<pre>Network Working Group                                          T. Clancy
Request for Comments: 5433                                           LTS
Category: Standards Track                                  H. Tschofenig
                                                  Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                           February 2009


                 <span class="h1">Extensible Authentication Protocol -</span>
              <span class="h1">Generalized Pre-Shared Key (EAP-GPSK) Method</span>

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) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

   This memo defines an Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) method
   called EAP Generalized Pre-Shared Key (EAP-GPSK).  This method is a
   lightweight shared-key authentication protocol supporting mutual
   authentication and key derivation.
















<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                     [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


Table of Contents

   <a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
   <a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology .....................................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
   <a href="#section-3">3</a>. Overview ........................................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
   <a href="#section-4">4</a>. Key Derivation ..................................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
   <a href="#section-5">5</a>. Key Management .................................................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
   <a href="#section-6">6</a>. Ciphersuites ...................................................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
   <a href="#section-7">7</a>. Generalized Key Derivation Function (GKDF) .....................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
   <a href="#section-8">8</a>. Ciphersuites Processing Rules ..................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
      <a href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. Ciphersuite #1 ............................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
           <a href="#section-8.1.1">8.1.1</a>. Encryption .........................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
           <a href="#section-8.1.2">8.1.2</a>. Integrity ..........................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
      <a href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>. Ciphersuite #2 ............................................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
           <a href="#section-8.2.1">8.2.1</a>. Encryption .........................................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
           <a href="#section-8.2.2">8.2.2</a>. Integrity ..........................................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
   <a href="#section-9">9</a>. Packet Formats .................................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
      <a href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. Header Format .............................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
      <a href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>. Ciphersuite Formatting ....................................<a href="#page-16">16</a>
      <a href="#section-9.3">9.3</a>. Payload Formatting ........................................<a href="#page-16">16</a>
      <a href="#section-9.4">9.4</a>. Protected Data ............................................<a href="#page-21">21</a>
   <a href="#section-10">10</a>. Packet Processing Rules .......................................<a href="#page-24">24</a>
   <a href="#section-11">11</a>. Example Message Exchanges .....................................<a href="#page-25">25</a>
   <a href="#section-12">12</a>. Security Considerations .......................................<a href="#page-28">28</a>
      <a href="#section-12.1">12.1</a>. Security Claims ..........................................<a href="#page-28">28</a>
      <a href="#section-12.2">12.2</a>. Mutual Authentication ....................................<a href="#page-29">29</a>
      <a href="#section-12.3">12.3</a>. Protected Result Indications .............................<a href="#page-29">29</a>
      <a href="#section-12.4">12.4</a>. Integrity Protection .....................................<a href="#page-29">29</a>
      <a href="#section-12.5">12.5</a>. Replay Protection ........................................<a href="#page-30">30</a>
      <a href="#section-12.6">12.6</a>. Reflection Attacks .......................................<a href="#page-30">30</a>
      <a href="#section-12.7">12.7</a>. Dictionary Attacks .......................................<a href="#page-30">30</a>
      <a href="#section-12.8">12.8</a>. Key Derivation and Key Strength ..........................<a href="#page-31">31</a>
      <a href="#section-12.9">12.9</a>. Denial-of-Service Resistance .............................<a href="#page-31">31</a>
      <a href="#section-12.10">12.10</a>. Session Independence ....................................<a href="#page-32">32</a>
      <a href="#section-12.11">12.11</a>. Compromise of the PSK ...................................<a href="#page-32">32</a>
      <a href="#section-12.12">12.12</a>. Fragmentation ...........................................<a href="#page-32">32</a>
      <a href="#section-12.13">12.13</a>. Channel Binding .........................................<a href="#page-32">32</a>
      <a href="#section-12.14">12.14</a>. Fast Reconnect ..........................................<a href="#page-33">33</a>
      <a href="#section-12.15">12.15</a>. Identity Protection .....................................<a href="#page-33">33</a>
      <a href="#section-12.16">12.16</a>. Protected Ciphersuite Negotiation .......................<a href="#page-33">33</a>
      <a href="#section-12.17">12.17</a>. Confidentiality .........................................<a href="#page-34">34</a>
      <a href="#section-12.18">12.18</a>. Cryptographic Binding ...................................<a href="#page-34">34</a>
   <a href="#section-13">13</a>. IANA Considerations ...........................................<a href="#page-34">34</a>
   <a href="#section-14">14</a>. Contributors ..................................................<a href="#page-35">35</a>
   <a href="#section-15">15</a>. Acknowledgments ...............................................<a href="#page-36">36</a>
   <a href="#section-16">16</a>. References ....................................................<a href="#page-37">37</a>
      <a href="#section-16.1">16.1</a>. Normative References .....................................<a href="#page-37">37</a>
      <a href="#section-16.2">16.2</a>. Informative References ...................................<a href="#page-38">38</a>



<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                     [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>.  Introduction</span>

   EAP Generalized Pre-Shared Key (EAP-GPSK) is an EAP method defining a
   generalized pre-shared key authentication technique.  Mutual
   authentication is achieved through a nonce-based exchange that is
   secured by a pre-shared key.

   EAP-GPSK addresses a large number of design goals with the intention
   of being applicable in a broad range of usage scenarios.

   The main design goals of EAP-GPSK are:

   Simplicity:

      EAP-GPSK should be easy to implement.

   Security Model:

      EAP-GPSK has been designed in a threat model where the attacker
      has full control over the communication channel.  This EAP threat
      model is presented in <a href="./rfc3748#section-7.1">Section&nbsp;7.1 of [RFC3748]</a>.

   Efficiency:

      EAP-GPSK does not make use of public key cryptography and fully
      relies of symmetric cryptography.  The restriction of symmetric
      cryptographic computations allows for low computational overhead.
      Hence, EAP-GPSK is lightweight and well suited for any type of
      device, especially those with processing power, memory, and
      battery constraints.  Additionally, it seeks to minimize the
      number of round trips.

   Flexibility:

      EAP-GPSK offers cryptographic flexibility.  At the beginning, the
      EAP server proposes a list of ciphersuites.  The client then
      selects one.  The current version of EAP-GPSK includes two
      ciphersuites, but additional ones can be easily added.

   Extensibility:

      The design of EAP-GPSK allows to securely exchange information
      between the EAP peer and the EAP server using protected data
      fields.  These fields might, for example, be used to exchange
      channel binding information or to provide support for identity
      confidentiality.





<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                     [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>.  Terminology</span>

   In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
   of the specification.  These words are often capitalized.  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 [<a href="./rfc2119" title="&quot;Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels&quot;">RFC2119</a>].

   This section describes the various variables and functions used in
   the EAP-GPSK method.

   Variables:

   CSuite_List:  An octet array listing available ciphersuites (variable
      length).

   CSuite_Sel:  Ciphersuite selected by the peer (6 octets).

   ID_Peer:  Peer Network Access Identifier (NAI) [<a href="./rfc4282" title="&quot;The Network Access Identifier&quot;">RFC4282</a>].

   ID_Server:  Server identity as an opaque blob.

   KS:  Integer representing the input key size, in octets, of the
      selected ciphersuite CSuite_Sel.  The key size is one of the
      ciphersuite parameters.

   ML:  Integer representing the length of the Message Authentication
      Code (MAC) output, in octets, of the selected ciphersuite
      CSuite_Sel.

   PD_Payload:  Data carried within the protected data payload.

   PD_Payload_Block:  Block of possibly multiple PD_Payloads carried by
      a GPSK packet.

   PL:  Integer representing the length of the PSK in octets (2 octets).
      PL MUST be larger than or equal to KS.

