130 likes | 287 Views
Fast Re-authentication. Dan Harkins. Roaming in 3.0. Section 8.4.1 describes 2 schemes for roaming: If the AP supports pre-authentication the STA is expected to pre-authenticate prior to roaming.
E N D
Fast Re-authentication Dan Harkins Dan Harkins, Trapeze Networks.
Roaming in 3.0 Section 8.4.1 describes 2 schemes for roaming: • If the AP supports pre-authentication the STA is expected to pre-authenticate prior to roaming. • If the AP does not support pre-authentication the STA is forced to go through a complete 802.1X authentication. Dan Harkins, Trapeze Networks.
Roaming in 3.0 Section 8.4.6 (3): “When a STA (re)associates with an AP without a (recent enough) pre-authentication, the AP has no cryptographic keys configured for the STA. In this case, the AP’s Authenticator will force a full 802.1X authentication.” Dan Harkins, Trapeze Networks.
Roaming in 3.0 Problems with this “either-or” approach: • A STA can only pre-authenticate with APs it notices during its MLME-SCAN. Depending on how often MLME-SCAN is done a moderately mobile user may move faster than she can pre-authenticate. • Unless there is a sufficient amount of coverage overlap everywhere pre-authentication may not be possible. • Pre-authentication necessarily creates more security associations than needed. Could be problematic in a large, mobile environment. Dan Harkins, Trapeze Networks.
A Third Way • It is possible for the AP to have the cryptographic keys (for example a derivative of the MK) for the STA when it roams. • There are proposals to do this but it’s not necessary to constrain solutions. • Unfortunately, 802.11i/D3.0 does not mention any way to take advantage of this! Dan Harkins, Trapeze Networks.
The Third Way • The AP obtains a secret from the AS in a manner outside the scope of this PAR. • The AS and supplicant derive the secret to use (derivative of [P]MK or the next secret in a series) but the exact derivation is outside the scope of this PAR. • This secret is used for authentication and key derivation in the same way that the PMK is used for initial association. Dan Harkins, Trapeze Networks.
The Third Way • On (re)association the STA requests re-authentication by setting the in RSN Capabilities bitfield in the RSN Information Element. This indicates “I have the secret and want to use it for fast re-authentication” Bit 0 Bit 1 Bit 2 Bits 3-15 1=yes 1=yes 1=yes reserved 0=no 0=no 0=no supports pairwise keys supports pre-authentication supports re-authentication Dan Harkins, Trapeze Networks.
The Third Way • If the AP does not support re-authentication, does not have the secret, or does not wish to perform re-authentication it responds with an EAP request and a full 802.1X authentication is performed. • If the AP supports re-authentication and has the secret it responds with the first message of the 4-way handshake using the secret as the PMK. The client and AP finish the 4-way handshake and create a new key hierarchy. Dan Harkins, Trapeze Networks.
The Third Way • Security association, including session keys bound to the MAC addresses of the “new AP” and STA, is created. • If the 4 way handshake fails the STA must disassociate (or be forced to disassociate) from the “new AP”. Dan Harkins, Trapeze Networks.
Benefits of Re-Authentication • No interoperability impact on existing deployed base. • An AP which does not support “re-authentication” is required to ignore the “re-authentication” bit so the assumption from 8.4.6 (3) stands. • By not setting the “re-authentication” bit in the RSNE a client that does not support “re-authentication” will merely do a full 802.1X authentication with an AP which does. Dan Harkins, Trapeze Networks.
Benefits of Re-Authentication • Agnostic on the particular cryptographic transfer protocol • Just as we leave the particulars of EAP to the client and AS, we should leave the particulars of how the cryptographic context is transferred to the client and AS. • Able to use any method going forward without having to rev this standard. Dan Harkins, Trapeze Networks.
Benefits of Re-Authentication • No security issues: • Proof of possession of the secret authenticates the STA to the AP under the identity retrieved from the cryptographic context transfer protocol. • Proof of possession of the secret authenticates the AP to the STA as part of a trusted system. • All of the security requirements are on the cryptographic context transfer protocol and the devices that speak it to make up the trusted system. Limited forward secrecy could be provided! • Addresses comments 270, 1537, 2069 … Dan Harkins, Trapeze Networks.
Proposed: Add support for “re-authentication” to 3.0: • Description of “re-authentication” as a 3rd scheme in 8.4.1 • New section 8.4.6.2 to define “re-authentication” • Modify the Informative analysis of 8.5.3.11 • Modify the RSNE in section 7.3.2.17 and accompanying text Dan Harkins, Trapeze Networks.