be a human-readable name (in snmpAdminString
format) representing the identity that has been set according to the
procedures in Section 5. The tmSecurityName MUST be constant for all
traffic passing through a single TLSTM session. Messages MUST NOT be
sent through an existing (D)TLS connection that was established using
a different tmSecurityName.
On the (D)TLS server side of a connection, the tmSecurityName is
derived using the procedures described in Section 5.3.2 and the SNMP-
TLS-TM-MIB's snmpTlstmCertToTSNTable DESCRIPTION clause.
On the (D)TLS client side of a connection, the tmSecurityName is
presented to the TLS Transport Model by the security model through
the tmStateReference. This tmSecurityName is typically a copy of or
is derived from the securityName that was passed by application
(possibly because of configuration specified in the SNMP-TARGET-MIB).
The Security Model likely derived the tmSecurityName from the
securityName presented to the Security Model by the application
(possibly because of configuration specified in the SNMP-TARGET-MIB).
Transport-Model-aware security models derive tmSecurityName from a
securityName, possibly configured in MIB modules for notifications
and access controls. Transport Models SHOULD use predictable
tmSecurityNames so operators will know what to use when configuring
MIB modules that use securityNames derived from tmSecurityNames. The
TLSTM generates predictable tmSecurityNames based on the
configuration found in the SNMP-TLS-TM-MIB's snmpTlstmCertToTSNTable
and relies on the network operators to have configured this table
appropriately.
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
4.4.1.2. tmSessionID
The tmSessionID MUST be recorded per message at the time of receipt.
When tmSameSecurity is set, the recorded tmSessionID can be used to
determine whether the (D)TLS connection available for sending a
corresponding outgoing message is the same (D)TLS connection as was
used when receiving the incoming message (e.g., a response to a
request).
4.4.1.3. Session State
The per-session state that is referenced by tmStateReference may be
saved across multiple messages in a Local Configuration Datastore.
Additional session/connection state information might also be stored
in a Local Configuration Datastore.
5. Elements of Procedure
Abstract service interfaces have been defined by [RFC3411] and
further augmented by [RFC5590] to describe the conceptual data flows
between the various subsystems within an SNMP entity. The TLSTM uses
some of these conceptual data flows when communicating between
subsystems.
To simplify the elements of procedure, the release of state
information is not always explicitly specified. As a general rule,
if state information is available when a message gets discarded, the
message-state information should also be released. If state
information is available when a session is closed, the session state
information should also be released. Sensitive information, like
cryptographic keys, should be overwritten appropriately prior to
being released.
An error indication in statusInformation will typically include the
Object Identifier (OID) and value for an incremented error counter.
This may be accompanied by the requested securityLevel and the
tmStateReference. Per-message context information is not accessible
to Transport Models, so for the returned counter OID and value,
contextEngine would be set to the local value of snmpEngineID and
contextName to the default context for error counters.
5.1. Procedures for an Incoming Message
This section describes the procedures followed by the (D)TLS
Transport Model when it receives a (D)TLS protected packet. The
required functionality is broken into two different sections.
Hardaker Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 6353 TLS Transport Model for SNMP July 2011
Section 5.1.1 describes the processing required for de-multiplexing
multiple DTLS connections, which is specifically needed for DTLS over
UDP sessions. It is assumed that TLS protocol implementations
already provide appropriate message demultiplexing.
Section 5.1.2 describes the transport processing required once the
(D)TLS processing has been completed. This will be needed for all
(D)TLS-based connections.
5.1.1. DTLS over UDP Processing for Incoming Messages
Demultiplexing of incoming packets into separate DTLS sessions MUST
be implemented. For connection-oriented transport protocols, such as
TCP, the transport protocol takes care of demultiplexing incoming
packets to the right connection. For DTLS over UDP, this
demultiplexing will either need to be done within the DTLS
implementation, if supported, or by the TLSTM implementation.
Like TCP, DTLS over UDP uses the four-tuple