Network Working Group D. McDonald
Request for Comments: 2367 C. Metz
Category: Informational B. Phan
July 1998
PF_KEY Key Management API, Version 2
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
A generic key management API that can be used not only for IP
Security [Atk95a] [Atk95b] [Atk95c] but also for other network
security services is presented in this document. Version 1 of this
API was implemented inside 4.4-Lite BSD as part of the U. S. Naval
Research Laboratory's freely distributable and usable IPv6 and IPsec
implementation[AMPMC96]. It is documented here for the benefit of
others who might also adopt and use the API, thus providing increased
portability of key management applications (e.g. a manual keying
application, an ISAKMP daemon, a GKMP daemon [HM97a][HM97b], a
Photuris daemon, or a SKIP certificate discovery protocol daemon).
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................. 3
1.1 Terminology .............................................. 3
1.2 Conceptual Model ......................................... 4
1.3 PF_KEY Socket Definition ................................. 8
1.4 Overview of PF_KEY Messaging Behavior .................... 8
1.5 Common PF_KEY Operations ................................. 9
1.6 Differences Between PF_KEY and PF_ROUTE .................. 10
1.7 Name Space ............................................... 11
1.8 On Manual Keying ..........................................11
2 PF_KEY Message Format .................................... 11
2.1 Base Message Header Format ............................... 12
2.2 Alignment of Headers and Extension Headers ............... 14
2.3 Additional Message Fields ................................ 14
2.3.1 Association Extension .................................... 15
2.3.2 Lifetime Extension ....................................... 16
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
2.3.3 Address Extension ........................................ 18
2.3.4 Key Extension ............................................ 19
2.3.5 Identity Extension ....................................... 21
2.3.6 Sensitivity Extension .................................... 21
2.3.7 Proposal Extension ....................................... 22
2.3.8 Supported Algorithms Extension ........................... 25
2.3.9 SPI Range Extension ...................................... 26
2.4 Illustration of Message Layout ........................... 27
3 Symbolic Names ........................................... 30
3.1 Message Types ............................................ 31
3.1.1 SADB_GETSPI .............................................. 32
3.1.2 SADB_UPDATE .............................................. 33
3.1.3 SADB_ADD ................................................. 34
3.1.4 SADB_DELETE .............................................. 35
3.1.5 SADB_GET ................................................. 36
3.1.6 SADB_ACQUIRE ............................................. 36
3.1.7 SADB_REGISTER ............................................ 38
3.1.8 SADB_EXPIRE .............................................. 39
3.1.9 SADB_FLUSH ............................................... 40
3.1.10 SADB_DUMP ................................................ 40
3.2 Security Association Flags ............................... 41
3.3 Security Association States .............................. 41
3.4 Security Association Types ............................... 41
3.5 Algorithm Types .......................................... 42
3.6 Extension Header Values .................................. 43
3.7 Identity Extension Values ................................ 44
3.8 Sensitivity Extension Values ............................. 45
3.9 Proposal Extension Values ................................ 45
4 Future Directions ........................................ 45
5 Examples ................................................. 45
5.1 Simple IP Security Example ............................... 46
5.2 Proxy IP Security Example ................................ 47
5.3 OSPF Security Example .................................... 50
5.4 Miscellaneous ............................................ 50
6 Security Considerations .................................. 51
Acknowledgments ............,............................. 52
References ............................................... 52
Disclaimer ............................................... 54
Authors' Addresses ....................................... 54
A Promiscuous Send/Receive Extension ....................... 55
B Passive Change Message Extension ......................... 57
C Key Management Private Data Extension .................... 58
D Sample Header File ....................................... 59
E Change Log ............................................... 64
F Full Copyright Statement ................................. 68
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
1 Introduction
PF_KEY is a new socket protocol family used by trusted privileged key
management applications to communicate with an operating system's key
management internals (referred to here as the "Key Engine" or the
Security Association Database (SADB)). The Key Engine and its
structures incorporate the required security attributes for a session
and are instances of the "Security Association" (SA) concept
described in [Atk95a]. The names PF_KEY and Key Engine thus refer to
more than cryptographic keys and are retained for consistency with
the traditional phrase, "Key Management".
PF_KEY is derived in part from the BSD routing socket, PF_ROUTE.
[Skl91] This document describes Version 2 of PF_KEY. Version 1 was
implemented in the first five alpha test versions of the NRL
IPv6+IPsec Software Distribution for 4.4-Lite BSD UNIX and the Cisco
ISAKMP/Oakley key management daemon. Version 2 extends and refines
this interface. Theoretically, the messages defined in this document
could be used in a non-socket context (e.g. between two directly
communicating user-level processes), but this document will not
discuss in detail such possibilities.
Security policy is deliberately omitted from this interface. PF_KEY
is not a mechanism for tuning systemwide security policy, nor is it
intended to enforce any sort of key management policy. The developers
of PF_KEY believe that it is important to separate security
mechanisms (such as PF_KEY) from security policies. This permits a
single mechanism to more easily support multiple policies.
1.1 Terminology
Even though this document is not intended to be an actual Internet
standard, the words that are used to define the significance of
particular features of this interface are usually capitalized. Some
of these words, including MUST, MAY, and SHOULD, are detailed in
[Bra97].
- CONFORMANCE and COMPLIANCE
Conformance to this specification has the same meaning as compliance
to this specification. In either case, the mandatory-to-implement,
or MUST, items MUST be fully implemented as specified here. If any
mandatory item is not implemented as specified here, that
implementation is not conforming and not compliant with this
specification.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
This specification also uses many terms that are commonly used in the
context of network security. Other documents provide more
definitions and background information on these [VK83, HA94, Atk95a].
