rfc4616.txt - rohrpost - A commandline mail client to change the world as we see it.
(HTM) git clone git://r-36.net/rohrpost
(DIR) Log
(DIR) Files
(DIR) Refs
(DIR) README
(DIR) LICENSE
---
rfc4616.txt (20270B)
---
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Network Working Group K. Zeilenga, Ed.
8 Request for Comments: 4616 OpenLDAP Foundation
9 Updates: 2595 August 2006
10 Category: Standards Track
11
12
13 The PLAIN Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Mechanism
14
15 Status of This Memo
16
17 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
18 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
19 improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
20 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
21 and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
22
23 Copyright Notice
24
25 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
26
27 Abstract
28
29 This document defines a simple clear-text user/password Simple
30 Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) mechanism called the PLAIN
31 mechanism. The PLAIN mechanism is intended to be used, in
32 combination with data confidentiality services provided by a lower
33 layer, in protocols that lack a simple password authentication
34 command.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 1]
59
60 RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006
61
62
63 1. Introduction
64
65 Clear-text, multiple-use passwords are simple, interoperate with
66 almost all existing operating system authentication databases, and
67 are useful for a smooth transition to a more secure password-based
68 authentication mechanism. The drawback is that they are unacceptable
69 for use over network connections where data confidentiality is not
70 ensured.
71
72 This document defines the PLAIN Simple Authentication and Security
73 Layer ([SASL]) mechanism for use in protocols with no clear-text
74 login command (e.g., [ACAP] or [SMTP-AUTH]). This document updates
75 RFC 2595, replacing Section 6. Changes since RFC 2595 are detailed
76 in Appendix A.
77
78 The name associated with this mechanism is "PLAIN".
79
80 The PLAIN SASL mechanism does not provide a security layer.
81
82 The PLAIN mechanism should not be used without adequate data security
83 protection as this mechanism affords no integrity or confidentiality
84 protections itself. The mechanism is intended to be used with data
85 security protections provided by application-layer protocol,
86 generally through its use of Transport Layer Security ([TLS])
87 services.
88
89 By default, implementations SHOULD advertise and make use of the
90 PLAIN mechanism only when adequate data security services are in
91 place. Specifications for IETF protocols that indicate that this
92 mechanism is an applicable authentication mechanism MUST mandate that
93 implementations support an strong data security service, such as TLS.
94
95 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
96 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
97 document are to be interpreted as described in [Keywords].
98
99 2. PLAIN SASL Mechanism
100
101 The mechanism consists of a single message, a string of [UTF-8]
102 encoded [Unicode] characters, from the client to the server. The
103 client presents the authorization identity (identity to act as),
104 followed by a NUL (U+0000) character, followed by the authentication
105 identity (identity whose password will be used), followed by a NUL
106 (U+0000) character, followed by the clear-text password. As with
107 other SASL mechanisms, the client does not provide an authorization
108 identity when it wishes the server to derive an identity from the
109 credentials and use that as the authorization identity.
110
111
112
113
114 Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 2]
115
116 RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006
117
118
119 The formal grammar for the client message using Augmented BNF [ABNF]
120 follows.
121
122 message = [authzid] UTF8NUL authcid UTF8NUL passwd
123 authcid = 1*SAFE ; MUST accept up to 255 octets
124 authzid = 1*SAFE ; MUST accept up to 255 octets
125 passwd = 1*SAFE ; MUST accept up to 255 octets
126 UTF8NUL = %x00 ; UTF-8 encoded NUL character
127
128 SAFE = UTF1 / UTF2 / UTF3 / UTF4
129 ;; any UTF-8 encoded Unicode character except NUL
130
131 UTF1 = %x01-7F ;; except NUL
132 UTF2 = %xC2-DF UTF0
133 UTF3 = %xE0 %xA0-BF UTF0 / %xE1-EC 2(UTF0) /
134 %xED %x80-9F UTF0 / %xEE-EF 2(UTF0)
135 UTF4 = %xF0 %x90-BF 2(UTF0) / %xF1-F3 3(UTF0) /
136 %xF4 %x80-8F 2(UTF0)
137 UTF0 = %x80-BF
138
139 The authorization identity (authzid), authentication identity
140 (authcid), password (passwd), and NUL character deliminators SHALL be
141 transferred as [UTF-8] encoded strings of [Unicode] characters. As
142 the NUL (U+0000) character is used as a deliminator, the NUL (U+0000)
143 character MUST NOT appear in authzid, authcid, or passwd productions.