   RAND_Peer:  Random integer generated by the peer (32 octets).

   RAND_Server:  Random integer generated by the server (32 octets).










<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                     [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   Operations:

   A || B:  Concatenation of octet strings A and B.

   A**B:  Integer exponentiation.

   truncate(A,B):  Returns the first B octets of A.

   ENC_X(Y):  Encryption of message Y with a symmetric key X, using a
      defined block cipher.

   KDF-X(Y):  Key Derivation Function that generates an arbitrary number
      of octets of output using secret X and seed Y.

   length(X):  Function that returns the length of input X in octets,
      encoded as a 2-octet integer in network byte order.

   MAC_X(Y):  Keyed message authentication code computed over Y with
      symmetric key X.

   SEC_X(Y):  SEC is a function that provides integrity protection based
      on the chosen ciphersuite.  The function SEC uses the algorithm
      defined by the selected ciphersuite and applies it to the message
      content Y with key X.  In short, SEC_X(Y) = Y || MAC_X(Y).

   X[A..B]:  Notation representing octets A through B of octet array X
      where the first octet of the array has index zero.

   The following abbreviations are used for the keying material:

   EMSK:  Extended Master Session Key is exported by the EAP method (64
          octets).

   MK:    A session-specific Master Key between the peer and EAP server
          from which all other EAP method session keys are derived (KS
          octets).

   MSK:   Master Session Key exported by the EAP method (64 octets).

   PK:    Session key generated from the MK and used during protocol
          exchange to encrypt protected data (KS octets).

   PSK:   Long-term key shared between the peer and the server (PL
          octets).

   SK:    Session key generated from the MK and used during protocol
          exchange to demonstrate knowledge of the PSK (KS octets).




<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                     [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>.  Overview</span>

   The EAP framework (see <a href="./rfc3748#section-1.3">Section&nbsp;1.3 of [RFC3748]</a>) defines three basic
   steps that occur during the execution of an EAP conversation between
   the EAP peer, the Authenticator, and the EAP server.

   1.  The first phase, discovery, is handled by the underlying
       protocol, e.g., IEEE 802.1X as utilized by IEEE 802.11 [<a href="#ref-80211" title="&quot;Information technology - Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Systems - Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Specific Requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications&quot;">80211</a>].

   2.  The EAP authentication phase with EAP-GPSK is defined in this
       document.

   3.  The secure association distribution and secure association phases
       are handled differently depending on the underlying protocol.

   EAP-GPSK performs mutual authentication between the EAP peer ("Peer")
   and EAP server ("Server") based on a pre-shared key (PSK).  The
   protocol consists of the message exchanges (GPSK-1, ..., GPSK-4) in
   which both sides exchange nonces and their identities, and compute
   and exchange a Message Authentication Code (MAC) over the previously
   exchanged values, keyed with the pre-shared key.  This MAC is
   considered as proof of possession of the pre-shared key.  Two further
   messages, namely GPSK-Fail and GPSK-Protected-Fail, are used to deal
   with error situations.

   A successful protocol exchange is shown in Figure 1.

























<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                     [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   +--------+                                     +--------+
   |        |                EAP-Request/Identity |        |
   |  EAP   |&lt;------------------------------------|  EAP   |
   |  peer  |                                     | server |
   |        | EAP-Response/Identity               |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        |                  EAP-Request/GPSK-1 |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        | EAP-Response/GPSK-2                 |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        |                  EAP-Request/GPSK-3 |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        | EAP-Response/GPSK-4                 |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        |          EAP-Success                |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   +--------+                                     +--------+

                Figure 1: EAP-GPSK: Successful Exchange

   The full EAP-GPSK protocol is as follows:

   GPSK-1:

      ID_Server, RAND_Server, CSuite_List

   GPSK-2:

      SEC_SK(ID_Peer, ID_Server, RAND_Peer, RAND_Server, CSuite_List,
      CSuite_Sel, [ ENC_PK(PD_Payload_Block) ] )

   GPSK-3:

      SEC_SK(RAND_Peer, RAND_Server, ID_Server, CSuite_Sel, [
      ENC_PK(PD_Payload_Block) ] )

   GPSK-4:

      SEC_SK( [ ENC_PK(PD_Payload_Block) ] )







<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                     [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   The EAP server begins EAP-GPSK by selecting a random number
   RAND_Server and encoding the supported ciphersuites into CSuite_List.
   A ciphersuite consists of an encryption algorithm, a key derivation
   function, and a message authentication code.

   In GPSK-1, the EAP server sends its identity ID_Server, a random
   number RAND_Server, and a list of supported ciphersuites CSuite_List.
   The decision of which ciphersuite to offer and which ciphersuite to
   pick is policy- and implementation-dependent and, therefore, outside
   the scope of this document.

   In GPSK-2, the peer sends its identity ID_Peer and a random number
   RAND_Peer.  Furthermore, it repeats the received parameters of the
   GPSK-1 message (ID_Server, RAND_Server, CSuite_List) and the selected
   ciphersuite.  It computes a Message Authentication Code over all the
   transmitted parameters.

   The EAP server verifies the received Message Authentication Code and
   the consistency of the identities, nonces, and ciphersuite parameters
   transmitted in GPSK-1.  In case of successful verification, the EAP
   server computes a Message Authentication Code over the session
   parameter and returns it to the peer (within GPSK-3).  Within GPSK-2
   and GPSK-3, the EAP peer and EAP server have the possibility to
   exchange encrypted protected data parameters.

   The peer verifies the received Message Authentication Code and the
   consistency of the identities, nonces, and ciphersuite parameters
   transmitted in GPSK-2.  If the verification is successful, GPSK-4 is
   prepared.  This message can optionally contain the peer's protected
   data parameters.

   Upon receipt of GPSK-4, the server processes any included
   PD_Payload_Block.  Then, the EAP server sends an EAP Success message
   to indicate the successful outcome of the authentication.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>.  Key Derivation</span>

   EAP-GPSK provides key derivation in compliance to the requirements of
   [<a href="./rfc3748" title="&quot;Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)&quot;">RFC3748</a>] and [<a href="./rfc5247" title="&quot;Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Key Management Framework&quot;">RFC5247</a>].  Note that this section provides an abstract
   description for the key derivation procedure that needs to be
   instantiated with a specific ciphersuite.

   The long-term credential shared between EAP peer and EAP server
   SHOULD be a strong pre-shared key PSK of at least 16 octets, though
   its length and entropy are variable.  While it is possible to use a
   password or passphrase, doing so is NOT RECOMMENDED as EAP-GPSK is
   vulnerable to dictionary attacks.




<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                     [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   During an EAP-GPSK authentication, a Master Key MK, a Session Key SK,
   and a Protected Data Encryption Key PK (if using an encrypting
   ciphersuite) are derived using the ciphersuite-specified KDF and data
   exchanged during the execution of the protocol, namely 'RAND_Peer ||
   ID_Peer || RAND_Server || ID_Server', referred to as inputString in
   its short-hand form.

   In case of successful completion, EAP-GPSK derives and exports an MSK
   and an EMSK, each 64 octets in length.

   The following notation is used: KDF-X(Y, Z)[<a href="#ref-A..B">A..B</a>], whereby

   X  is the length, in octets, of the desired output,

   Y  is a secret key,

   Z  is the inputString,

   [<a id="ref-A..B">A..B</a>]  extracts the string of octets starting with octet A and
      finishing with octet B from the output of the KDF function.