Two terms deserve special mention:
- (Encryption/Authentication) Algorithm
For PF_KEY purposes, an algorithm, whether encryption or
authentication, is the set of operations performed on a packet to
complete authentication or encryption as indicated by the SA type. A
PF_KEY algorithm MAY consist of more than one cryptographic
algorithm. Another possibility is that the same basic cryptographic
algorithm may be applied with different modes of operation or some
other implementation difference. These differences, henceforth called
_algorithm differentiators_, distinguish between different PF_KEY
algorithms, and options to the same algorithm. Algorithm
differentiators will often cause fundamentally different security
properties.
For example, both DES and 3DES use the same cryptographic algorithm,
but they are used differently and have different security properties.
The triple-application of DES is considered an algorithm
differentiator. There are therefore separate PF_KEY algorithms for
DES and 3DES. Keyed-MD5 and HMAC-MD5 use the same hash function, but
construct their message authentication codes differently. The use of
HMAC is an algorithm differentiator. DES-ECB and DES-CBC are the
same cryptographic algorithm, but use a different mode. Mode (e.g.,
chaining vs. code-book) is an algorithm differentiator. Blowfish with
a 128-bit key, however, is similar to Blowfish with a 384-bit key,
because the algorithm's workings are otherwise the same and therefore
the key length is not an algorithm differentiator.
In terms of IP Security, a general rule of thumb is that whatever
might be labeled the "encryption" part of an ESP transform is
probably a PF_KEY encryption algorithm. Whatever might be labelled
the "authentication" part of an AH or ESP transform is probably a
PF_KEY authentication algorithm.
1.2 Conceptual Model
This section describes the conceptual model of an operating system
that implements the PF_KEY key management application programming
interface. This section is intended to provide background material
useful to understand the rest of this document. Presentation of this
conceptual model does not constrain a PF_KEY implementation to
strictly adhere to the conceptual components discussed in this
subsection.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
Key management is most commonly implemented in whole or in part at
the application layer. For example, the ISAKMP/Oakley, GKMP, and
Photuris proposals for IPsec key management are all application-layer
protocols. Manual keying is also done at the application layer.
Even parts of the SKIP IP-layer keying proposal can be implemented at
the application layer. Figure 1 shows the relationship between a Key
Management daemon and PF_KEY. Key management daemons use PF_KEY to
communicate with the Key Engine and use PF_INET (or PF_INET6 in the
case of IPv6) to communicate, via the network, with a remote key
management entity.
The "Key Engine" or "Security Association Database (SADB)" is a
logical entity in the kernel that stores, updates, and deletes
Security Association data for various security protocols. There are
logical interfaces within the kernel (e.g. getassocbyspi(),
getassocbysocket()) that security protocols inside the kernel (e.g.
IP Security, aka IPsec) use to request and obtain Security
Associations.
In the case of IPsec, if by policy a particular outbound packet needs
processing, then the IPsec implementation requests an appropriate
Security Association from the Key Engine via the kernel-internal
interface. If the Key Engine has an appropriate SA, it allocates the
SA to this session (marking it as used) and returns the SA to the
IPsec implementation for use. If the Key Engine has no such SA but a
key management application has previously indicated (via a PF_KEY
SADB_REGISTER message) that it can obtain such SAs, then the Key
Engine requests that such an SA be created (via a PF_KEY SADB_ACQUIRE
message). When the key management daemon creates a new SA, it places
it into the Key Engine for future use.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
+---------------+
|Key Mgmt Daemon|
+---------------+
| |
| |
| | Applications
======[PF_KEY]====[PF_INET]==========================
| | OS Kernel
+------------+ +-----------------+
| Key Engine | | TCP/IP, |
| or SADB |---| including IPsec |
+------------+ | |
+-----------------+
|
+-----------+
| Network |
| Interface |
+-----------+
Figure 1: Relationship of Key Mgmt to PF_KEY
For performance reasons, some security protocols (e.g. IP Security)
are usually implemented inside the operating system kernel. Other
security protocols (e.g. OSPFv2 Cryptographic Authentication) are
implemented in trusted privileged applications outside the kernel.
Figure 2 shows a trusted, privileged routing daemon using PF_INET to
communicate routing information with a remote routing daemon and
using PF_KEY to request, obtain, and delete Security Associations
used with a routing protocol.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
+---------------+
|Routing Daemon|
+---------------+
| |
| |
| | Applications
======[PF_KEY]====[PF_INET]==========================
| | OS Kernel
+------------+ +---------+
| Key Engine | | TCP/IP |
| or SADB |---| |
+------------+ +---------+
|
+-----------+
| Network |
| Interface |
+-----------+
Figure 2: Relationship of Trusted Application to PF_KEY
When a trusted privileged application is using the Key Engine but
implements the security protocol within itself, then operation varies
slightly. In this case, the application needing an SA sends a PF_KEY
SADB_ACQUIRE message down to the Key Engine, which then either
returns an error or sends a similar SADB_ACQUIRE message up to one or
more key management applications capable of creating such SAs. As
before, the key management daemon stores the SA into the Key Engine.
Then, the trusted privileged application uses an SADB_GET message to
obtain the SA from the Key Engine.
In some implementations, policy may be implemented in user-space,
even though the actual cryptographic processing takes place in the
kernel. Such policy communication between the kernel mechanisms and
the user-space policy MAY be implemented by PF_KEY extensions, or
other such mechanism. This document does not specify such
extensions. A PF_KEY implementation specified by the memo does NOT
have to support configuring systemwide policy using PF_KEY.
Untrusted clients, for example a user's web browser or telnet client,
do not need to use PF_KEY. Mechanisms not specified here are used by
such untrusted client applications to request security services (e.g.
IPsec) from an operating system. For security reasons, only trusted,
privileged applications are permitted to open a PF_KEY socket.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
1.3 PF_KEY Socket Definition
The PF_KEY protocol family (PF_KEY) symbol is defined in
in the same manner that other protocol families are
defined. PF_KEY does not use any socket addresses. Applications
using PF_KEY MUST NOT depend on the availability of a symbol named
AF_KEY, but kernel implementations are encouraged to define that
symbol for completeness.
