<?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-02" 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-02"/>
    <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="18"/>
    <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 document 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>
    </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-identities">
      <name>General Discussion of PSKs and PSK Identities</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 identities.</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 derivation 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>An implementation MUST NOT use the same PSK for TLS 1.3 and for earlier versions of TLS.  This requirement prevents reuse of a PSK with multiple TLS versions, which prevents the attacks discussed in <xref target="RFC8446"/> Section E.7.  The exact manner in which this requirement is enforced is implementation-specific.  One possibility is to have two different PSKs.  Another possibility is to forbid the use of TLS 1.3, or to forbid the use of TLS versions less than TLS 1.3.</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.  Implementers 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 Implementers, 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 administrators 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>Implementations 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 temptation 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 Identities 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 contrast, 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 Identities 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 anchor="security-of-psk-identities">
          <name>Security of PSK Identities</name>
          <t>We note that the PSK identity is a field created but the connecting client.  Since the client is untrusted until both the identity and PSK have been verified, both of those fields MUST be treated as untrusted.  That is, a well-formed PSK Identity is likely to be in UTF-8 format, due to the requirements of <xref target="RFC4279"/> Section 5.1.  However, implementations MUST support managing PSK identities as a set of undistinguished octets.</t>
          <t>It is not safe to use a bare PSK Identity to look up a corresponding PSK.  The identity may have incorret UTF-8 format;it may contain data which forms an injection attack for SQL, LDAP, REST or shell metacharacters; or it may contain embedded NUL otets which are incompatible with APIs which expect NUL terminated strings.  The identity may also be up to 65535 octets long.</t>
          <t>As such, implementations MUST validate the identity prior to it being used as a lookup key.  When the identity is passed to an external API (e.g. database lookup), implementations MUST either escape any characters in the identity which are invalid for that API, or else reject the identity entirely.  The exact form of any escaping depends on the API, and we cannot document all possible methods here.  However, a few basic validation rules are suggested, as outlined below.  Any identity which is rejected by these validation rules SHOULD cause the server to close the TLS connection.</t>
          <t>The suggested validation rules are as follows:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>Identities longer than a fixed maximum SHOULD be rejected.  The limit is implementation dependent, but SHOULD NOT be less than 128, and SHOULD NOT be more than 1024.</li>
            <li>Identities which are not in UTF-8 format SHOULD be rejected.  This includes any identity with embedded control characters, NUL octets, etc.</li>
            <li>Where the NAI format is expected, identities which are not in NAI format SHOULD be rejected</li>
          </ul>
          <t>It is RECOMMENDED that implementations extend these rules with any additional validation which are found to be useful.  For example, implementations and/or deployments could both generate PSK identities in a particular format for passing to client systems, and then also verify that any received identity matches that format.</t>
        </section>
      </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 be able to configure 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 Identities 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>Client implementations MUST allow the use of a pre-shared key (TLS-PSK) for RADIUS/TLS.  The client implementation can then expose a user interface flag which is "TLS yes / no", and then also fields which ask for the PSK identity and PSK itself.</t>
      <t>For TLS 1.3, Implementations MUST "psk_dhe_ke" Pre-Shared Key Exchange Mode in TLS 1.3 as discussed in <xref target="RFC8446"/> Section 4.2.9 and in <xref target="RFC9257"/> Section 6.  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>Due to the security issues described above, RADIUS shared secrets cannot safely be used as TLS-PSKs. Therefore in order 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 as "shared secret".</t>
        <t>RADIUS/TLS clients MUST still permit the configuration of a RADIUS server IP address or host name.  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>
      <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="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 server 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 significantly 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 supported 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>Thanks to the many reviewers in the RADEXT working group for positive feedback.</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>
