-Internet Engineering Task Force K. Jaganathan
-Internet-Draft L. Zhu
-Document: draft-jaganathan-kerberos-http-01.txt J. Brezak
-Category: Informational Microsoft Corporation
-Expires: January 19, 2006 July 18, 2005
- Kerberos based HTTP Authentication in Windows
- draft-jaganathan-kerberos-http-01.txt
-Status of this Memo
+Network Working Group K. Jaganathan
+Request for Comments: 4559 L. Zhu
+Category: Informational J. Brezak
+ Microsoft Corporation
+ June 2006
- By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
- applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
- have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
- aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
- 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.
+ SPNEGO-based Kerberos and NTLM HTTP Authentication
+ in Microsoft Windows
- 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.
+Status of This Memo
- The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
- http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
-
- This Internet-Draft will expire on January 19, 2006.
+ This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
+ not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
+ memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
Windows 2000 use Kerberos for security enhancements of web
transactions. The Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) auth-scheme of
"negotiate" is defined here; when the negotiation results in the
- selection of Kerberos, the security services of authentication and
- optionally impersonation(the IIS server assuming the windows identity
-
-
-
-Jaganathan, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 1]
-\f
-Internet-Draft HTTP Authentication in Windows July 2005
-
-
- of the principal which has been authenticated) are performed. This
- document explains how HTTP authentication utilizes the Simple and
- Protected GSS-API Negotiation mechanism. Details of SPNEGO
- implementation are not provided in this document.
+ selection of Kerberos, the security services of authentication and,
+ optionally, impersonation (the IIS server assumes the windows
+ identity of the principal that has been authenticated) are performed.
+ This document explains how HTTP authentication utilizes the Simple
+ and Protected GSS-API Negotiation mechanism. Details of Simple And
+ Protected Negotiate (SPNEGO) implementation are not provided in this
+ document.
Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
- 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
- 3. Access Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- 3.1 Reliance on the HTTP/1.1 Specification . . . . . . . . . . 5
- 4. HTTP Negotiate Authentication Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
- 4.1 The WWW-Authenticate Response Header . . . . . . . . . . . 6
- 4.2 The Authorization Request Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
- 5. Negotiate Operation Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
- 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
- 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
- Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
- Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 12
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+ 1. Introduction ....................................................2
+ 2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................2
+ 3. Access Authentication ...........................................2
+ 3.1. Reliance on the HTTP/1.1 Specification .....................2
+ 4. HTTP Negotiate Authentication Scheme ............................2
+ 4.1. The WWW-Authenticate Response Header .......................2
+ 5. Negotiate Operation Example .....................................4
+ 6. Security Considerations .........................................5
+ 7. Normative References ............................................6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Jaganathan, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 2]
+Jaganathan, et al. Informational [Page 1]
\f
-Internet-Draft HTTP Authentication in Windows July 2005
+RFC 4559 HTTP Authentication in Microsoft Windows June 2006
1. Introduction
- Microsoft has provided support for Kerberos authentication in MSIE
- and IIS in addition to other mechanisms. This provides the benefits
- of the Kerberos v5 protocol for Web applications. Support for
- Kerberos authentication is based on other previously defined
- mechanisms such as SPNEGO and the Generic Security Services
- Application Program Interface(GSSAPI).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Jaganathan, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 3]
-\f
-Internet-Draft HTTP Authentication in Windows July 2005
+ Microsoft has provided support for Kerberos authentication in
+ Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE) and Internet Information Services
+ (IIS), in addition to other mechanisms. This provides the benefits
+ of the Kerberos v5 protocol for Web applications.
+ Support for Kerberos authentication is based on other previously
+ defined mechanisms, such as SPNEGO Simple And Protected Negotiate
+ (SPNEGO) [RFC4178] and the Generic Security Services Application
+ Program Interface(GSSAPI).
