💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc2521.gmi captured on 2022-04-28 at 23:39:54. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-05)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Keywords: [ICMP-SEC|e], internet, control, message, protocol, ip
Network Working Group P. Karn
Request for Comments: 2521 Qualcomm
Category: Experimental W. Simpson
DayDreamer
March 1999
ICMP Security Failures Messages
Status of this Memo
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). Copyright (C) Philip Karn
and William Allen Simpson (1994-1999). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document specifies ICMP messages for indicating failures when
using IP Security Protocols (AH and ESP).
Karn & Simpson Experimental [Page i]
RFC 2521 ICMP Security Failures March 1999
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......................................... 1
2. Message Formats ....................................... 1
2.1 Bad SPI ......................................... 2
2.2 Authentication Failed ........................... 2
2.3 Decompression Failed ............................ 2
2.4 Decryption Failed ............................... 2
2.5 Need Authentication ............................. 3
2.6 Need Authorization .............................. 3
3. Error Procedures ...................................... 3
SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................... 4
HISTORY ...................................................... 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................. 5
REFERENCES ................................................... 5
CONTACTS ..................................................... 6
COPYRIGHT .................................................... 7
Karn & Simpson Experimental [Page ii]
RFC 2521 ICMP Security Failures March 1999
1. Introduction
This mechanism is intended for use with the Internet Security
Protocols [RFC-1825 et sequitur] for authentication and privacy. For
statically configured Security Associations, these messages indicate
that the operator needs to manually reconfigure, or is attempting an
unauthorized operation. These messages may also be used to trigger
automated session-key management.
The datagram format and basic facilities are already defined for ICMP
[RFC-792].
Up-to-date values of the ICMP Type field are specified in the most
recent "Assigned Numbers" [RFC-1700]. This document concerns the
following values:
40 Security Failures
2. Message Formats
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Pointer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Original Internet Headers + 64 bits of Payload ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type 40
Code Indicates the kind of failure:
0 = Bad SPI
1 = Authentication Failed
2 = Decompression Failed
3 = Decryption Failed
4 = Need Authentication
5 = Need Authorization
Checksum Two octets. The ICMP Checksum.
Reserved Two octets. For future use; MUST be set to zero
Karn & Simpson Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 2521 ICMP Security Failures March 1999
when transmitted, and MUST be ignored when received.
Pointer Two octets. An offset into the Original Internet
Headers that locates the most significant octet of
the offending SPI. Will be zero when no SPI is
present.
Original Internet Headers ...
The original Internet Protocol header, any
intervening headers up to and including the
offending SPI (if any), plus the first 64 bits (8
octets) of the remaining payload data.
This data is used by the host to match the message
to the appropriate process. If a payload protocol
uses port numbers, they are assumed to be in the
first 64-bits of the original datagram's payload.
Usage of this message is elaborated in the following sections.
2.1. Bad SPI
Indicates that a received datagram includes a Security Parameters
Index (SPI) that is invalid or has expired.
2.2. Authentication Failed
Indicates that a received datagram failed the authenticity or
integrity check for a given SPI.
Note that the SPI may indicate an outer Encapsulating Security
Protocol when a separate Authentication Header SPI is hidden inside.
2.3. Decompression Failed
Indicates that a received datagram failed a decompression check for a
given SPI.
2.4. Decryption Failed
Indicates that a received datagram failed a decryption check for a
given SPI.
Karn & Simpson Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 2521 ICMP Security Failures March 1999
2.5. Need Authentication
Indicates that a received datagram will not be accepted without
additional authentication.
In this case, either no SPI is present, or an unsuitable SPI is
present. For example, an encryption SPI without integrity arrives
from a secure operating system with mutually suspicious users.
2.6. Need Authorization
Indicates that a received datagram will not be accepted because it
has insufficient authorization.
In this case, an authentication SPI is present that is inappropriate
for the target transport or application. The principle party denoted
by the SPI does not have proper authorization for the facilities used
by the datagram. For example, the party is authorized for Telnet
access, but not for FTP access.
3. Error Procedures
As is usual with ICMP messages, upon receipt of one of these error
messages that is uninterpretable or otherwise contains an error, no
ICMP error message is sent in response. Instead, the message is
silently discarded. However, for diagnosis of problems, a node
SHOULD provide the capability of logging the error, including the
contents of the silently discarded datagram, and SHOULD record the
event in a statistics counter.