144
145 The form of the authzid production is specific to the application-
146 level protocol's SASL profile [SASL]. The authcid and passwd
147 productions are form-free. Use of non-visible characters or
148 characters that a user may be unable to enter on some keyboards is
149 discouraged.
150
151 Servers MUST be capable of accepting authzid, authcid, and passwd
152 productions up to and including 255 octets. It is noted that the
153 UTF-8 encoding of a Unicode character may be as long as 4 octets.
154
155 Upon receipt of the message, the server will verify the presented (in
156 the message) authentication identity (authcid) and password (passwd)
157 with the system authentication database, and it will verify that the
158 authentication credentials permit the client to act as the (presented
159 or derived) authorization identity (authzid). If both steps succeed,
160 the user is authenticated.
161
162 The presented authentication identity and password strings, as well
163 as the database authentication identity and password strings, are to
164 be prepared before being used in the verification process. The
165 [SASLPrep] profile of the [StringPrep] algorithm is the RECOMMENDED
166 preparation algorithm. The SASLprep preparation algorithm is
167
168
169
170 Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 3]
171
172 RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006
173
174
175 recommended to improve the likelihood that comparisons behave in an
176 expected manner. The SASLprep preparation algorithm is not mandatory
177 so as to allow the server to employ other preparation algorithms
178 (including none) when appropriate. For instance, use of a different
179 preparation algorithm may be necessary for the server to interoperate
180 with an external system.
181
182 When preparing the presented strings using [SASLPrep], the presented
183 strings are to be treated as "query" strings (Section 7 of
184 [StringPrep]) and hence unassigned code points are allowed to appear
185 in their prepared output. When preparing the database strings using
186 [SASLPrep], the database strings are to be treated as "stored"
187 strings (Section 7 of [StringPrep]) and hence unassigned code points
188 are prohibited from appearing in their prepared output.
189
190 Regardless of the preparation algorithm used, if the output of a
191 non-invertible function (e.g., hash) of the expected string is
192 stored, the string MUST be prepared before input to that function.
193
194 Regardless of the preparation algorithm used, if preparation fails or
195 results in an empty string, verification SHALL fail.
196
197 When no authorization identity is provided, the server derives an
198 authorization identity from the prepared representation of the
199 provided authentication identity string. This ensures that the
200 derivation of different representations of the authentication
201 identity produces the same authorization identity.
202
203 The server MAY use the credentials to initialize any new
204 authentication database, such as one suitable for [CRAM-MD5] or
205 [DIGEST-MD5].
206
207 3. Pseudo-Code
208
209 This section provides pseudo-code illustrating the verification
210 process (using hashed passwords and the SASLprep preparation
211 function) discussed above. This section is not definitive.
212
213 boolean Verify(string authzid, string authcid, string passwd) {
214 string pAuthcid = SASLprep(authcid, true); # prepare authcid
215 string pPasswd = SASLprep(passwd, true); # prepare passwd
216 if (pAuthcid == NULL || pPasswd == NULL) {
217 return false; # preparation failed
218 }
219 if (pAuthcid == "" || pPasswd == "") {
220 return false; # empty prepared string
221 }
222
223
224
225
226 Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 4]
227
228 RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006
229
230
231 storedHash = FetchPasswordHash(pAuthcid);
232 if (storedHash == NULL || storedHash == "") {
233 return false; # error or unknown authcid
234 }
235
236 if (!Compare(storedHash, Hash(pPasswd))) {
237 return false; # incorrect password
238 }
239
240 if (authzid == NULL ) {
241 authzid = DeriveAuthzid(pAuthcid);
242 if (authzid == NULL || authzid == "") {
243 return false; # could not derive authzid
244 }
245 }
246
247 if (!Authorize(pAuthcid, authzid)) {
248 return false; # not authorized
249 }
250
251 return true;
252 }
253
254 The second parameter of the SASLprep function, when true, indicates
255 that unassigned code points are allowed in the input. When the
256 SASLprep function is called to prepare the password prior to
257 computing the stored hash, the second parameter would be false.