2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
- "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
- document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Jaganathan, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 4]
-\f
-Internet-Draft HTTP Authentication in Windows July 2005
-
+ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to
+ be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Access Authentication
-3.1 Reliance on the HTTP/1.1 Specification
+3.1. Reliance on the HTTP/1.1 Specification
This specification is a companion to the HTTP/1.1 specification
- [RFC2616] and builds on the authentication mechanisms defined in
- [RFC2617]. It uses the augmented BNF section 2.1 of that document,
- and relies on both the non-terminals defined in that document and
+ [RFC2616], and it builds on the authentication mechanisms defined in
+ [RFC2617]. It uses the augmented BNF section of that document (2.1),
+ and it relies on both the non-terminals defined in that document and
other aspects of the HTTP/1.1 specification.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Jaganathan, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 5]
-\f
-Internet-Draft HTTP Authentication in Windows July 2005
-
-
4. HTTP Negotiate Authentication Scheme
Use of Kerberos is wrapped in an HTTP auth-scheme of "Negotiate".
The auth-params exchanged use data formats defined for use with the
- GSS-API [RFC2078]. In particular, they follow the formats set for
- the SPNEGO [RFC2478] and Kerberos [RFC4121] mechanisms for GSSAPI.
+ GSS-API [RFC2743]. In particular, they follow the formats set for
+ the SPNEGO [RFC4178] and Kerberos [RFC4121] mechanisms for GSSAPI.
The "Negotiate" auth-scheme calls for the use of SPNEGO GSSAPI tokens
- which the specific mechanism type specifies.
+ that the specific mechanism type specifies.
The current implementation of this protocol is limited to the use of
SPNEGO with the Kerberos and Microsoft(NT Lan Manager) NTLM
protocols.
-4.1 The WWW-Authenticate Response Header
+4.1. The WWW-Authenticate Response Header
If the server receives a request for an access-protected object, and
- an acceptable Authorization header has not been sent, the server
+ if an acceptable Authorization header has not been sent, the server
responds with a "401 Unauthorized" status code, and a "WWW-
Authenticate:" header as per the framework described in [RFC2616].
The initial WWW-Authenticate header will not carry any gssapi-data.
- The negotiate scheme will operate as follows:
+Jaganathan, et al. Informational [Page 2]
+\f
+RFC 4559 HTTP Authentication in Microsoft Windows June 2006
+
+
+ The negotiate scheme will operate as follows:
+
challenge = "Negotiate" auth-data
auth-data = 1#( [gssapi-data] )
gssapi-data
- If the gss_accept_security_context return a token for the client,
- this directive contains the base64 encoding of an InitialContextToken
- as defined in [RFC2078]. This is not present in the initial response
- from the server.
-
- A status code 200 status response can also carry a "WWW-
- Authenticate" response header containing the final leg of an
- authentication. In this case, the gssapi-data will be present.
- Before using the contents of the response, the gssapi-data should be
- processed by gss_init_security_context to determine the state of the
- security context. If this function indicates success, the response
- can be used by the application. Otherwise an appropriate action
- based on the authentication status should be.
-
- For example the authentication could have failed on the final leg if
+ If the gss_accept_security_context returns a token for the client,
+ this directive contains the base64 encoding of an
+ initialContextToken, as defined in [RFC2743]. This is not present in
+ the initial response from the server.
+
+ A status code 200 status response can also carry a "WWW-Authenticate"
+ response header containing the final leg of an authentication. In
+ this case, the gssapi-data will be present. Before using the
+ contents of the response, the gssapi-data should be processed by
+ gss_init_security_context to determine the state of the security
+ context. If this function indicates success, the response can be
+ used by the application. Otherwise, an appropriate action, based on
+ the authentication status, should be taken.
+
+ For example, the authentication could have failed on the final leg if
mutual authentication was requested and the server was not able to
-
-
-
-Jaganathan, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 6]
-\f
-Internet-Draft HTTP Authentication in Windows July 2005
-
-
prove its identity. In this case, the returned results are suspect.
