Internet Engineering Task Force                 P. Duffy 
   INTERNET DRAFT                                  Cisco Systems  
   DHC Working Group                               June 2003 
   Document: draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt-03.txt      
                                                    
        
              PacketCable Security Ticket Control Sub-option  
            for the DHCP CableLabs Client Configuration Option. 
    
    
   Status of this Memo 
    
      This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance 
      with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. 
       
      Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 
      Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that 
      other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
      Drafts. 
       
      Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 
      months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 
      documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-
      Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work 
      in progress." 
       
      The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 
      http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 
       
      The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 
      http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 
       
   Copyright Notice 
    
      Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved. 
       
   Abstract 
    
      This document defines a new sub-option for the DHCP CableLabs 
      Client Configuration (CCC) Option.  This new sub-option will be 
      used to direct CableLabs Client Devices (CCDs) to invalidate 
      security tickets stored in CCD non volatile memory (i.e. locally 
      persisted security tickets). 
    
   1.   Conventions used in this document 
    
 
  Duffy                                                             1 
  Internet Draft       Security Ticket Control              June 2003 
 
      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 
      RFC 2119 [2]. 
    
   2.   Terminology 
    
      Definitions of terms/acronyms used throughout this document: 
       
      CCC - CableLabs Client Configuration option, described in [1]. 
       
      CCD - CableLabs Client Device.  A PacketCable MTA is an example 
      of a CCD.   
       
      STC - Security Ticket Control.  The CCC sub-option described in 
      this document. 
       
      MTA - Media Terminal Adapter. The CCD specific to the PacketCable 
      architecture. 
       
      PacketCable - multimedia architecture developed by CableLabs. See 
      [8] for full details. 
    
    
   3.   Introduction  
        
      The CableLabs Client Configuration Option [1] defines several sub-
      options used to configure devices deployed into CableLabs 
      architectures. These architectures implement the  PacketCable 
      Security Specification [4] (based on  Kerberos V5  [5]), to 
      support CCD authentication and establishment of security 
      associations between CCDs and application servers. 
       
      CCDs are permitted to retain  security  tickets in local 
      persistent storage. Thus a power-cycled CCD is enabled to avoid 
      expensive ticket acquisition for locally persisted, non-expired 
      tickets.  This feature greatly reduces the security  overhead of 
      a deployment. 
       
      This sub-option allows the service provider to control the 
      lifetime of tickets persisted locally on a CCD.  The service 
      provider requires this capability to support operational 
      functions such as  forcing re-establishment of security 
      associations, remote  testing, and remote diagnostic of CCDs. 
 
  Duffy                 Expires December 2003                       2 
  Internet Draft       Security Ticket Control              June 2003 
 
       
      It should be noted that, although based on the Kerberos V5 RFC 
      [5], the PacketCable Security Specification is not a strict 
      implementation of this RFC.  See [4] for details of the 
      PacketCable Security Specification. 
    
   4.   Security Ticket Control Sub-option 
    
      This sub-option defines a Ticket Control Mask (TCM) that 
      instructs the CCD to validate/invalidate specific application 
      server tickets.  The sub-option is encoded as follows:  
    
       Code   Len      TCM 
      +-----+-----+-----+-----+  
      | TBD |  2  | m1  | m2  | 
      +-----+-----+-----+-----+  
    
    
      The length MUST be 2.  The TCM field is encoded as an unsigned 16 
      bit quantity per network byte order.  Each bit of the TCM is 
      assigned to a specific server or server group. A bit value of 0 
      means the CCD MUST apply normal invalidation rules (defined in 
      [4]) to the locally persisted ticket for the server/server group. 
      A bit value of 1 means the CCD MUST immediately invalidate the 
      locally persisted ticket for the server/server group.  
       
      Bit #0 is the least significant bit of the field. The bit 
      positions are assigned as follows. 
       
         Bit #0 - the PacketCable Provisioning Server used by the CCD.  
          
         Bit #1 - the group of all PacketCable Call Management Servers 
         used by the CCD. 
          
         Bit #2 - #15. Reserved and MUST be set to 0. 
       
      If a CCD does not locally store tickets, it MUST ignore this sub-
      option.  Bit values not known to the CCD MUST be ignored. 
    
   5.   IANA Considerations 
 
      IANA is requested to assign a sub-option code to this sub-option 
      from the "CableLabs Client Configuration" sub-option number space 
      (maintained within the BOOTP-DHCP Parameters Registry). 
       
 
  Duffy                 Expires December 2003                       3 
  Internet Draft       Security Ticket Control              June 2003 
 
      IANA is also requested to maintain a new number space of 
      "CableLabs Client Configuration Option Ticket Control Mask Bit 
      Definitions", located in the BOOTP-DHCP Parameters Registry.  The 
      initial bit definitions are described in section 4 of this 
      document.  IANA is requested to register future bit mask 
      definitions via an "IETF Consensus" approval policy as described 
      in RFC 2434 [3]. 
       
