<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 version 1.5.26 (Ruby 2.6.8) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk-01" category="info" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.13.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="RADIUS and TLS-PSK">RADIUS and TLS-PSK</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk-01"/>
    <author initials="A." surname="DeKok" fullname="Alan DeKok">
      <organization>FreeRADIUS</organization>
      <address>
        <email>aland@freeradius.org</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2023" month="August" day="08"/>
    <area>Internet</area>
    <workgroup>RADEXT Working Group</workgroup>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document gives implementation and operational considerations for using TLS-PSK with RADIUS/TLS (RFC6614) and RADIUS/DTLS (RFC7360).</t>
    </abstract>
    <note removeInRFC="true">
      <name>About This Document</name>
      <t>
        Status information for this document may be found at <eref target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk/"/>.
      </t>
      <t>
        Discussion of this document takes place on the
        RADEXT Working Group mailing list (<eref target="mailto:radext@ietf.org"/>),
        which is archived at <eref target="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext/"/>.
      </t>
      <t>Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
        <eref target="https://github.com/freeradius/radext-tls-psk.git"/>.</t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>The previous specifications "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS"  <xref target="RFC6614"/> and " Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) as a Transport Layer for RADIUS" <xref target="RFC7360"/> defined how (D)TLS can be used as a transport protocol for RADIUS.  However, those documents do not provide guidance for using TLS-PSK with RADIUS.  This docoument provides that missing guidance, and gives implementation and operational considerations.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="terminology">
      <name>Terminology</name>
      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      <t>TBD</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="history">
      <name>History</name>
      <t>TLS deployments usually rely on certificates in most common uses. However, we recognize that it may be difficult to fully upgrade client implementations to allow for certificates to be used with RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS.  These upgrades involve not only implementing TLS, but can also require significant changes to administration interfaces and application programming interfaces (APIs) in order to fully support certificates.</t>
      <t>For example, unlike shared secrets, certificates expire.  This expiration means that a working system using TLS can suddenly stop working.  Managing this expiration can require additional notification APIs on RADIUS clients and servers which were previously not required when shared secrets were used.</t>
      <t>Certificates also require the use of certification authorities (CAs), and chains of certificates.  RADIUS implementations using TLS therefore have to track not just a small shared secret, but also potentially many large certificates.  The use of TLS-PSK can therefore provide a simpler upgrade path for implementations to transition from RADIUS shared secrets to TLS.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="general-discussion-of-psks-and-psk-identies">
      <name>General Discussion of PSKs and PSK Identies.</name>
      <t>Before we define any RADIUS-specific use of PSKs, we must first review the current standards for PSKs, and give general advice on PSKs and PSK identies.</t>
      <t>The requirements in this section apply to both client and server implementations which use TLS-PSK.  Client-specific and server-specific issues are discussed in more detail later in this document.</t>
      <section anchor="requirements-on-psks">
        <name>Requirements on PSKs</name>
        <t>Reuse of a PSK in multiple versions of TLS (e.g. TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) is considered unsafe (<xref target="RFC8446"/> Section E.7).  Where TLS 1.3 binds the PSK to a particular key deriviation function, TLS 1.2 does not.  This binding means that it is possible to use the same PSK in different hashes, leading to the potential for attacking the PSK by comparing the hash outputs.  While there are no known insecurities, these uses are not known to be secure, and should therefore be avoided.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC9258"/> adds a key derivation function to the import interface of (D)TLS 1.3, which binds the externally provided PSK to the protocol version.  In particular, that document:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>... describes a mechanism for importing PSKs derived from external PSKs by including the target KDF, (D)TLS protocol version, and an optional context string to ensure uniqueness. This process yields a set of candidate PSKs, each of which are bound to a target KDF and protocol, that are separate from those used in (D)TLS 1.2 and prior versions. This expands what would normally have been a single PSK and identity into a set of PSKs and identities.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>If an implementation supports both TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3, it MUST require that TLS 1.3 be negotiated in RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS.  This requirement prevents reuse of a PSK with multiple TLS versions, which prevents the attacks discussed in <xref target="RFC8446"/> Section E.7.</t>