It is not always possible to mutually authenticate the server before
the HTTP operation. POST methods are in this category.
When the Kerberos Version 5 GSSAPI mechanism [RFC4121] is being used,
- the HTTP server will be using a principal name of the form of "HTTP/
- hostname".
+ the HTTP server will be using a principal name of the form of
+ "HTTP/hostname".
-4.2 The Authorization Request Header
+4.2. The Authorization Request Header
Upon receipt of the response containing a "WWW-Authenticate" header
from the server, the client is expected to retry the HTTP request,
passing a HTTP "Authorization" header line. This is defined
- according to the framework described in [RFC2616] utilized as
+ according to the framework described in [RFC2616] and is utilized as
follows:
- credentials = "Negotiate" auth-data2
+ credentials = "Negotiate" auth-data2
auth-data2 = 1#( gssapi-data )
gssapi-data
- This directive contains is the base64 encoding of an
- InitialContextToken as defined in [RFC2078].
+
+
+
+
+Jaganathan, et al. Informational [Page 3]
+\f
+RFC 4559 HTTP Authentication in Microsoft Windows June 2006
+
+
+ This directive contains the base64 encoding of an
+ InitialContextToken, as defined in [RFC2743].
Any returned code other than a success 2xx code represents an
authentication error. If a 401 containing a "WWW-Authenticate"
client knows that the server will accept the Negotiate HTTP
authentication type.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Jaganathan, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 7]
-\f
-Internet-Draft HTTP Authentication in Windows July 2005
-
-
5. Negotiate Operation Example
The client requests an access-protected document from server via a
GET method request. The URI of the document is
"http://www.nowhere.org/dir/index.html".
-
C: GET dir/index.html
The first time the client requests the document, no Authorization
- header is sent, so the server responds with:
+ header is sent, so the server responds with
S: HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
S: WWW-Authenticate: Negotiate
the server with a new request, including the following Authorization
header:
- C: GET dir/index.html
+ C: GET dir/index.html
C: Authorization: Negotiate a87421000492aa874209af8bc028
The server will decode the gssapi-data and pass this to the SPNEGO
S: HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
S: WWW-Authenticate: Negotiate 749efa7b23409c20b92356
- The client will decode the gssapi-data and pass this into
- gss_init_security_context and return the new gssapi-data to the
+ The client will decode the gssapi-data, pass this into
+ Gss_Init_security_context, and return the new gssapi-data to the
server.
+
+Jaganathan, et al. Informational [Page 4]
+\f
+RFC 4559 HTTP Authentication in Microsoft Windows June 2006
+
+
C: GET dir/index.html
C: Authorization: Negotiate 89a8742aa8729a8b028
-
This cycle can continue until the security context is complete. When
the return value from the gss_accept_security_context function
indicates that the security context is complete, it may supply final
authentication data to be returned to the client. If the server has
- more gssapi data to send to the client to complete the context it is
- to be carried in WWW-Authenticate header with the final response
+ more gssapi data to send to the client to complete the context, it is
+ to be carried in a WWW-Authenticate header with the final response
containing the HTTP body.
-
-
-Jaganathan, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 8]
-\f
-Internet-Draft HTTP Authentication in Windows July 2005
-
-
S: HTTP/1.1 200 Success
S: WWW-Authenticate: Negotiate ade0234568a4209af8bc0280289eca
status is successful from the final gss_init_security_context, the
response can be used by the application.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Jaganathan, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 9]
-\f
-Internet-Draft HTTP Authentication in Windows July 2005
-
-
6. Security Considerations
The SPNEGO HTTP authentication facility is only used to provide
- authentication of a user to server. It provides no facilities for
+ authentication of a user to a server. It provides no facilities for
protecting the HTTP headers or data including the Authorization and
WWW-Authenticate headers that are used to implement this mechanism.
channel bindings to secure the channel. In this case clients would
need to enforce that the channel binding information is valid. Note
that Kerb-TLS [RFC2712] could be used to provide both authentication
- and confidentiality but this requires a change to the TLS provider.