   This keying material is derived using the ciphersuite-specified KDF
   as follows:

   o  inputString = RAND_Peer || ID_Peer || RAND_Server || ID_Server

   o  MK = KDF-KS(PSK[0..KS-1], PL || PSK || CSuite_Sel ||
      inputString)[0..KS-1]

   o  MSK = KDF-{128+2*KS}(MK, inputString)[0..63]

   o  EMSK = KDF-{128+2*KS}(MK, inputString)[64..127]

   o  SK = KDF-{128+2*KS}(MK, inputString)[128..127+KS]

   o  PK = KDF-{128+2*KS}(MK, inputString)[128+KS..127+2*KS] (if using
      an encrypting ciphersuite)

   The value for PL (the length of the PSK in octets) is encoded as a
   2-octet integer in network byte order.  Recall that KS is the length
   of the ciphersuite input key size in octets.

   Additionally, the EAP keying framework [<a href="./rfc5247" title="&quot;Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Key Management Framework&quot;">RFC5247</a>] requires the
   definition of a Method-ID, Session-ID, Peer-ID, and Server-ID.  These
   values are defined as:

   o  Method-ID = KDF-16(PSK[0..KS-1], "Method ID" || EAP_Method_Type ||
      CSuite_Sel || inputString)[0..15]



<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                     [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   o  Session-ID = EAP_Method_Type || Method_ID

   o  Peer-ID = ID_Peer

   o  Server-ID = ID_Server

   EAP_Method_Type refers to the 1-octet, IANA-allocated EAP Type code
   value.

   Figure 2 depicts the key derivation procedure of EAP-GPSK.

   +-------------+     +-------------------------------+
   |   PL-octet  |     | RAND_Peer || ID_Peer ||       |
   |     PSK     |     | RAND_Server || ID_Server      |
   +-------------+     +-------------------------------+
          |                            |            |
          |     +------------+         |            |
          |     | CSuite_Sel |         |            |
          |     +------------+         |            |
          |           |                |            |
          v           v                v            |
   +--------------------------------------------+   |
   |                    KDF                     |   |
   +--------------------------------------------+   |
                             |                      |
                             v                      |
                      +-------------+               |
                      |   KS-octet  |               |
                      |     MK      |               |
                      +-------------+               |
                             |                      |
                             v                      v
   +---------------------------------------------------+
   |                      KDF                          |
   +---------------------------------------------------+
        |             |             |            |
        v             v             v            v
   +---------+   +---------+  +----------+  +----------+
   | 64-octet|   | 64-octet|  | KS-octet |  | KS-octet |
   |   MSK   |   |  EMSK   |  |    SK    |  |   PK     |
   +---------+   +---------+  +----------+  +----------+

                     Figure 2: EAP-GPSK Key Derivation








<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>.  Key Management</span>

   In order to be interoperable, PSKs must be entered in the same way on
   both the peer and server.  The management interface for entering PSKs
   MUST support entering PSKs up to 64 octets in length as ASCII strings
   and in hexadecimal encoding.

   Additionally, the ID_Peer and ID_Server MUST be provisioned with the
   PSK.  Validation of these values is by an octet-wise comparison.  The
   management interface SHOULD support entering non-ASCII octets for the
   ID_Peer and ID_Server up to 254 octets in length.  For more
   information, the reader is advised to read <a href="./rfc4282#section-2.4">Section&nbsp;2.4 of RFC 4282</a>
   [<a href="./rfc4282" title="&quot;The Network Access Identifier&quot;">RFC4282</a>].

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>.  Ciphersuites</span>

   The design of EAP-GPSK allows cryptographic algorithms and key sizes,
   called ciphersuites, to be negotiated during the protocol run.  The
   ability to specify block-based and hash-based ciphersuites is
   offered.  Extensibility is provided with the introduction of new
   ciphersuites; this document specifies an initial set.  The CSuite/
   Specifier column in Figure 3 uniquely identifies a ciphersuite.

   For a vendor-specific ciphersuite, the first four octets are the
   vendor-specific enterprise number that contains the IANA-assigned
   "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" value (see
   [<a href="#ref-ENTNUM" title="&quot;SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes&quot;">ENTNUM</a>]), encoded in network byte order.  The last two octets are
   vendor assigned for the specific ciphersuite.  A vendor code of
   0x00000000 indicates ciphersuites standardized by the IETF in an
   IANA-maintained registry.

   The following ciphersuites are specified in this document (recall
   that KS is the length of the ciphersuite input key length in octets,
   and ML is the length of the MAC output in octets):

   +-----------+----+-------------+----+--------------+----------------+
   | CSuite/   | KS | Encryption  | ML | Integrity /  | Key Derivation |
   | Specifier |    |             |    | KDF MAC      | Function       |
   +-----------+----+-------------+----+--------------+----------------+
   | 0x0001    | 16 | AES-CBC-128 | 16 | AES-CMAC-128 | GKDF           |
   +-----------+----+-------------+----+--------------+----------------+
   | 0x0002    | 32 | NULL        | 32 | HMAC-SHA256  | GKDF           |
   +-----------+----+-------------+----+--------------+----------------+

                          Figure 3: Ciphersuites






<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   Ciphersuite 1, which is based on the Advanced Encryption Standard
   (AES) as a cryptographic primitive, MUST be implemented.  This
   document specifies also a second ciphersuite, which MAY be
   implemented.  Both ciphersuites defined in this document make use of
   the Generalized Key Derivation Function (GKDF), as defined in
   <a href="#section-7">Section 7</a>.  The following aspects need to be considered to ensure
   that the PSK that is used as input to the GKDF is sufficiently long:

   1.  The PSK used with ciphersuite 1 MUST be 128 bits in length.  Keys
       longer than 128 bits will be truncated.

   2.  The PSK used with ciphersuite 2 MUST be 256 bits in length.  Keys
       longer than 256 bits will be truncated.

   3.  It is RECOMMENDED that 256 bit keys be provisioned in all cases
       to provide enough entropy for all current and many possible
       future ciphersuites.

   Ciphersuites defined in the future that make use of the GKDF need to
   specify a minimum PSK size (as is done with the ciphersuites listed
   in this document).

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>.  Generalized Key Derivation Function (GKDF)</span>

   Each ciphersuite needs to specify a key derivation function.  The
   ciphersuites defined in this document make use of the Generalized Key
   Derivation Function (GKDF) that utilizes the MAC function defined in
   the ciphersuite.  Future ciphersuites can use any other formally
   specified KDF that takes as arguments a key and a seed value, and
   produces at least 128+2*KS octets of output.

   GKDF has the following structure:

   GKDF-X(Y, Z)

   X  length, in octets, of the desired output

   Y  secret key

   Z  inputString


   GKDF-X (Y, Z)
   {
     n = ceiling integer of ( X / ML );
        /* determine number of output blocks */





<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


     result = "";

     for i = 1 to n {
       result = result || MAC_Y (i || Z);
     }

     return truncate(result, X)
   }

   Note that the variable 'i' in M_i is represented as a 2-octet value
   in network byte order.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>.  Ciphersuites Processing Rules</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.1" href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>.  Ciphersuite #1</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.1.1" href="#section-8.1.1">8.1.1</a>.  Encryption</span>

   With this ciphersuite, all cryptography is built around a single
   cryptographic primitive, AES-128 ([<a href="#ref-AES" title="&quot;Specification for the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)&quot;">AES</a>]).  Within the protected data
   frames, AES-128 is used in the Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) mode of
   operation (see [<a href="#ref-CBC" title="&quot;Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Encryption -- Methods and Techniques&quot;">CBC</a>]).  This EAP method uses encryption in a single
   payload, in the protected data payload (see <a href="#section-9.4">Section 9.4</a>).