        <t>It is RECOMMENDED that systems follow the directions of <xref target="RFC9257"/> Section 4 for the use of external PSKs in TLS.  That document provides extremely useful guidance on generating and using PSKs.</t>
        <t>Implementations MUST support PSKs of at least 32 octets in length, and SHOULD support PSKs of 64 octets.  Implementations MUST require that PSKs be at least 16 octets in length.  That is, short PSKs MUST NOT be permitted to be used.</t>
        <t>Administrators SHOULD use PSKs of at least 24 octets, generated using a source of cryptographically secure random numbers.  Implementors needing a secure random number generator should see <xref target="RFC8937"/> for for further guidance.  PSKs are not passwords, and administrators should not try to manually create PSKs.</t>
        <t>Passwords are generally intended to be remembered and entered by people on a regular basis.  In contrast, PSKs are intended to be entered once, and then automatically saved in a system configuration.  As such, due to the limited entropy of passwords, they are not acceptable for use with TLS-PSK, and would only be acceptable for use with a password-authenticated key exchange (PAKE) TLS method.</t>
        <t>We also incorporate by reference the requirements of Section 10.2 of <xref target="RFC7360"/> when using PSKs.</t>
        <t>In order to guide implementors, we give an example script below which generates random PSKs.  While the script is not portable to all possible systems, the intent here is to document a concise and simple method for creating PSKs which are both secure, and humanly manageable.</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>#!/usr/bin/env perl
use MIME::Base32;
use Crypt::URandom();
print join('-', unpack("(A4)*", lc encode_base32(Crypt::URandom::urandom(12)))), "\n";</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>This script reads 96 bits (12 octets) of random data from a secure source, encodes it in Base32, and then formats it to be more humanly manageable.  The generated keys are of the form "2nw2-4cfi-nicw-3g2i-5vxq".  This form of PSK will be accepted by any implementation which supports at least 24 octets for PSKs.  Larger PSKs can be generated by passing larger values to the "urandom()" function.</t>
        <section anchor="interaction-between-psks-and-shared-secrets">
          <name>Interaction between PSKs and Shared Secrets</name>
          <t>Any shared secret used for RADIUS/UDP or RADIUS/TLS MUST NOT be used for TLS-PSK.</t>
          <t>It is RECOMMENDED that RADIUS clients and server track all used shared secrets and PSKs, and then verify that the following requirements all hold true:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>no shared secret is used for more than one RADIUS client</li>
            <li>no PSK is used for more than one RADIUS client</li>
            <li>no shared secret is used as a PSK</li>
          </ul>
          <t>Note that the shared secret of "radsec" given in <xref target="RFC6614"/> can be used across multiple clients, as that value is mandated by the specification.  The intention here is to recommend best practices for administators who enter site-local shared secrets.</t>
          <t>There may be use-cases for using one shared secret across multiple RADIUS clients.  There may similarly be use-cases for sharing a PSK across multiple RADIUS clients.   Details of the possible attacks on reused PSKs are given in <xref target="RFC9257"/> Section 4.1.</t>
          <t>There are few, if any, use-cases for using a PSK as a shared secret, or vice-versa.</t>
          <t>Implementaions SHOULD NOT provide user interfaces which allow both PSKs and shared secrets to be entered at the same time.  There is too much of a tempation for administrators to enter the same value in both fields, which would violate the limitations given above.  Implementations MUST NOT use a "shared secret" field as a way for administrators to enter PSKs.  The PSK entry fields MUST be labelled as being related to PSKs, and not to shared secrets.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="psk-identities">
        <name>PSK Identities</name>
        <t>It is RECOMMENDED that systems follow the directions of <xref target="RFC9257"/> Section 6.1.1 for the use of external PSK identies in TLS.  Note that the PSK identity is sent in the clear, and is therefore visible to attackers.  Where privacy is desired, the PSK identity could be either an opaque token generated cryptographically, or perhaps in the form of a Network Access Identifier (NAI) <xref target="RFC7542"/>, where the "user" portion is an opaque token.  For example, an NAI could be "68092112@example.com".  If the attacker already knows that the client is associated with "example.com", then using that domain name in the PSK identity offers no additional information.  In constrast, the "user" portion needs to be both unique to the client and private, so using an opaque token there is a more secure approach.</t>
        <t>Implementations MUST support PSK identies of 128 octets, and SHOULD support longer PSK identities.  We note that while TLS provides for PSK identities of up to 2^16-1 octets in length, there are few practical uses for extremely long PSK identities.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="psk-and-psk-identity-sharing">
        <name>PSK and PSK Identity Sharing</name>
        <t>While administrators may desire to share PSKs and/or PSK identities across multiple systems, such usage is NOT RECOMMENDED.  Details of the possible attacks on reused PSKs are given in <xref target="RFC9257"/> Section 4.1.</t>