258
259 The second parameter provided to the Authorize function is not
260 prepared by this code. The application-level SASL profile should be
261 consulted to determine what, if any, preparation is necessary.
262
263 Note that the DeriveAuthzid and Authorize functions (whether
264 implemented as one function or two, whether designed in a manner in
265 which these functions or whether the mechanism implementation can be
266 reused elsewhere) require knowledge and understanding of mechanism
267 and the application-level protocol specification and/or
268 implementation details to implement.
269
270 Note that the Authorize function outcome is clearly dependent on
271 details of the local authorization model and policy. Both functions
272 may be dependent on other factors as well.
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282 Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 5]
283
284 RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006
285
286
287 4. Examples
288
289 This section provides examples of PLAIN authentication exchanges.
290 The examples are intended to help the readers understand the above
291 text. The examples are not definitive.
292
293 "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and server,
294 respectively. "<NUL>" represents a single NUL (U+0000) character.
295 The Application Configuration Access Protocol ([ACAP]) is used in the
296 examples.
297
298 The first example shows how the PLAIN mechanism might be used for
299 user authentication.
300
301 S: * ACAP (SASL "CRAM-MD5") (STARTTLS)
302 C: a001 STARTTLS
303 S: a001 OK "Begin TLS negotiation now"
304 <TLS negotiation, further commands are under TLS layer>
305 S: * ACAP (SASL "CRAM-MD5" "PLAIN")
306 C: a002 AUTHENTICATE "PLAIN"
307 S: + ""
308 C: {21}
309 C: <NUL>tim<NUL>tanstaaftanstaaf
310 S: a002 OK "Authenticated"
311
312 The second example shows how the PLAIN mechanism might be used to
313 attempt to assume the identity of another user. In this example, the
314 server rejects the request. Also, this example makes use of the
315 protocol optional initial response capability to eliminate a round-
316 trip.
317
318 S: * ACAP (SASL "CRAM-MD5") (STARTTLS)
319 C: a001 STARTTLS
320 S: a001 OK "Begin TLS negotiation now"
321 <TLS negotiation, further commands are under TLS layer>
322 S: * ACAP (SASL "CRAM-MD5" "PLAIN")
323 C: a002 AUTHENTICATE "PLAIN" {20+}
324 C: Ursel<NUL>Kurt<NUL>xipj3plmq
325 S: a002 NO "Not authorized to requested authorization identity"
326
327 5. Security Considerations
328
329 As the PLAIN mechanism itself provided no integrity or
330 confidentiality protections, it should not be used without adequate
331 external data security protection, such as TLS services provided by
332 many application-layer protocols. By default, implementations SHOULD
333 NOT advertise and SHOULD NOT make use of the PLAIN mechanism unless
334 adequate data security services are in place.
335
336
337
338 Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 6]
339
340 RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006
341
342
343 When the PLAIN mechanism is used, the server gains the ability to
344 impersonate the user to all services with the same password
345 regardless of any encryption provided by TLS or other confidentiality
346 protection mechanisms. Whereas many other authentication mechanisms
347 have similar weaknesses, stronger SASL mechanisms address this issue.
348 Clients are encouraged to have an operational mode where all
349 mechanisms that are likely to reveal the user's password to the
350 server are disabled.
351
352 General [SASL] security considerations apply to this mechanism.
353
354 Unicode, [UTF-8], and [StringPrep] security considerations also
355 apply.
356
357 6. IANA Considerations
358
359 The SASL Mechanism registry [IANA-SASL] entry for the PLAIN mechanism
360 has been updated by the IANA to reflect that this document now
361 provides its technical specification.