The key management socket is created as follows:
#include
#include
#include
int s;
s = socket(PF_KEY, SOCK_RAW, PF_KEY_V2);
The PF_KEY domain currently supports only the SOCK_RAW socket type.
The protocol field MUST be set to PF_KEY_V2, or else EPROTONOSUPPORT
will be returned. Only a trusted, privileged process can create a
PF_KEY socket. On conventional UNIX systems, a privileged process is
a process with an effective userid of zero. On non-MLS proprietary
operating systems, the notion of a "privileged process" is
implementation-defined. On Compartmented Mode Workstations (CMWs) or
other systems that claim to provide Multi-Level Security (MLS), a
process MUST have the "key management privilege" in order to open a
PF_KEY socket[DIA]. MLS systems that don't currently have such a
specific privilege MUST add that special privilege and enforce it
with PF_KEY in order to comply and conform with this specification.
Some systems, most notably some popular personal computers, do not
have the concept of an unprivileged user. These systems SHOULD take
steps to restrict the programs allowed to access the PF_KEY API.
1.4 Overview of PF_KEY Messaging Behavior
A process interacts with the key engine by sending and receiving
messages using the PF_KEY socket. Security association information
can be inserted into and retrieved from the kernel's security
association table using a set of predefined messages. In the normal
case, all properly-formed messages sent to the kernel are returned to
all open PF_KEY sockets, including the sender. Improperly formed
messages will result in errors, and an implementation MUST check for
a properly formed message before returning it to the appropriate
listeners. Unlike the routing socket, most errors are sent in reply
messages, not the errno field when write() or send() fails. PF_KEY
message delivery is not guaranteed, especially in cases where kernel
or socket buffers are exhausted and messages are dropped.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
Some messages are generated by the operating system to indicate that
actions need to be taken, and are not necessarily in response to any
message sent down by the user. Such messages are not received by all
PF_KEY sockets, but by sockets which have indicated that kernel-
originated messages are to be received. These messages are special
because of the expected frequency at which they will occur. Also, an
implementation may further wish to restrict return messages from the
kernel, in cases where not all PF_KEY sockets are in the same trust
domain.
Many of the normal BSD socket calls have undefined behavior on PF_KEY
sockets. These include: bind(), connect(), socketpair(), accept(),
getpeername(), getsockname(), ioctl(), and listen().
1.5 Common PF_KEY Operations
There are two basic ways to add a new Security Association into the
kernel. The simplest is to send a single SADB_ADD message,
containing all of the SA information, from the application into the
kernel's Key Engine. This approach works particularly well with
manual key management, which is required for IPsec, and other
security protocols.
The second approach to add a new Security Association into the kernel
is for the application to first request a Security Parameters Index
(SPI) value from the kernel using the SADB_GETSPI message and then
send an SADB_UPDATE message with the complete Security Association
data. This second approach works well with key management daemons
when the SPI values need to be known before the entire Security
Association data is known (e.g. so the SPI value can be indicated to
the remote end of the key management session).
An individual Security Association can be deleted using the
SADB_DELETE message. Categories of SAs or the entire kernel SA table
can be deleted using the SADB_FLUSH message.
The SADB_GET message is used by a trusted application-layer process
(e.g. routed(8) or gated(8)) to retrieve an SA (e.g. RIP SA or OSPF
SA) from the kernel's Key Engine.
The kernel or an application-layer can use the SADB_ACQUIRE message
to request that a Security Association be created by some
application-layer key management process that has registered with the
kernel via an SADB_REGISTER message. This ACQUIRE message will have
a sequence number associated with it. This sequence number MUST be
used by followup SADB_GETSPI, SADB_UPDATE, and SADB_ADD messages, in
order to keep track of which request gets its keying material. The
sequence number (described below) is similar to a transaction ID in a
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
remote procedure call.
The SADB_EXPIRE message is sent from the kernel to key management
applications when the "soft lifetime" or "hard lifetime" of a
Security Association has expired. Key management applications should
use receipt of a soft lifetime SADB_EXPIRE message as a hint to
negotiate a replacement SA so the replacement SA will be ready and in
the kernel before it is needed.
A SADB_DUMP message is also defined, but this is primarily intended
for PF_KEY implementor debugging and is not used in ordinary
operation of PF_KEY.
1.6 Differences Between PF_KEY and PF_ROUTE
The following bullets are points of difference between the routing
socket and PF_KEY. Programmers who are used to the routing socket
semantics will find some differences in PF_KEY.
* PF_KEY message errors are usually returned in PF_KEY messages
instead of causing write() operations to fail and returning the
error number in errno. This means that other listeners on a PF_KEY
socket can be aware that requests from another process failed,
which can be useful for auditing purposes. This also means that
applications that fail to read PF_KEY messages cannot do error
checking.
An implementation MAY return the errors EINVAL, ENOMEM, and ENOBUFS
by causing write() operations to fail and returning the error
number in errno. This is an optimization for common error cases in
which it does not make sense for any other process to receive the
error. An application MUST NOT depend on such errors being set by
the write() call, but it SHOULD check for such errors, and handle
them in an appropriate manner.
* The entire message isn't always reflected in the reply. A SADB_ADD
message is an example of this.
* The PID is not set by the kernel. The process that originates the
message MUST set the sadb_msg_pid to its own PID. If the kernel
ORIGINATES a message, it MUST set the sadb_msg_pid to 0. A reply
to an original message SHOULD have the pid of the original message.
(E.g. the kernel's response to an SADB_ADD SHOULD have its pid set
to the pid value of the original SADB_ADD message.)
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
1.7 Name Space
All PF_KEYv2 preprocessor symbols and structure definitions are
defined as a result of including the header file .