        <t>Implementations MUST support configuring a unique PSK and PSK identity for each possible client-server relationship.  This configuration allows administrators desiring security to use unique PSKs for each such relationship.  This configuration also allows administrators to re-use PSKs and PSK identies where local policies permit.</t>
        <t>Implementations SHOULD warn administrators if the same PSK identity and/or PSK is used for multiple client-server relationships.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="guidance-for-radius-clients">
      <name>Guidance for RADIUS clients</name>
      <t>TLS uses certificates in most common uses.  However, we recognize that it may be difficult to fully upgrade client implementations to allow for certificates to be used with RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS.  Client implementations therefore MUST allow the use of a pre-shared key (TLS-PSK).  The client implementation can then expose a flag "TLS yes / no", and then fields which ask for the PSK identity and PSK itself.</t>
      <t>Implementations MUST use ECDH cipher suites.  Implementations MUST implement the recommended cipher suites in <xref target="RFC9325"/> Section 4.2 for TLS 1.2, and in <xref target="RFC9325"/> Section 4.2 for TLS 1.3.</t>
      <section anchor="psk-identities-1">
        <name>PSK Identities</name>
        <t><xref target="RFC6614"/> is silent on the subject of PSK identities, which is an issue that we correct here.  Guidance is required on the use of PSK identities, as the need to manage identities associated with PSK is a new requirement for NAS management interfaces, and is a new requirement for RADIUS servers.</t>
        <t>RADIUS systems implementing TLS-PSK MUST support identities as per <xref target="RFC4279"/> Section 5.3, and MUST enable configuring TLS-PSK identities in management interfaces as per <xref target="RFC4279"/> Section 5.4.</t>
        <t>RADIUS shared secrets cannot safely be used as TLS-PSKs. To prevent confusion between shared secrets and TLS-PSKs, management interfaces and APIs need to label PSK fields as "PSK" or "TLS-PSK", rather than "shared secret</t>
        <t>RADIUS/TLS clients MUST still permit the configuration of a RADIUS server IP address.  Where <xref target="RFC7585"/> dynamic server lookups are used, that specification only makes provisions for servers to use certificates.  Since there is no way to determine which PSK to use for a connection to a particular server, then TLS-PSK cannot be used with <xref target="RFC7585"/> dynamic lookups.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="guidance-for-radius-servers">
      <name>Guidance for RADIUS Servers</name>
      <t>The following section(s) describe guidance for RADIUS server implementations and deployments.  We first give an overview of current practices, and then extend and/or replace those practices for TLS-PSK.</t>
      <section anchor="current-practices">
        <name>Current Practices</name>
        <t>RADIUS identifies clients by source IP address (<xref target="RFC2865"/> and <xref target="RFC6613"/>) or by client certificate (<xref target="RFC6614"/> and <xref target="RFC7585"/>).  Neither of these approaches work for TLS-PSK.  This section describes current practices and mandates behavior for servers which use TLS-PSK.</t>
        <t>A RADIUS/UDP server, is typically configured with a set of information per client, which includes at least the source IP address and shared secret.  When the yserver receives a RADIUS/UDP packet, it looks up the source IP address, finds a client definition, and therefore the shared secret.  The packet is then authenticated (or not) using that shared secret.</t>
        <t>That is, the IP address is treated as the clients identity, and the shared secret is used to prove the clients authenticity and shared trust.  The set of clients forms a logical database "client table", with the IP address as the key.</t>
        <t>A server may be configured with additional site-local policies associated with that client.  For example, a client may be marked up as being a WiFi Access Point, or a VPN concentrator, etc.  Different clients may be permitted to send different kinds of requests, where some may send Accounting-Request packets, and other clients may not send accounting packets.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="practices-for-tls-psk">
        <name>Practices for TLS-PSK</name>
        <t>We define practices for TLS-PSK by analogy with the RADIUS/UDP use-case, and by extending the additional policies associated with the client.  The PSK identity replaces the source IP address as the client identifier.  The PSK replaces the shared secret as proof of client authenticity and shared trust.</t>
        <t>In order to securely support dynamic source IP addresses for clients, we also require that servers limit clients based on a network range.  The alternative would be to suggest that RADIUS servers allow any source IP address to connect and try TLS-PSK, which could be a security risk.</t>
        <t>In most situations a RADIUS server does not need to allow connections from the entire Internet.  Where such connections are required, as with <xref target="RFC7585"/> or with a roaming consortium, TLS-PSK MUST NOT be used.  It is signicantly easier for an attacker to crack a PSK than to forge a client certificate.</t>