   In a nutshell, the CBC mode proceeds as follows.  The IV is XORed
   with the first plaintext block before it is encrypted.  Then for
   successive blocks, the previous ciphertext block is XORed with the
   current plaintext, before it is encrypted.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.1.2" href="#section-8.1.2">8.1.2</a>.  Integrity</span>

   Ciphersuite 1 uses CMAC as Message Authentication Code.  CMAC is
   recommended by NIST.  Among its advantages, CMAC is capable to work
   with messages of arbitrary length.  A detailed description of CMAC
   can be found in [<a href="#ref-CMAC" title="&quot;Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation: The CMAC Mode for Authentication&quot;">CMAC</a>].

   The following instantiation is used: AES-CMAC-128(SK, Input) denotes
   the MAC of Input under the key SK where Input refers to the following
   content:

   o  Parameter within SEC_SK(Parameter) in message GPSK-2

   o  Parameter within SEC_SK(Parameter) in message GPSK-3

   o  Parameter within SEC_SK(Parameter) in message GPSK-4






<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.2" href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>.  Ciphersuite #2</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.2.1" href="#section-8.2.1">8.2.1</a>.  Encryption</span>

   Ciphersuite 2 does not include an algorithm for encryption.  With a
   NULL encryption algorithm, encryption is defined as:

   E_X(Y) = Y

   When using this ciphersuite, the data exchanged inside the protected
   data block is not encrypted.  Therefore, this mode MUST NOT be used
   if confidential information appears inside the protected data block.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.2.2" href="#section-8.2.2">8.2.2</a>.  Integrity</span>

   Ciphersuite 2 uses the keyed MAC function HMAC, with the SHA256 hash
   algorithm (see [<a href="./rfc4634" title="&quot;US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA and HMAC-SHA)&quot;">RFC4634</a>]).

   For integrity protection, the following instantiation is used:

   HMAC-SHA256(SK, Input) denotes the MAC of Input under the key SK
   where Input refers to the following content:

   o  Parameter within SEC_SK(Parameter) in message GPSK-2

   o  Parameter within SEC_SK(Parameter) in message GPSK-3

   o  Parameter within SEC_SK(Parameter) in message GPSK-4























<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>.  Packet Formats</span>

   This section defines the packet format of the EAP-GPSK messages.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.1" href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>.  Header Format</span>

   The EAP-GPSK header has the following structure:

   --- bit offset ---&gt;
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Code      |  Identifier   |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |    OP-Code    |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   |                                                               |
   ...                         Payload                           ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 4: EAP-GPSK Header

   The Code, Identifier, Length, and Type fields are all part of the EAP
   header and are defined in [<a href="./rfc3748" title="&quot;Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)&quot;">RFC3748</a>].  The Type field in the EAP
   header MUST be the value allocated by IANA for EAP-GPSK.

   The OP-Code field is one of 6 values:

   o  0x00 : Reserved

   o  0x01 : GPSK-1

   o  0x02 : GPSK-2

   o  0x03 : GPSK-3

   o  0x04 : GPSK-4

   o  0x05 : GPSK-Fail

   o  0x06 : GPSK-Protected-Fail

   All other values of this OP-Code field are available via IANA
   registration.






<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.2" href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>.  Ciphersuite Formatting</span>

   Ciphersuites are encoded as 6-octet arrays.  The first four octets
   indicate the CSuite/Vendor field.  For vendor-specific ciphersuites,
   this represents the vendor enterprise number and contains the IANA-
   assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" value (see
   [<a href="#ref-ENTNUM" title="&quot;SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes&quot;">ENTNUM</a>]), encoded in network byte order.  The last two octets
   indicate the CSuite/Specifier field, which identifies the particular
   ciphersuite.  The 4-octet CSuite/Vendor value 0x00000000 indicates
   ciphersuites allocated by the IETF.

   Graphically, they are represented as:

   --- bit offset ---&gt;
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       CSuite/Vendor = 0x00000000 or enterprise number         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      CSuite/Specifier         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 5: Ciphersuite Formatting

   CSuite_Sel is encoded as a 6-octet ciphersuite CSuite/Vendor and
   CSuite/Specifier pair.

   CSuite_List is a variable-length octet array of ciphersuites.  It is
   encoded by concatenating encoded ciphersuite values.  Its length in
   octets MUST be a multiple of 6.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.3" href="#section-9.3">9.3</a>.  Payload Formatting</span>

   Payload formatting is based on the protocol exchange description in
   <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>.
















<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   The GPSK-1 payload format is defined as follows:

   --- bit offset ---&gt;
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       length(ID_Server)       |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   |                                                               |
   ...                         ID_Server                         ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                   32-octet RAND_Server                    ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      length(CSuite_List)      |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   |                                                               |
   ...                        CSuite_List                        ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 6: GPSK-1 Payload



























<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   The GPSK-2 payload format is defined as follows:

   --- bit offset ---&gt;
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        length(ID_Peer)        |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   |                                                               |
   ...                         ID_Peer                         ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       length(ID_Server)       |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   |                                                               |
   ...                         ID_Server                         ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                     32-octet RAND_Peer                    ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                    32-octet RAND_Server                   ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      length(CSuite_List)      |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   |                                                               |
   ...                        CSuite_List                        ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           CSuite_Sel                          |
   +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |   length(PD_Payload_Block)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                 optional PD_Payload_Block                 ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                   ML-octet payload MAC                    ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 7: GPSK-2 Payload





<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   If the optional protected data payload is not included, then
   length(PD_Payload_Block)=0 and the PD payload is excluded.  The
   payload MAC covers the entire packet, from the ID_Peer length through
   the optional PD_Payload_Block.

   The GPSK-3 payload is defined as follows:

   --- bit offset ---&gt;
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                    32-octet RAND_Peer                   ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                    32-octet RAND_Server                   ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       length(ID_Server)       |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   |                                                               |
   ...                         ID_Server                         ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           CSuite_Sel                          |
   +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |   length(PD_Payload_Block)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                 optional PD_Payload_Block                 ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                   ML-octet payload MAC                    ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 8: GPSK-3 Payload

   If the optional protected data payload is not included, then
   length(PD_Payload_Block)=0 and the PD payload is excluded.  The
   payload MAC covers the entire packet, from the RAND_Peer through the
   optional PD_Payload_Block.







<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   The GPSK-4 payload format is defined as follows:

   --- bit offset ---&gt;
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   length(PD_Payload_Block)    |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   |                                                               |
   ...                 optional PD_Payload_Block                 ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                   ML-octet payload MAC                    ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 9: GPSK-4 Payload

   If the optional protected data payload is not included, then
   length(PD_Payload_Block)=0 and the PD payload is excluded.  The MAC
   MUST always be included, regardless of the presence of
   PD_Payload_Block.  The payload MAC covers the entire packet, from the
   PD_Payload_Block length through the optional PD_Payload_Block.

   The GPSK-Fail payload format is defined as follows:

   --- bit offset ---&gt;
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Failure-Code                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 10: GPSK-Fail Payload
















<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   The GPSK-Protected-Fail payload format is defined as follows:

   --- bit offset ---&gt;
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Failure-Code                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                   ML-octet payload MAC                    ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 11: GPSK-Protected-Fail Payload

   The Failure-Code field is one of three values, but can be extended:

   o  0x00000000 : Reserved

   o  0x00000001 : PSK Not Found

   o  0x00000002 : Authentication Failure

   o  0x00000003 : Authorization Failure

   All other values of this field are available via IANA registration.