There is exactly one exception to this rule: the symbol "PF_KEY" (two
exceptions if "AF_KEY" is also counted), which is defined as a result
of including the header file . All PF_KEYv2
preprocessor symbols start with the prefix "SADB_" and all structure
names start with "sadb_". There are exactly two exceptions to this
rule: the symbol "PF_KEY_V2" and the symbol "PFKEYV2_REVISION".
The symbol "PFKEYV2_REVISION" is a date-encoded value not unlike
certain values defined by POSIX and X/Open. The current value for
PFKEYV2_REVISION is 199806L, where 1998 is the year and 06 is the
month.
Inclusion of the file MUST NOT define symbols or
structures in the PF_KEYv2 name space that are not described in this
document without the explicit prior permission of the authors. Any
symbols or structures in the PF_KEYv2 name space that are not
described in this document MUST start with "SADB_X_" or "sadb_x_". An
implementation that fails to obey these rules IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH
THIS SPECIFICATION and MUST NOT make any claim to be. These rules
also apply to any files that might be included as a result of
including the file . This rule provides implementors
with some assurance that they will not encounter namespace-related
surprises.
1.8 On Manual Keying
Not unlike the 4.4-Lite BSD PF_ROUTE socket, this interface allows an
application full-reign over the security associations in a kernel
that implements PF_KEY. A PF_KEY implementation MUST have some sort
of manual interface to PF_KEY, which SHOULD allow all of the
functionality of the programmatic interface described here.
2. PF_KEY Message Format
PF_KEY messages consist of a base header followed by additional data
fields, some of which may be optional. The format of the additional
data is dependent on the type of message.
PF_KEY messages currently do not mandate any specific ordering for
non-network multi-octet fields. Unless otherwise specified (e.g. SPI
values), fields MUST be in host-specific byte order.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
2.1 Base Message Header Format
PF_KEY messages consist of the base message header followed by
security association specific data whose types and lengths are
specified by a generic type-length encoding.
This base header is shown below, using POSIX types. The fields are
arranged primarily for alignment, and where possible, for reasons of
clarity.
struct sadb_msg {
uint8_t sadb_msg_version;
uint8_t sadb_msg_type;
uint8_t sadb_msg_errno;
uint8_t sadb_msg_satype;
uint16_t sadb_msg_len;
uint16_t sadb_msg_reserved;
uint32_t sadb_msg_seq;
uint32_t sadb_msg_pid;
};
/* sizeof(struct sadb_msg) == 16 */
sadb_msg_version
The version field of this PF_KEY message. This MUST
be set to PF_KEY_V2. If this is not set to PF_KEY_V2,
the write() call MAY fail and return EINVAL.
Otherwise, the behavior is undetermined, given that
the application might not understand the formatting
of the messages arriving from the kernel.
sadb_msg_type Identifies the type of message. The valid message
types are described later in this document.
sadb_msg_errno Should be set to zero by the sender. The responder
stores the error code in this field if an error has
occurred. This includes the case where the responder
is in user space. (e.g. user-space negotiation
fails, an errno can be returned.)
sadb_msg_satype Indicates the type of security association(s). Valid
Security Association types are declared in the file
. The current set of Security
Association types is enumerated later in this
document.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
sadb_msg_len Contains the total length, in 64-bit words, of all
data in the PF_KEY message including the base header
length and additional data after the base header, if
any. This length includes any padding or extra space
that might exist. Unless otherwise stated, all other
length fields are also measured in 64-bit words.
On user to kernel messages, this field MUST be
verified against the length of the inbound message.
EMSGSIZE MUST be returned if the verification fails.
On kernel to user messages, a size mismatch is most
likely the result of the user not providing a large
enough buffer for the message. In these cases, the
user application SHOULD drop the message, but it MAY
try and extract what information it can out of the
message.
sadb_msg_reserved
Reserved value. It MUST be zeroed by the sender. All
fields labeled reserved later in the document have
the same semantics as this field.
sadb_msg_seq Contains the sequence number of this message. This
field, along with sadb_msg_pid, MUST be used to
uniquely identify requests to a process. The sender
is responsible for filling in this field. This
responsibility also includes matching the
sadb_msg_seq of a request (e.g. SADB_ACQUIRE).
This field is similar to a transaction ID in a
remote procedure call implementation.
sadb_msg_pid Identifies the process which originated this message,
or which process a message is bound for. For
example, if process id 2112 sends an SADB_UPDATE
message to the kernel, the process MUST set this
field to 2112 and the kernel will set this field
to 2112 in its reply to that SADB_UPDATE
message. This field, along with sadb_msg_seq, can
be used to uniquely identify requests to a
process.
It is currently assumed that a 32-bit quantity will
hold an operating system's process ID space.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
2.2 Alignment of Headers and Extension Headers
The base message header is a multiple of 64 bits and fields after it
in memory will be 64 bit aligned if the base itself is 64 bit
aligned. Some of the subsequent extension headers have 64 bit fields
in them, and as a consequence need to be 64 bit aligned in an
environment where 64 bit quantities need to be 64 bit aligned.
The basic unit of alignment and length in PF_KEY Version 2 is 64
bits. Therefore:
* All extension headers, inclusive of the sadb_ext overlay fields,
MUST be a multiple of 64 bits long.
* All variable length data MUST be padded appropriately such that
its length in a message is a multiple of 64 bits.
* All length fields are, unless otherwise specified, in units of
64 bits.
* Implementations may safely access quantities of between 8 and 64
bits directly within a message without risk of alignment faults.
All PF_KEYv2 structures are packed and already have all intended
padding. Implementations MUST NOT insert any extra fields, including
hidden padding, into any structure in this document. This forbids
implementations from "extending" or "enhancing" existing headers
without changing the extension header type. As a guard against such
insertion of silent padding, each structure in this document is
labeled with its size in bytes. The size of these structures in an
implementation MUST match the size listed.