        <t>For example, a RADIUS server could be configured to be accept connections from a source network of 192.0.2/24.  The server could therefore discard any TLS connection request which comes from a source IP address outside of that network.  In that case, there is no need to examine the PSK identity or to find the client definition.  Instead, the IP source filtering policy would deny the connection before any TLS communication had been performed.</t>
        <t>RADIUS servers need to be able to limit certain PSK identifiers to certain network ranges or IP addresses.  That is, if a NAS is known to have a dynamic IP address within a particular subnet, the server should limit use of the NASes PSK to that subnet.  This filtering can therefore help to catch configuration errors.</t>
        <t>As some clients may have dynamic IP addresses, it is possible for a one PSK identity to appear at different source IP addresses over time.  In addition, as there may be many clients behind one NAT gateway, there may be multiple RADIUS clients using one public IP address.  RADIUS servers need to support multiple PSK identifiers at one source IP address.</t>
        <t>That is,  a server needs to support multiple different clients within one network range, multiple clients behind a NAT, and one client having different IP addresses over time.  All of those use-cases are common and necessary.</t>
        <t>The following section describes these requirements in more detail.</t>
        <section anchor="requirements-for-tls-psk">
          <name>Requirements for TLS-PSK</name>
          <t>A server supporting this specification MUST be configurable with a set of "allowed" network ranges from which clients are permitted to connect.  Any connection from outside of the allowed range(s) MUST be rejected before any PSK identity is checked.</t>
          <t>Once a connection has been made from a permitted source, the server MUST use the PSK identity as the logical identifier for a RADIUS client instead of the IP address as was done with RADIUS/UDP.  The PSK identity is then looked up in the local "client table" which was described above.</t>
          <t>Servers implementing this specification SHOULD also be able to associate an IP range or ranges for each client.  Any connection from outside the allowed range(s) MUST be rejected, even if the PSK identity is known, and before the PSK is verified.</t>
          <t>Note that this lookup is independent from the "allowed" network ranges which are checked when the TLS connection is made.  The two range limitations can overlap completely, or only partially.  In addition, the allowed network range(s) for any two clients may overlap partially, completely, or not at all.  All of these possibilities MUST be supprted by the server implementation.  That is, it is possible for multiple clients to have the same allowed source IP address or range.</t>
          <t>Once the source IP has been verified to be allowed for this particular client, the server authenticates the TLS connection via the PSK taken from the client definition.  If the PSK is verified, the server then accepts the connection, and proceeds with RADIUS/TLS as per <xref target="RFC6614"/>.</t>
          <t>This process satisfies all of the requirements of the previous section.</t>
          <t>Finally, if a RADIUS server does not recognize the PSK identity or if the identity is not permitted to use PSK, then the server MAY proceed with a certificate-based handshake.  Since TLS 1.3 <xref target="RFC8446"/> uses PSK for resumption, another use-case is that the PSK identity used for resumption may be rejected, in which case a full handshake is performed.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="privacy-considerations">
      <name>Privacy Considerations</name>
      <t>We make no changes over <xref target="RFC6614"/> and <xref target="RFC7360"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>The primary focus of this document is addressing security considerations for RADIUS.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>There are no IANA considerations in this document.</t>
      <t>RFC Editor: This section may be removed before final publication.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgements">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>TBD.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="changelog">
      <name>Changelog</name>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>00 - initial version</li>
        <li>01 - update examples</li>
      </ul>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="BCP14" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2865" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2865">
          <front>
            <title>Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)</title>
            <author fullname="C. Rigney" initials="C." surname="Rigney"/>
            <author fullname="S. Willens" initials="S." surname="Willens"/>
            <author fullname="A. Rubens" initials="A." surname="Rubens"/>
            <author fullname="W. Simpson" initials="W." surname="Simpson"/>
            <date month="June" year="2000"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes a protocol for carrying authentication, authorization, and configuration information between a Network Access Server which desires to authenticate its links and a shared Authentication Server. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2865"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2865"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4279" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4279">
          <front>
            <title>Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)</title>