   "PSK Not Found" indicates a key for a particular user could not be
   located, making authentication impossible.  "Authentication Failure"
   indicates a MAC failure due to a PSK mismatch.  "Authorization
   Failure" indicates that while the PSK being used is correct, the user
   is not authorized to connect.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.4" href="#section-9.4">9.4</a>.  Protected Data</span>

   The protected data blocks are a generic mechanism for the peer and
   server to securely exchange data.  If the specified ciphersuite has a
   NULL encryption primitive, then this channel only offers
   authenticity, not confidentiality.

   These payloads are encoded as the concatenation of type-length-value
   (TLV) triples called PD_Payloads.

   Type values are encoded as a 6-octet string and represented by a
   4-octet vendor and a 2-octet specifier field.  The vendor field
   indicates the type as either standards-specified or vendor-specific.





<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   If these four octets are 0x00000000, then the value is standards-
   specified, and any other value represents a vendor-specific
   enterprise number.

   The specifier field indicates the actual type.  For vendor field
   0x00000000, the specifier field is maintained by IANA.  For any other
   vendor field, the specifier field is maintained by the vendor.

   Length fields are specified as 2-octet integers in network byte
   order, reflect only the length of the value, and do not include the
   length of the type and length fields.

   Graphically, this can be depicted as follows:

   --- bit offset ---&gt;
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   PData/Vendor                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            PData/Specifier        |         PData/Length          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                        PData/Value                        ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 12: Protected Data Payload (PD_Payload) Formatting

   These PD_Payloads are concatenated together to form a
   PD_Payload_Block.  If the CSuite_Sel includes support for encryption,
   then the PD_Payload_Block includes fields specifying an
   Initialization Vector (IV) and the necessary padding.  This can be
   depicted as follows:

















<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 22]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   --- bit offset ---&gt;
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   IV Length   |                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+      Initialization Vector                    +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                        PD_Payload                         ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                 optional PD_Payload, etc                  ...
   |                                                               |
   +               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               |             Padding (0-255 octets)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                               |  Pad Length   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 13: Protected Data Block (PD_Payload_Block)
                   Formatting if Encryption is Supported

   The Initialization Vector is a randomly chosen value whose length is
   equal to the specified IV Length.  The required length is defined by
   the ciphersuite.  Recipients MUST accept any value.  Senders SHOULD
   either pick this value pseudo-randomly and independently for each
   message or use the final ciphertext block of the previous message
   sent.  Senders MUST NOT use the same value for each message, use a
   sequence of values with low hamming distance (e.g., a sequence
   number), or use ciphertext from a received message.  IVs should be
   selected per the security requirements of the underlying cipher.  If
   the data is not being encrypted, then the IV Length MUST be 0.  If
   the ciphersuite does not require an IV, or has a self-contained way
   of communicating the IV, then the IV Length field MUST be 0.  In
   these cases, the ciphersuite definition defines how the IV is
   encapsulated in the PD_Payload.

   The concatenation of PD_Payloads along with the padding and padding
   length are all encrypted using the negotiated block cipher.  If no
   block cipher is specified, then these fields are not encrypted.

   The Padding field MAY contain any value chosen by the sender.  For
   block-based cipher modes, the padding MUST have a length that makes
   the combination of the concatenation of PD_Payloads, the Padding, and
   the Pad Length to be a multiple of the encryption block size.  If the




<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 23]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-24" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   underlying ciphersuite does not require padding (e.g., a stream-based
   cipher mode) or no encryption is being used, then the padding length
   MUST still be present and be 0.

   The Pad Length field is the length of the Padding field.  The sender
   SHOULD set the Pad Length to the minimum value that makes the
   combination of the PD_Payloads, the Padding, and the Pad Length a
   multiple of the block size (in the case of block-based cipher modes),
   but the recipient MUST accept any length that results in proper
   alignment.  This field is encrypted with the negotiated cipher.

   If the negotiated ciphersuite does not support encryption, then the
   IV field MUST be of length 0 and the padding field MUST be of length
   0.  The IV length and padding length fields MUST still be present,
   and contain the value 0.  The rationale for still requiring the
   length fields is to allow for modular implementations where the
   crypto processing is independent of the payload processing.  This is
   depicted in the following figure.

   --- bit offset ---&gt;
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      0x00     |                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+          PD_Payload                         ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ...                 optional PD_Payload, etc    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                               |      0x00     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 14: Protected Data Block (PD_Payload_Block)
                       Formatting Without Encryption

   For PData/Vendor field 0x00000000, the following PData/Specifier
   fields are defined:

   o  0x0000 : Reserved

   All other values of this field are available via IANA registration.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>.  Packet Processing Rules</span>

   This section defines how the EAP peer and EAP server MUST behave when
   a received packet is deemed invalid.





<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 24]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-25" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   Any EAP-GPSK packet that cannot be parsed by the EAP peer or the EAP
   server MUST be silently discarded.  An EAP peer or EAP server
   receiving any unexpected packet (e.g., an EAP peer receiving GPSK-3
   before receiving GPSK-1 or before transmitting GPSK-2) MUST silently
   discard the packet.

   GPSK-1 contains no MAC protection, so provided it properly parses, it
   MUST be accepted by the peer.  If the EAP peer has no ciphersuites in
   common with the server or decides the ID_Server is that of an
   Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) server to which
   it does not wish to authenticate, the EAP peer MUST respond with an
   EAP-NAK.

   For GPSK-2, if the ID_Peer is for an unknown user, the EAP server
   MUST send either a "PSK Not Found" GPSK-Fail message or an
   "Authentication Failure" GPSK-Fail, depending on its policy.  If the
   MAC validation fails, the server MUST transmit a GPSK-Fail message
   specifying "Authentication Failure".  If the RAND_Server or
   CSuite_List field in GPSK-2 does not match the values in GPSK-1, the
   server MUST silently discard the packet.  If server policy determines
   the peer is not authorized and the MAC is correct, the server MUST
   transmit a GPSK-Protected-Fail message indicating "Authorization
   Failure", and discard the received packet.

   A peer receiving a GPSK-Fail / GPSK-Protected-Fail message in
   response to a GPSK-2 message MUST replay the received GPSK-Fail /
   GPSK-Protected-Fail message.  Then, the EAP server returns an EAP-
   Failure after receiving the GPSK-Fail / GPSK-Protected-Fail message
   to correctly finish the EAP conversation.  If MAC validation on a
   GPSK-Protected-Fail packet fails, then the received packet MUST be
   silently discarded.

   For GPSK-3, a peer MUST silently discard messages where the
   RAND_Peer, ID_Server, or the CSuite_Sel fields do not match those
   transmitted in GPSK-2.  An EAP peer MUST silently discard any packet
   whose MAC fails.

   For GPSK-4, a server MUST silently discard any packet whose MAC fails
   validation.

   If a decryption failure of a protected payload is detected, the
   recipient MUST silently discard the GPSK packet.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-11" href="#section-11">11</a>.  Example Message Exchanges</span>

   This section shows a couple of example message flows.

   A successful EAP-GPSK message exchange is shown in Figure 1.