2.3 Additional Message Fields
The additional data following the base header consists of various
length-type-values fields. The first 32-bits are of a constant form:
struct sadb_ext {
uint16_t sadb_ext_len;
uint16_t sadb_ext_type;
};
/* sizeof(struct sadb_ext) == 4 */
sadb_ext_len Length of the extension header in 64 bit words,
inclusive.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
sadb_ext_type The type of extension header that follows. Values for
this field are detailed later. The value zero is
reserved.
Types of extension headers include: Association, Lifetime(s),
Address(s), Key(s), Identity(ies), Sensitivity, Proposal, and
Supported. There MUST be only one instance of a extension type in a
message. (e.g. Base, Key, Lifetime, Key is forbidden). An EINVAL
will be returned if there are duplicate extensions within a message.
Implementations MAY enforce ordering of extensions in the order
presented in the EXTENSION HEADER VALUES section.
If an unknown extension type is encountered, it MUST be ignored.
Applications using extension headers not specified in this document
MUST be prepared to work around other system components not
processing those headers. Likewise, if an application encounters an
unknown extension from the kernel, it must be prepared to work around
it. Also, a kernel that generates extra extension header types MUST
NOT _depend_ on applications also understanding extra extension
header types.
All extension definitions include these two fields (len and exttype)
because they are instances of a generic extension (not unlike
sockaddr_in and sockaddr_in6 are instances of a generic sockaddr).
The sadb_ext header MUST NOT ever be present in a message without at
least four bytes of extension header data following it, and,
therefore, there is no problem with it being only four bytes long.
All extensions documented in this section MUST be implemented by a
PF_KEY implementation.
2.3.1 Association Extension
The Association extension specifies data specific to a single
security association. The only times this extension is not present is
when control messages (e.g. SADB_FLUSH or SADB_REGISTER) are being
passed and on the SADB_ACQUIRE message.
struct sadb_sa {
uint16_t sadb_sa_len;
uint16_t sadb_sa_exttype;
uint32_t sadb_sa_spi;
uint8_t sadb_sa_replay;
uint8_t sadb_sa_state;
uint8_t sadb_sa_auth;
uint8_t sadb_sa_encrypt;
uint32_t sadb_sa_flags;
};
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
/* sizeof(struct sadb_sa) == 16 */
sadb_sa_spi The Security Parameters Index value for the security
association. Although this is a 32-bit field, some
types of security associations might have an SPI or
key identifier that is less than 32-bits long. In
this case, the smaller value shall be stored in the
least significant bits of this field and the unneeded
bits shall be zero. This field MUST be in network
byte order.
sadb_sa_replay The size of the replay window, if not zero. If zero,
then no replay window is in use.
sadb_sa_state The state of the security association. The currently
defined states are described later in this document.
sadb_sa_auth The authentication algorithm to be used with this
security association. The valid authentication
algorithms are described later in this document. A
value of zero means that no authentication is used
for this security association.
sadb_sa_encrypt The encryption algorithm to be used with this
security association. The valid encryption algorithms
are described later in this document. A value of zero
means that no encryption is used for this security
association.
sadb_sa_flags A bitmap of options defined for the security
association. The currently defined flags are
described later in this document.
The kernel MUST check these values where appropriate. For example,
IPsec AH with no authentication algorithm is probably an error.
When used with some messages, the values in some fields in this
header should be ignored.
2.3.2 Lifetime Extension
The Lifetime extension specifies one or more lifetime variants for
this security association. If no Lifetime extension is present the
association has an infinite lifetime. An association SHOULD have a
lifetime of some sort associated with it. Lifetime variants come in
three varieties, HARD - indicating the hard-limit expiration, SOFT -
indicating the soft-limit expiration, and CURRENT - indicating the
current state of a given security association. The Lifetime
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
extension looks like:
struct sadb_lifetime {
uint16_t sadb_lifetime_len;
uint16_t sadb_lifetime_exttype;
uint32_t sadb_lifetime_allocations;
uint64_t sadb_lifetime_bytes;
uint64_t sadb_lifetime_addtime;
uint64_t sadb_lifetime_usetime;
};
/* sizeof(struct sadb_lifetime) == 32 */
sadb_lifetime_allocations
For CURRENT, the number of different connections,
endpoints, or flows that the association has been
allocated towards. For HARD and SOFT, the number of
these the association may be allocated towards
before it expires. The concept of a connection,
flow, or endpoint is system specific.
sadb_lifetime_bytes
For CURRENT, how many bytes have been processed
using this security association. For HARD and SOFT,
the number of bytes that may be processed using
this security association before it expires.
sadb_lifetime_addtime
For CURRENT, the time, in seconds, when the
association was created. For HARD and SOFT, the
number of seconds after the creation of the
association until it expires.
For such time fields, it is assumed that 64-bits is
sufficiently large to hold the POSIX time_t value.
If this assumption is wrong, this field will have to
be revisited.
sadb_lifetime_usetime
For CURRENT, the time, in seconds, when association
was first used. For HARD and SOFT, the number of
seconds after the first use of the association until
it expires.
The semantics of lifetimes are inclusive-OR, first-to-expire. This
means that if values for bytes and time, or multiple times, are
passed in, the first of these values to be reached will cause a
lifetime expiration.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
2.3.3 Address Extension
The Address extension specifies one or more addresses that are
associated with a security association. Address extensions for both
source and destination MUST be present when an Association extension
is present. The format of an Address extension is:
struct sadb_address {
uint16_t sadb_address_len;
uint16_t sadb_address_exttype;
uint8_t sadb_address_proto;
uint8_t sadb_address_prefixlen;
uint16_t sadb_address_reserved;
};
/* sizeof(struct sadb_address) == 8 */
/* followed by some form of struct sockaddr */
The sockaddr structure SHOULD conform to the sockaddr structure of
the system implementing PF_KEY. If the system has an sa_len field, so
SHOULD the sockaddrs in the message. If the system has NO sa_len
field, the sockaddrs SHOULD NOT have an sa_len field. All non-address
information in the sockaddrs, such as sin_zero for AF_INET sockaddrs,
and sin6_flowinfo for AF_INET6 sockaddrs, MUST be zeroed out. The
zeroing of ports (e.g. sin_port and sin6_port) MUST be done for all
messages except for originating SADB_ACQUIRE messages, which SHOULD
fill them in with ports from the relevant TCP or UDP session which
generates the ACQUIRE message. If the ports are non-zero, then the
sadb_address_proto field, normally zero, MUST be filled in with the
transport protocol's number. If the sadb_address_prefixlen is non-
zero, then the address has a prefix (often used in KM access control
decisions), with length specified in sadb_address_prefixlen. These
additional fields may be useful to KM applications.