362
363 To: iana@iana.org
364 Subject: Updated Registration of SASL mechanism PLAIN
365
366 SASL mechanism name: PLAIN
367 Security considerations: See RFC 4616.
368 Published specification (optional, recommended): RFC 4616
369 Person & email address to contact for further information:
370 Kurt Zeilenga <kurt@openldap.org>
371 IETF SASL WG <ietf-sasl@imc.org>
372 Intended usage: COMMON
373 Author/Change controller: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
374 Note: Updates existing entry for PLAIN
375
376 7. Acknowledgements
377
378 This document is a revision of RFC 2595 by Chris Newman. Portions of
379 the grammar defined in Section 2 were borrowed from [UTF-8] by
380 Francois Yergeau.
381
382 This document is a product of the IETF Simple Authentication and
383 Security Layer (SASL) Working Group.
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394 Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 7]
395
396 RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006
397
398
399 8. Normative References
400
401 [ABNF] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
402 Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
403
404 [Keywords] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
405 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
406
407 [SASL] Melnikov, A., Ed., and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple
408 Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422,
409 June 2006.
410
411 [SASLPrep] Zeilenga, K., "SASLprep: Stringprep Profile for User
412 Names and Passwords", RFC 4013, February 2005.
413
414 [StringPrep] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
415 Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454,
416 December 2002.
417
418 [Unicode] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
419 3.2.0" is defined by "The Unicode Standard, Version
420 3.0" (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2000. ISBN 0-201-
421 61633-5), as amended by the "Unicode Standard Annex
422 #27: Unicode 3.1"
423 (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr27/) and by the
424 "Unicode Standard Annex #28: Unicode 3.2"
425 (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr28/).
426
427 [UTF-8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
428 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
429
430 [TLS] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer
431 Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April
432 2006.
433
434 9. Informative References
435
436 [ACAP] Newman, C. and J. Myers, "ACAP -- Application
437 Configuration Access Protocol", RFC 2244, November
438 1997.
439
440 [CRAM-MD5] Nerenberg, L., Ed., "The CRAM-MD5 SASL Mechanism", Work
441 in Progress, June 2006.
442
443 [DIGEST-MD5] Melnikov, A., Ed., "Using Digest Authentication as a
444 SASL Mechanism", Work in Progress, June 2006.
445
446
447
448
449
450 Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 8]
451
452 RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006
453
454
455 [IANA-SASL] IANA, "SIMPLE AUTHENTICATION AND SECURITY LAYER (SASL)
456 MECHANISMS",
457 <http://www.iana.org/assignments/sasl-mechanisms>.
458
459 [SMTP-AUTH] Myers, J., "SMTP Service Extension for Authentication",
460 RFC 2554, March 1999.
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506 Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 9]
507
508 RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006
509
510
511 Appendix A. Changes since RFC 2595
512
513 This appendix is non-normative.
514
515 This document replaces Section 6 of RFC 2595.
516
517 The specification details how the server is to compare client-
518 provided character strings with stored character strings.
519
520 The ABNF grammar was updated. In particular, the grammar now allows
521 LINE FEED (U+000A) and CARRIAGE RETURN (U+000D) characters in the
522 authzid, authcid, passwd productions. However, whether these control
523 characters may be used depends on the string preparation rules
524 applicable to the production. For passwd and authcid productions,
525 control characters are prohibited. For authzid, one must consult the
526 application-level SASL profile. This change allows PLAIN to carry
527 all possible authorization identity strings allowed in SASL.
528
529 Pseudo-code was added.
530
531 The example section was expanded to illustrate more features of the
532 PLAIN mechanism.
533
534 Editor's Address
535
536 Kurt D. Zeilenga
537 OpenLDAP Foundation
538
539 EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562 Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 10]
563
564 RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006
565
566
567 Full Copyright Statement
568
569 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
570
571 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
572 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
573 retain all their rights.
574
575 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
576 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
577 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
578 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
579 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
580 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
581 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
582
583 Intellectual Property
584
585 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
586 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
587 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
588 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
589 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
590 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
591 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
592 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
593
594 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
595 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
596 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
597 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
598 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
599 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
600
601 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
602 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
603 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
604 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
605 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
606
607 Acknowledgement
608
609 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
610 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618 Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 11]
619