<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 25]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-26" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   +--------+                                     +--------+
   |        |                EAP-Request/Identity |        |
   |  EAP   |&lt;------------------------------------|  EAP   |
   |  peer  |                                     | server |
   |        | EAP-Response/Identity               |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        |                  EAP-Request/GPSK-1 |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        | EAP-Response/EAP-NAK                |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        |          EAP-Failure                |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   +--------+                                     +--------+

                Figure 15: EAP-GPSK: Unsuccessful Exchange
               (Unacceptable AAA Server Identity; ID_Server)

   +--------+                                     +--------+
   |        |                EAP-Request/Identity |        |
   |  EAP   |&lt;------------------------------------|  EAP   |
   |  peer  |                                     | server |
   |        | EAP-Response/Identity               |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        |                  EAP-Request/GPSK-1 |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        | EAP-Response/GPSK-2                 |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        | EAP-Request/GPSK-Fail               |        |
   |        | (PSK Not Found or Authentication    |        |
   |        | Failure)                            |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        | EAP-Response/GPSK-Fail              |        |
   |        | (PSK Not Found or Authentication    |        |
   |        | Failure)                            |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        |          EAP-Failure                |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   +--------+                                     +--------+

         Figure 16: EAP-GPSK: Unsuccessful Exchange (Unknown User)



<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 26]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-27" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   +--------+                                     +--------+
   |        |                EAP-Request/Identity |        |
   |  EAP   |&lt;------------------------------------|  EAP   |
   |  peer  |                                     | server |
   |        | EAP-Response/Identity               |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        |                  EAP-Request/GPSK-1 |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        | EAP-Response/GPSK-2                 |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        | EAP-Request/GPSK-Fail               |        |
   |        | (Authentication Failure)            |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        | EAP-Response/GPSK-Fail              |        |
   |        | (Authentication Failure)            |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        |          EAP-Failure                |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   +--------+                                     +--------+

    Figure 17: EAP-GPSK: Unsuccessful Exchange (Invalid MAC in GPSK-2)

























<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 27]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-28" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   +--------+                                     +--------+
   |        |                EAP-Request/Identity |        |
   |  EAP   |&lt;------------------------------------|  EAP   |
   |  peer  |                                     | server |
   |        | EAP-Response/Identity               |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        |                  EAP-Request/GPSK-1 |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        | EAP-Response/GPSK-2                 |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        | EAP-Request/                        |        |
   |        | GPSK-Protected-Fail                 |        |
   |        | (Authorization Failure)             |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        | EAP-Request/                        |        |
   |        | GPSK-Protected-Fail                 |        |
   |        | (Authorization Failure)             |        |
   |        |------------------------------------&gt;|        |
   |        |                                     |        |
   |        |          EAP-Failure                |        |
   |        |&lt;------------------------------------|        |
   +--------+                                     +--------+

    Figure 18: EAP-GPSK: Unsuccessful Exchange (Authorization Failure)

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-12" href="#section-12">12</a>.  Security Considerations</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC3748">RFC3748</a>] highlights several attacks that are possible against EAP
   since EAP itself does not provide any security.

   This section discusses the claimed security properties of EAP-GPSK as
   well as vulnerabilities and security recommendations in the threat
   model of [<a href="./rfc3748" title="&quot;Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)&quot;">RFC3748</a>].

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.1" href="#section-12.1">12.1</a>.  Security Claims</span>

   Authentication mechanism:  Shared Keys
   Ciphersuite negotiation:  Yes (<a href="#section-12.16">Section 12.16</a>)
   Mutual authentication:  Yes (<a href="#section-12.2">Section 12.2</a>)
   Integrity protection:  Yes (<a href="#section-12.4">Section 12.4</a>)
   Replay protection:  Yes (<a href="#section-12.5">Section 12.5</a>)
   Confidentiality:  No (<a href="#section-12.17">Section 12.17</a>, <a href="#section-12.15">Section 12.15</a>)
   Key derivation:  Yes (<a href="#section-12.8">Section 12.8</a>)
   Key strength:  Varies (<a href="#section-12.8">Section 12.8</a>)



<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 28]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-29" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   Dictionary attack protection:  No (<a href="#section-12.7">Section 12.7</a>)
   Fast reconnect:  No (<a href="#section-12.14">Section 12.14</a>)
   Cryptographic binding:  N/A (<a href="#section-12.18">Section 12.18</a>)
   Session independence:  Yes (<a href="#section-12.10">Section 12.10</a>)
   Fragmentation:  No (<a href="#section-12.12">Section 12.12</a>)
   Channel binding:  Extensible (<a href="#section-12.13">Section 12.13</a>)

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.2" href="#section-12.2">12.2</a>.  Mutual Authentication</span>

   EAP-GPSK provides mutual authentication.

   The server believes that the peer is authentic when it successfully
   verifies the MAC in the GPSK-2 message; the peer believes that the
   server is authentic when it successfully verifies the MAC it receives
   with the GPSK-3 message.

   The key used for mutual authentication is derived based on the long-
   term secret PSK, nonces contributed by both parties, and other
   parameters.  The long-term secret PSK has to provide sufficient
   entropy and, therefore, sufficient strength.  The nonces (RAND_Peer
   and RAND_Server) need to be fresh and unique for every session.  In
   this way, EAP-GPSK is not different than other authentication
   protocols based on pre-shared keys.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.3" href="#section-12.3">12.3</a>.  Protected Result Indications</span>

   EAP-GPSK supports protected result indications via the GPSK-
   Protected-Fail message.  This allows a server to provide additional
   information to the peer as to why the session failed, and to do so in
   an authenticated way (if possible).  In particular, the server can
   indicate the lack of PSK (account not present), failed authentication
   (PSK incorrect), or authorization failure (account disabled or
   unauthorized).  Only the third message could be integrity protected.

   It should be noted that these options make debugging network and
   account errors easier, but they also leak information about accounts
   to attackers.  An attacker can determine if a particular ID_Peer is a
   valid user on the network or not.  Thus, implementers should use care
   in enabling this particular option on their servers.  If they are in
   an environment where such attacks are of concern, then protected
   result indication capabilities should be disabled.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.4" href="#section-12.4">12.4</a>.  Integrity Protection</span>

   EAP-GPSK provides integrity protection based on the ciphersuites
   suggested in this document.  Integrity protection is a minimum
   feature every ciphersuite must provide.




<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 29]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-30" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.5" href="#section-12.5">12.5</a>.  Replay Protection</span>

   EAP-GPSK provides replay protection of its mutual authentication part
   thanks to the use of random numbers RAND_Server and RAND_Peer.  Since
   RAND_Server is 32 octets long, one expects to have to record 2**64
   (i.e., approximately 1.84*10**19) EAP-GPSK successful authentications
   before a protocol run can be replayed.  Hence, EAP-GPSK provides
   replay protection of its mutual authentication part as long as
   RAND_Server and RAND_Peer are chosen at random; randomness is
   critical for replay protection.  <a href="./rfc4086">RFC 4086</a> [<a href="./rfc4086" title="&quot;Randomness Requirements for Security&quot;">RFC4086</a>] describes
   techniques for producing random quantities.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.6" href="#section-12.6">12.6</a>.  Reflection Attacks</span>

   Reflection attacks occur in bi-directional, challenge-response,
   mutual authentication protocols where an attacker, upon being issued
   a challenge by an authenticator, responds by issuing the same
   challenge back to the authenticator, obtaining the response, and then
   "reflecting" that same response to the original challenge.

   EAP-GPSK provides protection against reflection attacks because the
   message formats for the challenges differ.  The protocol does not
   consist of two independent authentications, but rather the
   authentications are tightly coupled.

   Also note that EAP-GPSK does not provide MAC protection of the OP-
   Code field, but again since each message is constructed differently,
   it would not be possible to change the OP-Code of a valid message and
   still have it be parseable and accepted by the recipient.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.7" href="#section-12.7">12.7</a>.  Dictionary Attacks</span>

   EAP-GPSK relies on a long-term shared secret (PSK) that SHOULD be
   based on at least 16 octets of entropy to be fully secure.  The EAP-
   GPSK protocol makes no special provisions to ensure keys based on
   passwords are used securely.  Users who use passwords as the basis of
   their PSK are not protected against dictionary attacks.  Derivation
   of the long-term shared secret from a password is strongly
   discouraged.