On receipt, special care MUST be taken that the ICMP message actually
includes information that matches a previously sent IP datagram.
Otherwise, this might provide an opportunity for a denial of service
attack.
The sending implementation MUST be able to limit the rate at which
these messages are generated. The rate limit parameters SHOULD be
configurable. How the limits are applied (such as, by destination or
per interface) is left to the implementor's discretion.
Karn & Simpson Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 2521 ICMP Security Failures March 1999
Security Considerations
When a prior Security Association between the parties has not
expired, these messages SHOULD be sent with authentication.
However, the node MUST NOT dynamically establish a new Security
Association for the sole purpose of authenticating these messages.
Automated key management is computationally intensive. This could be
used for a very serious denial of service attack. It would be very
easy to swamp a target with bogus SPIs from random IP Sources, and
have it start up numerous useless key management sessions to
authentically inform the putative sender.
In the event of loss of state (such as a system crash), the node will
need to send failure messages to all parties that attempt subsequent
communication. In this case, the node may have lost the key
management technique that was used to establish the Security
Association.
Much better to simply let the peers know that there was a failure,
and let them request key management as needed (at their staggered
timeouts). They'll remember the previous key management technique,
and restart gracefully. This distributes the restart burden among
systems, and helps allow the recently failed node to manage its
computational resources.
In addition, these messages inform the recipient when the ICMP sender
is under attack. Unlike other ICMP error messages, the messages
provide sufficient data to determine that these messages are in
response to previously sent messages.
Therefore, it is imperative that the recipient accept both
authenticated and unauthenticated failure messages. The recipient's
log SHOULD indicate when the ICMP messages are not validated, and
when the ICMP messages are not in response to a valid previous
message.
There is some concern that sending these messages may result in the
leak of security information. For example, an attacker might use
these messages to test or verify potential forged keys. However,
this information is already available through the simple expedient of
using Echo facilities, or waiting for a TCP 3-way handshake.
The rate limiting mechanism also limits this form of leak, as many
messages will not result in an error indication. At the very least,
this will lengthen the time factor for verifying such information.
Karn & Simpson Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 2521 ICMP Security Failures March 1999
History
The text has been extensively reviewed on the IP Security mailing
list, in January and February of 1995 and again in December 1995.
The specification is stable, and was forwarded to the IESG by the
authors for IETF Last Call as a Proposed Standard in March 1996.
There have been several implementations.
Acknowledgements
Some of the text of this specification was derived from "Requirements
for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers" [RFC-1122] and
"Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers" [RFC-1812].
Naganand Doraswamy and Hilarie Orman provided useful critiques of
earlier versions of this document.
Stimulating comments were also received from Jeffrey Schiller.
Special thanks to the Center for Information Technology Integration
(CITI) for providing computing resources.
References
[RFC-792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
September 1981.
[RFC-1122] Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
Communication Layers", STD 3, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, October 1989.
[RFC-1700] Reynolds, J., and Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994.
[RFC-1812] Baker, F., Editor, "Requirements for IP Version 4
Routers", Cisco Systems, June 1995.
[RFC-1825] Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol", Naval Research Laboratory, July 1995.
Karn & Simpson Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 2521 ICMP Security Failures March 1999
Contacts
Comments about this document should be discussed on the
photuris@adk.gr mailing list.
Questions about this document can also be directed to:
Phil Karn
Qualcomm, Inc.
6455 Lusk Blvd.
San Diego, California 92121-2779
karn@qualcomm.com
karn@unix.ka9q.ampr.org (preferred)
William Allen Simpson
DayDreamer
Computer Systems Consulting Services
1384 Fontaine
Madison Heights, Michigan 48071
wsimpson@UMich.edu
wsimpson@GreenDragon.com (preferred)
Karn & Simpson Experimental [Page 6]
RFC 2521 ICMP Security Failures March 1999
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). Copyright (C) Philip
Karn and William Allen Simpson (1994-1999). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction
of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this
paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works.
However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such
as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet
Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the
purpose of developing Internet standards (in which case the
procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process
must be followed), or as required to translate it into languages
other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and 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.
Karn & Simpson Experimental [Page 7]