The SRC and DST addresses for a security association MUST be in the
same protocol family and MUST always be present or absent together in
a message. The PROXY address MAY be in a different protocol family,
and for most security protocols, represents an actual originator of a
packet. (For example, the inner-packets's source address in a
tunnel.)
The SRC address MUST be a unicast or unspecified (e.g., INADDR_ANY)
address. The DST address can be any valid destination address
(unicast, multicast, or even broadcast). The PROXY address SHOULD be
a unicast address (there are experimental security protocols where
PROXY semantics may be different than described above).
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
2.3.4 Key Extension
The Key extension specifies one or more keys that are associated with
a security association. A Key extension will not always be present
with messages, because of security risks. The format of a Key
extension is:
struct sadb_key {
uint16_t sadb_key_len;
uint16_t sadb_key_exttype;
uint16_t sadb_key_bits;
uint16_t sadb_key_reserved;
};
/* sizeof(struct sadb_key) == 8 */
/* followed by the key data */
sadb_key_bits The length of the valid key data, in bits. A value of
zero in sadb_key_bits MUST cause an error.
The key extension comes in two varieties. The AUTH version is used
with authentication keys (e.g. IPsec AH, OSPF MD5) and the ENCRYPT
version is used with encryption keys (e.g. IPsec ESP). PF_KEY deals
only with fully formed cryptographic keys, not with "raw key
material". For example, when ISAKMP/Oakley is in use, the key
management daemon is always responsible for transforming the result
of the Diffie-Hellman computation into distinct fully formed keys
PRIOR to sending those keys into the kernel via PF_KEY. This rule is
made because PF_KEY is designed to support multiple security
protocols (not just IP Security) and also multiple key management
schemes including manual keying, which does not have the concept of
"raw key material". A clean, protocol-independent interface is
important for portability to different operating systems as well as
for portability to different security protocols.
If an algorithm defines its key to include parity bits (e.g. DES)
then the key used with PF_KEY MUST also include those parity bits.
For example, this means that a single DES key is always a 64-bit
quantity.
When a particular security protocol only requires one authentication
and/or one encryption key, the fully formed key is transmitted using
the appropriate key extension. When a particular security protocol
requires more than one key for the same function (e.g. Triple-DES
using 2 or 3 keys, and asymmetric algorithms), then those two fully
formed keys MUST be concatenated together in the order used for
outbound packet processing. In the case of multiple keys, the
algorithm MUST be able to determine the lengths of the individual
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
keys based on the information provided. The total key length (when
combined with knowledge of the algorithm in use) usually provides
sufficient information to make this determination.
Keys are always passed through the PF_KEY interface in the order that
they are used for outbound packet processing. For inbound processing,
the correct order that keys are used might be different from this
canonical concatenation order used with the PF_KEY interface. It is
the responsibility of the implementation to use the keys in the
correct order for both inbound and outbound processing.
For example, consider a pair of nodes communicating unicast using an
ESP three-key Triple-DES Security Association. Both the outbound SA
on the sender node, and the inbound SA on the receiver node will
contain key-A, followed by key-B, followed by key-C in their
respective ENCRYPT key extensions. The outbound SA will use key-A
first, followed by key-B, then key-C when encrypting. The inbound SA
will use key-C, followed by key-B, then key-A when decrypting.
(NOTE: We are aware that 3DES is actually encrypt-decrypt-encrypt.)
The canonical ordering of key-A, key-B, key-C is used for 3DES, and
should be documented. The order of "encryption" is the canonical
order for this example. [Sch96]
The key data bits are arranged most-significant to least significant.
For example, a 22-bit key would take up three octets, with the least
significant two bits not containing key material. Five additional
octets would then be used for padding to the next 64-bit boundary.
While not directly related to PF_KEY, there is a user interface issue
regarding odd-digit hexadecimal representation of keys. Consider the
example of the 16-bit number:
0x123
That will require two octets of storage. In the absence of other
information, however, unclear whether the value shown is stored as:
01 23 OR 12 30
It is the opinion of the authors that the former (0x123 == 0x0123) is
the better way to interpret this ambiguity. Extra information (for
example, specifying 0x0123 or 0x1230, or specifying that this is only
a twelve-bit number) would solve this problem.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
2.3.5 Identity Extension
The Identity extension contains endpoint identities. This
information is used by key management to select the identity
certificate that is used in negotiations. This information may also
be provided by a kernel to network security aware applications to
identify the remote entity, possibly for access control purposes. If
this extension is not present, key management MUST assume that the
addresses in the Address extension are the only identities for this
Security Association. The Identity extension looks like:
struct sadb_ident {
uint16_t sadb_ident_len;
uint16_t sadb_ident_exttype;
uint16_t sadb_ident_type;
uint16_t sadb_ident_reserved;
uint64_t sadb_ident_id;
};
/* sizeof(struct sadb_ident) == 16 */
/* followed by the identity string, if present */
sadb_ident_type The type of identity information that follows.
Currently defined identity types are described later
in this document.
sadb_ident_id An identifier used to aid in the construction of an
identity string if none is present. A POSIX user id
value is one such identifier that will be used in this
field. Use of this field is described later in this
document.