            <author fullname="P. Eronen" initials="P." role="editor" surname="Eronen"/>
            <author fullname="H. Tschofenig" initials="H." role="editor" surname="Tschofenig"/>
            <date month="December" year="2005"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies three sets of new ciphersuites for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support authentication based on pre-shared keys (PSKs). These pre-shared keys are symmetric keys, shared in advance among the communicating parties. The first set of ciphersuites uses only symmetric key operations for authentication. The second set uses a Diffie-Hellman exchange authenticated with a pre-shared key, and the third set combines public key authentication of the server with pre-shared key authentication of the client. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4279"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4279"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7585" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7585">
          <front>
            <title>Dynamic Peer Discovery for RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS Based on the Network Access Identifier (NAI)</title>
            <author fullname="S. Winter" initials="S." surname="Winter"/>
            <author fullname="M. McCauley" initials="M." surname="McCauley"/>
            <date month="October" year="2015"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies a means to find authoritative RADIUS servers for a given realm. It is used in conjunction with either RADIUS over Transport Layer Security (RADIUS/TLS) or RADIUS over Datagram Transport Layer Security (RADIUS/DTLS).</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7585"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7585"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8446" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446">
          <front>
            <title>The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3</title>
            <author fullname="E. Rescorla" initials="E." surname="Rescorla"/>
            <date month="August" year="2018"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFCs 5705 and 6066, and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, and 6961. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8446"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8446"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9258" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9258">
          <front>
            <title>Importing External Pre-Shared Keys (PSKs) for TLS 1.3</title>
            <author fullname="D. Benjamin" initials="D." surname="Benjamin"/>
            <author fullname="C. A. Wood" initials="C. A." surname="Wood"/>
            <date month="July" year="2022"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes an interface for importing external Pre-Shared Keys (PSKs) into TLS 1.3.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9258"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9258"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC6613" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6613">
          <front>
            <title>RADIUS over TCP</title>
            <author fullname="A. DeKok" initials="A." surname="DeKok"/>
            <date month="May" year="2012"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Remote Authentication Dial-In User Server (RADIUS) protocol has, until now, required the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) as the underlying transport layer. This document defines RADIUS over the Transmission Control Protocol (RADIUS/TCP), in order to address handling issues related to RADIUS over Transport Layer Security (RADIUS/TLS). It permits TCP to be used as a transport protocol for RADIUS only when a transport layer such as TLS or IPsec provides confidentiality and security. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6613"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6613"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6614" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6614">
          <front>
            <title>Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS</title>
            <author fullname="S. Winter" initials="S." surname="Winter"/>
            <author fullname="M. McCauley" initials="M." surname="McCauley"/>
            <author fullname="S. Venaas" initials="S." surname="Venaas"/>
            <author fullname="K. Wierenga" initials="K." surname="Wierenga"/>
            <date month="May" year="2012"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies a transport profile for RADIUS using Transport Layer Security (TLS) over TCP as the transport protocol. This enables dynamic trust relationships between RADIUS servers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6614"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6614"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7360" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7360">
          <front>
            <title>Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) as a Transport Layer for RADIUS</title>
            <author fullname="A. DeKok" initials="A." surname="DeKok"/>
            <date month="September" year="2014"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The RADIUS protocol defined in RFC 2865 has limited support for authentication and encryption of RADIUS packets. The protocol transports data in the clear, although some parts of the packets can have obfuscated content. Packets may be replayed verbatim by an attacker, and client-server authentication is based on fixed shared secrets. This document specifies how the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol may be used as a fix for these problems. It also describes how implementations of this proposal can coexist with current RADIUS systems.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7360"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7360"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8937" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8937">