   The success of a dictionary attack against EAP-GPSK depends on the
   strength of the long-term shared secret (PSK) it uses.  The PSK used
   by EAP-GPSK SHOULD be drawn from a pool of secrets that is at least
   2^128 bits large and whose distribution is uniformly random.  Note
   that this does not imply resistance to dictionary attacks -- only
   that the probability of success in such an attack is acceptably
   remote.




<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 30]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-31" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.8" href="#section-12.8">12.8</a>.  Key Derivation and Key Strength</span>

   EAP-GPSK supports key derivation as shown in <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>.

   Keys used within EAP-GPSK are all based on the security of the
   originating PSK.  PSKs SHOULD have at least 16 octets of entropy.
   Independent of the protocol exchange (i.e., without knowing RAND_Peer
   and RAND_Server), the keys have been derived with sufficient input
   entropy to make them as secure as the underlying KDF output key
   length.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.9" href="#section-12.9">12.9</a>.  Denial-of-Service Resistance</span>

   There are three forms of denial-of-service (DoS) attacks relevant for
   this document, namely (1) attacks that lead to a vast amount of state
   being allocated, (2) attacks that attempt to prevent communication
   between the peer and server, and (3) attacks against computational
   resources.

   In an EAP-GPSK conversation the server has to maintain state, namely
   the 32-octet RAND_Server, when transmitting the GPSK-1 message to the
   peer.  An adversary could therefore flood a server with a large
   number of EAP-GPSK communication attempts.  An EAP server may
   therefore ensure that an established state times out after a
   relatively short period of time when no further messages are
   received.  This enables a sort of garbage collection.

   The client has to keep state information after receiving the GPSK-1
   message.  To prevent a replay attack, all the client needs to do is
   ensure that the value of RAND_Peer is consistent between GPSK-2 and
   GPSK-3.  Message GPSK-3 contains all the material required to
   re-compute the keying material.  Thus, if a client chooses to
   implement this client-side DoS protection mechanism, it may manage
   RAND_Peer and CSuite_Sel on a per-server basis for servers it knows,
   instead of on a per-message basis.

   Attacks that disrupt communication between the peer and server are
   mitigated by silently discarding messages with invalid MACs.  Attacks
   against computational resources are mitigated by having very light-
   weight cryptographic operations required during each protocol round.

   The security considerations of EAP itself, see Sections <a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a> and <a href="#section-7">7</a> of
   <a href="./rfc3748">RFC 3748</a> [<a href="./rfc3748" title="&quot;Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)&quot;">RFC3748</a>], are also applicable to this specification (e.g.,
   for example concerning EAP-based notifications).







<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 31]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-32" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.10" href="#section-12.10">12.10</a>.  Session Independence</span>

   Thanks to its key derivation mechanisms, EAP-GPSK provides session
   independence: passive attacks (such as capture of the EAP
   conversation) or active attacks (including compromise of the MSK or
   EMSK) do not enable compromise of subsequent or prior MSKs or EMSKs.
   The assumption that RAND_Peer and RAND_Server are random is central
   for the security of EAP-GPSK in general and session independence in
   particular.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.11" href="#section-12.11">12.11</a>.  Compromise of the PSK</span>

   EAP-GPSK does not provide perfect forward secrecy.  Compromise of the
   PSK leads to compromise of recorded past sessions.

   Compromise of the PSK enables the attacker to impersonate the peer
   and the server, and it allows the adversary to compromise future
   sessions.

   EAP-GPSK provides no protection against a legitimate peer sharing its
   PSK with a third party.  Such protection may be provided by
   appropriate repositories for the PSK, the choice of which is outside
   the scope of this document.  The PSK used by EAP-GPSK must only be
   shared between two parties: the peer and the server.  In particular,
   this PSK must not be shared by a group of peers (e.g., those with
   different ID_Peer values) communicating with the same server.

   The PSK used by EAP-GPSK must be cryptographically separated from
   keys used by other protocols, otherwise the security of EAP-GPSK may
   be compromised.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.12" href="#section-12.12">12.12</a>.  Fragmentation</span>

   EAP-GPSK does not support fragmentation and reassembly since the
   message size is relatively small.  However, it should be noted that
   this impacts the length of protected data payloads that can be
   attached to messages.  Also, if the EAP frame is larger than the MTU
   of the underlying transport, and that transport does not support
   fragmentation, the frame will most likely not be transported.
   Consequently, implementers and deployers should take care to ensure
   EAP-GPSK frames are short enough to work properly on the target
   underlying transport mechanism.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.13" href="#section-12.13">12.13</a>.  Channel Binding</span>

   This document enables the ability to exchange channel binding
   information.  It does not, however, define the encoding of channel
   binding information in the document.



<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 32]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-33" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.14" href="#section-12.14">12.14</a>.  Fast Reconnect</span>

   EAP-GPSK does not provide fast reconnect capability since this method
   is already at (or close to) the lower limit of the number of
   roundtrips and the cryptographic operations.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.15" href="#section-12.15">12.15</a>.  Identity Protection</span>

   Identity protection is not specified in this document.  Extensions
   can be defined that enhance this protocol to provide this feature.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.16" href="#section-12.16">12.16</a>.  Protected Ciphersuite Negotiation</span>

   EAP-GPSK provides protected ciphersuite negotiation via the
   indication of available ciphersuites by the server in the first
   message, and a confirmation by the peer in the subsequent message.

   Note, however, that the GPSK-2 message may optionally contain a
   payload, ENC_PK(PD_Payload_Block), protected with an algorithm based
   on a selected ciphersuite before the ciphersuite list has actually
   been authenticated.  In the classical downgrading attack, an
   adversary would choose a ciphersuite that is so weak that it can be
   broken in real time or would attempt to disable cryptographic
   protection altogether.  The latter is not possible since any
   ciphersuite defined for EAP-GPSK must at least provide authentication
   and integrity protection.  Confidentiality protection is optional.
   When, at some time in the future, a ciphersuite contains algorithms
   that can be broken in real-time, then a policy on peers and the
   server needs to indicate that such a ciphersuite must not be selected
   by any of parties.

   Furthermore, an adversary may modify the selection of the ciphersuite
   for the client to select a ciphersuite that does not provide
   confidentiality protection.  As a result, this would cause the
   content of PD_Payload_Block to be transmitted in cleartext.  When
   protocol designers extend EAP-GPSK to carry information in the
   PD_Payload_Block of the GPSK-2 message, then it must be indicated
   whether confidentiality protection is mandatory.  In case such an
   extension requires a ciphersuite with confidentiality protection,
   then the policy at the peer must be to not transmit information of
   that extension in the PD_Payload_Block of the GPSK-2 message.  The
   peer may, if possible, delay the transmission of this information
   element to the GPSK-4 message where the ciphersuite negotiation has
   been confirmed already.  In general, when a ciphersuite is selected
   that does not provide confidentiality protection, then information
   that demands confidentiality protection must not be included in any
   of the PD_Payload_Block objects.




<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 33]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-34" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.17" href="#section-12.17">12.17</a>.  Confidentiality</span>

   Although EAP-GPSK provides confidentiality in its protected data
   payloads, it cannot claim to do so, per <a href="./rfc3748#section-7.2.1">Section&nbsp;7.2.1 of [RFC3748]</a>,
   since it does not support identity protection.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.18" href="#section-12.18">12.18</a>.  Cryptographic Binding</span>

   Since EAP-GPSK does not tunnel another EAP method, it does not
   implement cryptographic binding.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-13" href="#section-13">13</a>.  IANA Considerations</span>

   IANA has allocated a new EAP Type for EAP-GPSK (51).