A C string containing a textual representation of the identity
information optionally follows the sadb_ident extension. The format
of this string is determined by the value in sadb_ident_type, and is
described later in this document.
2.3.6 Sensitivity Extension
The Sensitivity extension contains security labeling information for
a security association. If this extension is not present, no
sensitivity-related data can be obtained from this security
association. If this extension is present, then the need for
explicit security labeling on the packet is obviated.
struct sadb_sens {
uint16_t sadb_sens_len;
uint16_t sadb_sens_exttype;
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
uint32_t sadb_sens_dpd;
uint8_t sadb_sens_sens_level;
uint8_t sadb_sens_sens_len;
uint8_t sadb_sens_integ_level;
uint8_t sadb_sens_integ_len;
uint32_t sadb_sens_reserved;
};
/* sizeof(struct sadb_sens) == 16 */
/* followed by:
uint64_t sadb_sens_bitmap[sens_len];
uint64_t sadb_integ_bitmap[integ_len]; */
sadb_sens_dpd Describes the protection domain, which allows
interpretation of the levels and compartment
bitmaps.
sadb_sens_sens_level
The sensitivity level.
sadb_sens_sens_len
The length, in 64 bit words, of the sensitivity
bitmap.
sadb_sens_integ_level
The integrity level.
sadb_sens_integ_len
The length, in 64 bit words, of the integrity
bitmap.
This sensitivity extension is designed to support the Bell-LaPadula
[BL74] security model used in compartmented-mode or multi-level
secure systems, the Clark-Wilson [CW87] commercial security model,
and/or the Biba integrity model [Biba77]. These formal models can be
used to implement a wide variety of security policies. The definition
of a particular security policy is outside the scope of this
document. Each of the bitmaps MUST be padded to a 64-bit boundary if
they are not implicitly 64-bit aligned.
2.3.7 Proposal Extension
The Proposal extension contains a "proposed situation" of algorithm
preferences. It looks like:
struct sadb_prop {
uint16_t sadb_prop_len;
uint16_t sadb_prop_exttype;
uint8_t sadb_prop_replay;
uint8_t sadb_prop_reserved[3];
};
/* sizeof(struct sadb_prop) == 8 */
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 22]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
/* followed by:
struct sadb_comb sadb_combs[(sadb_prop_len *
sizeof(uint64_t) - sizeof(struct sadb_prop)) /
sizeof(struct sadb_comb)]; */
Following the header is a list of proposed parameter combinations in
preferential order. The values in these fields have the same
definition as the fields those values will move into if the
combination is chosen.
NOTE: Some algorithms in some security protocols will have
variable IV lengths per algorithm. Variable length IVs
are not supported by PF_KEY v2. If they were, however,
proposed IV lengths would go in the Proposal Extension.
These combinations look like:
struct sadb_comb {
uint8_t sadb_comb_auth;
uint8_t sadb_comb_encrypt;
uint16_t sadb_comb_flags;
uint16_t sadb_comb_auth_minbits;
uint16_t sadb_comb_auth_maxbits;
uint16_t sadb_comb_encrypt_minbits;
uint16_t sadb_comb_encrypt_maxbits;
uint32_t sadb_comb_reserved;
uint32_t sadb_comb_soft_allocations;
uint32_t sadb_comb_hard_allocations;
uint64_t sadb_comb_soft_bytes;
uint64_t sadb_comb_hard_bytes;
uint64_t sadb_comb_soft_addtime;
uint64_t sadb_comb_hard_addtime;
uint64_t sadb_comb_soft_usetime;
uint64_t sadb_comb_hard_usetime;
};
/* sizeof(struct sadb_comb) == 72 */
sadb_comb_auth If this combination is accepted, this will be the
value of sadb_sa_auth.
sadb_comb_encrypt
If this combination is accepted, this will be the
value of sadb_sa_encrypt.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 23]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
sadb_comb_auth_minbits;
sadb_comb_auth_maxbits;
The minimum and maximum acceptable authentication
key lengths, respectably, in bits. If sadb_comb_auth
is zero, both of these values MUST be zero. If
sadb_comb_auth is nonzero, both of these values MUST
be nonzero. If this combination is accepted, a value
between these (inclusive) will be stored in the
sadb_key_bits field of KEY_AUTH. The minimum MUST
NOT be greater than the maximum.
sadb_comb_encrypt_minbits;
sadb_comb_encrypt_maxbits;
The minimum and maximum acceptable encryption key
lengths, respectably, in bits. If sadb_comb_encrypt
is zero, both of these values MUST be zero. If
sadb_comb_encrypt is nonzero, both of these values
MUST be nonzero. If this combination is accepted, a
value between these (inclusive) will be stored in
the sadb_key_bits field of KEY_ENCRYPT. The minimum
MUST NOT be greater than the maximum.
sadb_comb_soft_allocations
sadb_comb_hard_allocations
If this combination is accepted, these are proposed
values of sadb_lifetime_allocations in the SOFT and
HARD lifetimes, respectively.
sadb_comb_soft_bytes
sadb_comb_hard_bytes
If this combination is accepted, these are proposed
values of sadb_lifetime_bytes in the SOFT and HARD
lifetimes, respectively.
sadb_comb_soft_addtime
sadb_comb_hard_addtime
If this combination is accepted, these are proposed
values of sadb_lifetime_addtime in the SOFT and HARD
lifetimes, respectively.
sadb_comb_soft_usetime
sadb_comb_hard_usetime
If this combination is accepted, these are proposed
values of sadb_lifetime_usetime in the SOFT and HARD
lifetimes, respectively.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 24]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
Each combination has an authentication and encryption algorithm,
which may be 0, indicating none. A combination's flags are the same
as the flags in the Association extension. The minimum and maximum
key lengths (which are in bits) are derived from possible a priori
policy decisions, along with basic properties of the algorithm.
Lifetime attributes are also included in a combination, as some
algorithms may know something about their lifetimes and can suggest
lifetime limits.