          <front>
            <title>Randomness Improvements for Security Protocols</title>
            <author fullname="C. Cremers" initials="C." surname="Cremers"/>
            <author fullname="L. Garratt" initials="L." surname="Garratt"/>
            <author fullname="S. Smyshlyaev" initials="S." surname="Smyshlyaev"/>
            <author fullname="N. Sullivan" initials="N." surname="Sullivan"/>
            <author fullname="C. Wood" initials="C." surname="Wood"/>
            <date month="October" year="2020"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Randomness is a crucial ingredient for Transport Layer Security (TLS) and related security protocols. Weak or predictable "cryptographically secure" pseudorandom number generators (CSPRNGs) can be abused or exploited for malicious purposes. An initial entropy source that seeds a CSPRNG might be weak or broken as well, which can also lead to critical and systemic security problems. This document describes a way for security protocol implementations to augment their CSPRNGs using long-term private keys. This improves randomness from broken or otherwise subverted CSPRNGs.</t>
              <t>This document is a product of the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG) in the IRTF.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8937"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8937"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9257" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9257">
          <front>
            <title>Guidance for External Pre-Shared Key (PSK) Usage in TLS</title>
            <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley"/>
            <author fullname="J. Hoyland" initials="J." surname="Hoyland"/>
            <author fullname="M. Sethi" initials="M." surname="Sethi"/>
            <author fullname="C. A. Wood" initials="C. A." surname="Wood"/>
            <date month="July" year="2022"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document provides usage guidance for external Pre-Shared Keys (PSKs) in Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.3 as defined in RFC 8446. It lists TLS security properties provided by PSKs under certain assumptions, then it demonstrates how violations of these assumptions lead to attacks. Advice for applications to help meet these assumptions is provided. This document also discusses PSK use cases and provisioning processes. Finally, it lists the privacy and security properties that are not provided by TLS 1.3 when external PSKs are used.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9257"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9257"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9325" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325">
          <front>
            <title>Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Sheffer" initials="Y." surname="Sheffer"/>
            <author fullname="P. Saint-Andre" initials="P." surname="Saint-Andre"/>
            <author fullname="T. Fossati" initials="T." surname="Fossati"/>
            <date month="November" year="2022"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) are used to protect data exchanged over a wide range of application protocols and can also form the basis for secure transport protocols. Over the years, the industry has witnessed several serious attacks on TLS and DTLS, including attacks on the most commonly used cipher suites and their modes of operation. This document provides the latest recommendations for ensuring the security of deployed services that use TLS and DTLS. These recommendations are applicable to the majority of use cases.</t>
              <t>RFC 7525, an earlier version of the TLS recommendations, was published when the industry was transitioning to TLS 1.2. Years later, this transition is largely complete, and TLS 1.3 is widely available. This document updates the guidance given the new environment and obsoletes RFC 7525. In addition, this document updates RFCs 5288 and 6066 in view of recent attacks.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="195"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9325"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9325"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7542" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7542">
          <front>
            <title>The Network Access Identifier</title>
            <author fullname="A. DeKok" initials="A." surname="DeKok"/>
            <date month="May" year="2015"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In order to provide inter-domain authentication services, it is necessary to have a standardized method that domains can use to identify each other's users. This document defines the syntax for the Network Access Identifier (NAI), the user identifier submitted by the client prior to accessing resources. This document is a revised version of RFC 4282. It addresses issues with international character sets and makes a number of other corrections to RFC 4282.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7542"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7542"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