   IANA has created a new registry for ciphersuites, protected data
   types, failure codes, and op-codes.  IANA has added the specified
   ciphersuites, protected data types, failure codes, and op-codes to
   these registries as defined below.  Values defining ciphersuites
   (block-based or hash-based), protected data payloads, failure codes,
   and op-codes can be added or modified per IETF Review [<a href="./rfc5226" title="">RFC5226</a>].

   Figure 3 represents the initial contents of the "EAP-GPSK
   Ciphersuites" registry.  The CSuite/Specifier field is 16 bits long.
   All other values are available via IANA registration.  Each
   ciphersuite needs to provide processing rules and needs to specify
   how the following algorithms are instantiated: encryption, integrity,
   key derivation, and key length.

   The following are the initial contents of the "EAP-GPSK Protected
   Data Payloads" registry:

   o  0x0000 : Reserved

   The PData/Specifier field is 16 bits long, and all other values are
   available via IANA registration.  Each extension needs to indicate
   whether confidentiality protection for transmission between the EAP
   peer and the EAP server is mandatory.

   The following are the initial contents of the "EAP-GPSK Failure
   Codes" registry:

   o  0x00000000 : Reserved

   o  0x00000001 : PSK Not Found

   o  0x00000002 : Authentication Failure




<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 34]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-35" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   o  0x00000003 : Authorization Failure

   The Failure-Code field is 32 bits long, and all other values are
   available via IANA registration.

   The following are the initial contents of the "EAP-GPSK OP Codes"
   registry:

   o  0x00 : Reserved

   o  0x01 : GPSK-1

   o  0x02 : GPSK-2

   o  0x03 : GPSK-3

   o  0x04 : GPSK-4

   o  0x05 : GPSK-Fail

   o  0x06 : GPSK-Protected-Fail

   The OP-Code field is 8 bits long, and all other values are available
   via IANA registration.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-14" href="#section-14">14</a>.  Contributors</span>

   This work is a joint effort of the EAP Method Update (EMU) design
   team of the EMU Working Group that was created to develop a mechanism
   based on strong shared secrets that meets <a href="./rfc3748">RFC 3748</a> [<a href="./rfc3748" title="&quot;Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)&quot;">RFC3748</a>] and <a href="./rfc4017">RFC</a>
   <a href="./rfc4017">4017</a> [<a href="./rfc4017" title="&quot;Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Method Requirements for Wireless LANs&quot;">RFC4017</a>] requirements.  The design team members (in
   alphabetical order) were:

   o  Jari Arkko

   o  Mohamad Badra

   o  Uri Blumenthal

   o  Charles Clancy

   o  Lakshminath Dondeti

   o  David McGrew

   o  Joe Salowey

   o  Sharma Suman



<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 35]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-36" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   o  Hannes Tschofenig

   o  Jesse Walker

   Finally, we would like to thank Thomas Otto for his reviews,
   feedback, and text contributions.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-15" href="#section-15">15</a>.  Acknowledgments</span>

   We would like to thank:

   o  Jouni Malinen and Bernard Aboba for their early comments on the
      document in June 2006.  Jouni Malinen developed the first
      prototype implementation.

   o  Lakshminath Dondeti, David McGrew, Bernard Aboba, Michaela
      Vanderveen, and Ray Bell for their input to the ciphersuite
      discussions between July and August 2006.

   o  Lakshminath Dondeti for his detailed review (sent to the EMU
      mailing list on 12 July 2006).

   o  Based on a review requested from NIST, Quynh Dang suggested
      changes to the GKDF function (December 2006).

   o  Jouni Malinen and Victor Fajardo for their review in January 2007.

   o  Jouni Malinen for his suggestions regarding the examples and the
      key derivation function in February 2007.

   o  Bernard Aboba and Jouni Malinen for their review in February 2007.

   o  Vidya Narayanan for her review in March 2007.

   o  Pasi Eronen for his IESG review in March and July 2008.

   o  Dan Harkins for his review in June 2008.

   o  Joe Salowey, the EMU working group chair, provided a document
      review in April 2007.  Jouni Malinen also reviewed the document
      during the same month.

   o  We would like to thank Paul Rowe, Arnab Roy, Prof. Andre Scedrov,
      and Prof. John C. Mitchell for their analysis of EAP-GPSK, for
      their input to the key derivation function, and for pointing us to
      a client-side DoS attack and to a downgrading attack.  Based on
      their input, the key derivation function has been modified and the
      text in the security considerations section has been updated.



<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 36]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-37" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


   o  Finally, we would like to thank our working group chair, Joe
      Salowey, for his support and for the time he spent discussing open
      issues with us.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-16" href="#section-16">16</a>.  References</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-16.1" href="#section-16.1">16.1</a>.  Normative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-AES">AES</a>]      National Institute of Standards and Technology,
              "Specification for the Advanced Encryption Standard
              (AES)", Federal Information Processing Standards
              (FIPS) 197, November 2001.

   [<a id="ref-CBC">CBC</a>]      National Institute of Standards and Technology,
              "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Encryption --
              Methods and Techniques", Special Publication (SP) 800-38A,
              December 2001.

   [<a id="ref-CMAC">CMAC</a>]     National Institute of Standards and Technology,
              "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation: The
              CMAC Mode for Authentication", Special Publication
              (SP) 800-38B, May 2005.

   [<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3748">RFC3748</a>]  Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
              Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)",
              <a href="./rfc3748">RFC 3748</a>, June 2004.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4282">RFC4282</a>]  Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The
              Network Access Identifier", <a href="./rfc4282">RFC 4282</a>, December 2005.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4634">RFC4634</a>]  Eastlake, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
              (SHA and HMAC-SHA)", <a href="./rfc4634">RFC 4634</a>, July 2006.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5226">RFC5226</a>]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>, <a href="./rfc5226">RFC 5226</a>,
              May 2008.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5247">RFC5247</a>]  Aboba, B., Simon, D., and P. Eronen, "Extensible
              Authentication Protocol (EAP) Key Management Framework",
              <a href="./rfc5247">RFC 5247</a>, August 2008.








<span class="grey">Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 37]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-38" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>                        EAP-GPSK                   February 2009</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-16.2" href="#section-16.2">16.2</a>.  Informative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-80211">80211</a>]    "Information technology - Telecommunications and
              Information Exchange Between Systems - Local and
              Metropolitan Area Networks - Specific Requirements - Part
              11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical
              Layer (PHY) Specifications", IEEE Standard 802.11-2007,
              March 2007.

   [<a id="ref-ENTNUM">ENTNUM</a>]   IANA, "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes",
              Private Enterprise Numbers, &lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org">http://www.iana.org</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4017">RFC4017</a>]  Stanley, D., Walker, J., and B. Aboba, "Extensible
              Authentication Protocol (EAP) Method Requirements for
              Wireless LANs", <a href="./rfc4017">RFC 4017</a>, March 2005.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4086">RFC4086</a>]  Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
              Requirements for Security", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp106">BCP 106</a>, <a href="./rfc4086">RFC 4086</a>, June 2005.

Authors' Addresses

   T. Charles Clancy
   DoD Laboratory for Telecommunications Sciences
   8080 Greenmead Drive
   College Park, MD  20740
   USA

   EMail: clancy@ltsnet.net


   Hannes Tschofenig
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   Espoo  02600
   Finland

   EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net














Clancy &amp; Tschofenig         Standards Track                    [Page 38]
</pre>