+ and confidentiality, but this requires a change to the TLS provider.
This mechanism is not used for HTTP authentication to HTTP proxies.
authenticated clients to the same server. If this is not honored,
then the server can easily lose track of security context
associations. A proxy that correctly honors client to server
- authentication integrity will supply the "Proxy-support: Session-
+ authentication integrity will supply the "Proxy-support: Session-
Based-Authentication" HTTP header to the client in HTTP responses
from the proxy. The client MUST NOT utilize the SPNEGO HTTP
authentication mechanism through a proxy unless the proxy supplies
this header with the "401 Unauthorized" response from the server.
- When using the SPNEGO HTTP authentication facility with client
+
+
+
+
+
+Jaganathan, et al. Informational [Page 5]
+\f
+RFC 4559 HTTP Authentication in Microsoft Windows June 2006
+
+
+ When using the SPNEGO HTTP authentication facility with client-
supplied data such as PUT and POST, the authentication should be
complete between the client and server before sending the user data.
The return status from the gss_init_security_context will indicate
- with the security context is complete. At this point the data can be
- sent to the server.
+ that the security context is complete. At this point, the data can
+ be sent to the server.
7. Normative References
- [RFC2078] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
- Interface, Version 2", RFC 2078, January 1997.
+ [RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
+ Interface Version 2", 2, Update 1", 2743, January 2000.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
- [RFC2478] Baize, E. and D. Pinkas, "The Simple and Protected GSS-API
- Negotiation Mechanism", RFC 2478, December 1998.
+ [RFC4178] Zhu, L., Leach, P., Jaganathan, K., and W. Ingersoll, "The
+ Simple and Protected GSS-API Generic Security Service
+ Application Program Interface (GSS-API) Negotiation
+ Mechanism", 4178, October 2005.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
-
-
-Jaganathan, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 10]
-\f
-Internet-Draft HTTP Authentication in Windows July 2005
-
-
[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 2712,
October 1999.
- [RFC4120] Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The
- Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120,
- July 2005.
-
[RFC4121] Zhu, L., Jaganathan, K., and S. Hartman, "The Kerberos
Version 5 Generic Security Service Application Program
- Interface (GSS-API) Mechanism: Version 2", RFC 4121,
- July 2005.
+ Interface (GSS-API) Mechanism: Version 2", RFC 4121, July
+ 2005.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Jaganathan, et al. Informational [Page 6]
+\f
+RFC 4559 HTTP Authentication in Microsoft Windows June 2006
Authors' Addresses
Redmond, WA 98052
US
- Email: karthikj@microsoft.com
+ EMail: karthikj@microsoft.com
Larry Zhu
Redmond, WA 98052
US
- Email: lzhu@microsoft.com
+ EMail: lzhu@microsoft.com
John Brezak
Redmond, WA 98052
US
- Email: jbrezak@microsoft.com
+ EMail: jbrezak@microsoft.com
+
+
-Jaganathan, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 11]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Jaganathan, et al. Informational [Page 7]
\f
-Internet-Draft HTTP Authentication in Windows July 2005
+RFC 4559 HTTP Authentication in Microsoft Windows June 2006
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
+
+ This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+ contained in BCP 78 and at www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, and
+ except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
+ This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+ "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+ OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
+ ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
+ INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
+ INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
+ WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
-Intellectual Property Statement
+Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+Acknowledgement
-Disclaimer of Validity
-
- This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
- "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
- OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
- ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
- INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
- INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
- WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+ Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
+ Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
-Copyright Statement
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
- to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
- except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
-
-
-Acknowledgment
- Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
- Internet Society.
-
-Jaganathan, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 12]
+Jaganathan, et al. Informational [Page 8]
\f
-
projects / thirdparty / squid.git / commitdiff