    
   6.   Security Considerations  
        
      Potential DHCP protocol attack exposure is discussed in section 7 
      of the DHCP protocol specification [6] and in Authentication for 
      DHCP Messages [7].  Additional CCC attack exposure is discussed 
      in [1]. 
       
      The STC sub-option could be used to disrupt a CableLabs 
      architecture deployment.  In the specific case of PacketCable 
      [8], a deployment could be disrupted if a large number of MTAs 
      are reset/power cycled, initiate their provisioning flow [9], and 
      are instructed by a malicious DHCP server to invalidate all 
      security tickets.  This could lead to a Denial of Service (DoS) 
      condition as this large set of MTAs simultaneously attempt to 
      authenticate and obtain tickets from the security infrastructure. 
       
      However, the scenario described above is unlikely to occur.  
      Within the cable delivery architecture required by the various 
      CableLabs projects, the DHCP client is connected to a network 
      through a cable modem and the CMTS (head-end router). The CMTS is 
      explicitly configured with a set of valid DHCP server addresses 
      to which DHCP requests are forwarded.  Further, a correctly 
      configured CMTS will only allow DHCP downstream traffic from 
      specific DHCP server addresses.   
       
      It should be noted that the downstream filtering of DHCP packets 
      will not prevent spoofed DHCP servers behind the CMTS, but the 
      network infrastructure behind the CMTS is assumed to be closely 
      controlled by the service provider. 
  
   7.   References  
        
   7.1.  Normative 
    
 
  Duffy                 Expires December 2003                       4 
  Internet Draft       Security Ticket Control              June 2003 
 
      [1] B. Beser and P. Duffy, "DHCP Option for CableLabs Client 
      Configuration", RFC 3495, March 2003. 
       
      [2] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 
      Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.  
       
      [3] T. Narten and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA 
      Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998. 
       
      [4] "PacketCable Security Specification", PKT-SP-SEC-I08-030415, 
      http://www.packetcable.com/specifications.html 
      
   7.2.  Informational 
    
      [5] J. Kohl and C. Neuman, "The Kerberos Network Authentication 
      Service (V5)", RFC 1510, September 1993. 
       
      [6] R. Droms, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, 
      March 1997.  
       
      [7] R. Droms and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Messages", 
      RFC 3118, June 2001 
       
      [8] "PacketCable Architecture Framework Technical Report", PKT-
      TR-ARCH-V01-991201, 
      http://www.packetcable.com/specifications.html 
       
      [9] "PacketCable MTA Device Provisioning Specification", PKT-SP-
      PROV-I06-030415.  http://www.packetcable.com/specifications.html 
       
       
   8.   Acknowledgments  
        
      The author would like to acknowledge the effort of all those who 
      contributed to the development of the PacketCable Provisioning 
      specifications:  
       
      Sumanth Channabasappa (Alopa Networks); Angela Lyda, Rick Morris, 
      Rodney Osborne (Arris Interactive); Steven Bellovin and Chris 
      Melle (AT&T); Eugene Nechamkin (Broadcom); John Berg, Maria 
      Stachelek, Matt Osman, Venkatesh Sunkad (CableLabs); Klaus 
      Hermanns, Azita Kia, Michael Thomas, Paul Duffy (Cisco); Deepak 
      Patil (Com21); Jeff Ollis, Rick Vetter (General 
      Instrument/Motorola); Roger Loots, David Walters (Lucent); Peter 
 
  Duffy                 Expires December 2003                       5 
  Internet Draft       Security Ticket Control              June 2003 
 
      Bates (Telcordia); Patrick Meehan (Tellabs); Satish Kumar, Itay 
      Sherman, Roy Spitzer (Telogy/TI), Aviv Goren (Terayon); 
      Prithivraj Narayanan (Wipro), and Burcak Beser (Juniper 
      Networks). 
    
   9.   Author's Addresses  
        
      Paul Duffy 
      Cisco Systems 
      300 Apollo Drive 
      Chelmsford, MA, 01824 
      Email: paduffy@cisco.com 
    
   10.  Full Copyright Statement 
    
      Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved. 
       
      This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished 
      to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise 
      explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, 
      copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without 
      restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice 
      and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative 
      works.  However, this document itself may not be modified in any 
      way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to 
      the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as 
      needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which 
      case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet 
      Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate 
      it into languages other than English. 
       
      The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not 
      be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 
       
      This document and the information contained herein is provided on 
      an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 
      ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR 
      IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE 
      OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY 
      IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR 
      PURPOSE. 
 
   Acknowledgement 
    
 
  Duffy                 Expires December 2003                       6 
  Internet Draft       Security Ticket Control              June 2003 
 
      Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 
      Internet Society. 
       
     
    
 
  Duffy                 Expires December 2003                       7