2.3.8 Supported Algorithms Extension
The Supported Algorithms extension contains a list of all algorithms
supported by the system. This tells key management what algorithms it
can negotiate. Available authentication algorithms are listed in the
SUPPORTED_AUTH extension and available encryption algorithms are
listed in the SUPPORTED_ENCRYPT extension. The format of these
extensions is:
struct sadb_supported {
uint16_t sadb_supported_len;
uint16_t sadb_supported_exttype;
uint32_t sadb_supported_reserved;
};
/* sizeof(struct sadb_supported) == 8 */
/* followed by:
struct sadb_alg sadb_algs[(sadb_supported_len *
sizeof(uint64_t) - sizeof(struct sadb_supported)) /
sizeof(struct sadb_alg)]; */
This header is followed by one or more algorithm descriptions. An
algorithm description looks like:
struct sadb_alg {
uint8_t sadb_alg_id;
uint8_t sadb_alg_ivlen;
uint16_t sadb_alg_minbits;
uint16_t sadb_alg_maxbits;
uint16_t sadb_alg_reserved;
};
/* sizeof(struct sadb_alg) == 8 */
sadb_alg_id The algorithm identification value for this
algorithm. This is the value that is stored in
sadb_sa_auth or sadb_sa_encrypt if this algorithm is
selected.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 25]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
sadb_alg_ivlen The length of the initialization vector to be used
for the algorithm. If an IV is not needed, this
value MUST be set to zero.
sadb_alg_minbits
The minimum acceptable key length, in bits. A value
of zero is invalid.
sadb_alg_maxbits
The maximum acceptable key length, in bits. A value
of zero is invalid. The minimum MUST NOT be greater
than the maximum.
2.3.9 SPI Range Extension
One PF_KEY message, SADB_GETSPI, might need a range of acceptable SPI
values. This extension performs such a function.
struct sadb_spirange {
uint16_t sadb_spirange_len;
uint16_t sadb_spirange_exttype;
uint32_t sadb_spirange_min;
uint32_t sadb_spirange_max;
uint32_t sadb_spirange_reserved;
};
/* sizeof(struct sadb_spirange) == 16 */
sadb_spirange_min
The minimum acceptable SPI value.
sadb_spirange_max
The maximum acceptable SPI value. The maximum MUST
be greater than or equal to the minimum.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 26]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
2.4 Illustration of Message Layout
The following shows how the octets are laid out in a PF_KEY message.
Optional fields are indicated as such.
The base header is as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| ...version | sadb_msg_type | sadb_msg_errno| ...msg_satype |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_msg_len | sadb_msg_reserved |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_msg_seq |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_msg_pid |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
The base header may be followed by one or more of the following
extension fields, depending on the values of various base header
fields. The following fields are ordered such that if they appear,
they SHOULD appear in the order presented below.
An extension field MUST not be repeated. If there is a situation
where an extension MUST be repeated, it should be brought to the
attention of the authors.
The Association extension
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_sa_len | sadb_sa_exttype |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_sa_spi |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| ...replay | sadb_sa_state | sadb_sa_auth |sadb_sa_encrypt|
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_sa_flags |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
The Lifetime extension
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_lifetime_len | sadb_lifetime_exttype |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_lifetime_allocations |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 27]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_lifetime_bytes |
| (64 bits) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_lifetime_addtime |
| (64 bits) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_lifetime_usetime |
| (64 bits) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
The Address extension
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_address_len | sadb_address_exttype |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| _address_proto| ..._prefixlen | sadb_address_reserved |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> Some form of 64-bit aligned struct sockaddr goes here. <
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
The Key extension
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_key_len | sadb_key_exttype |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_key_bits | sadb_key_reserved |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> A key, padded to 64-bits, most significant bits to least. >
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
The Identity extension
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_ident_len | sadb_ident_exttype |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_ident_type | sadb_ident_reserved |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_ident_id |
| (64 bits) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> A null-terminated C-string which MUST be padded out for >
< 64-bit alignment. <
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 28]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
The Sensitivity extension
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_sens_len | sadb_sens_exttype |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_sens_dpd |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| ...sens_level | ...sens_len |..._integ_level| ..integ_len |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_sens_reserved |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> The sensitivity bitmap, followed immediately by the <
< integrity bitmap, each is an array of uint64_t. >
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
The Proposal extension
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_prop_len | sadb_prop_exttype |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
|...prop_replay | sadb_prop_reserved |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> One or more combinations, specified as follows... <
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Combination
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
|sadb_comb_auth |sadb_comb_encr | sadb_comb_flags |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_comb_auth_minbits | sadb_comb_auth_maxbits |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_comb_encrypt_minbits | sadb_comb_encrypt_maxbits |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_comb_reserved |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_comb_soft_allocations |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_comb_hard_allocations |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_comb_soft_bytes |
| (64 bits) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_comb_hard_bytes |
| (64 bits) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_comb_soft_addtime |
| (64 bits) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 29]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_comb_hard_addtime |
| (64 bits) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_comb_soft_usetime |
| (64 bits) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_comb_hard_usetime |
| (64 bits) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
The Supported Algorithms extension
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_supported_len | sadb_supported_exttype |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_supported_reserved |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Followed by one or more Algorithm Descriptors
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_alg_id | sadb_alg_ivlen| sadb_alg_minbits |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_alg_maxbits | sadb_alg_reserved |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
The SPI Range extension
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_spirange_len | sadb_spirange_exttype |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_spirange_min |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_spirange_max |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| sadb_spirange_reserved |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
3 Symbolic Names
This section defines various symbols used with PF_KEY and the
semantics associated with each symbol. Applications MUST use the
symbolic names in order to be portable. The numeric definitions
shown are for illustrative purposes, unless explicitly stated
otherwise. The numeric definition MAY vary on other systems. The
symbolic name MUST be kept the same for all conforming
implementations.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 30]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
3.1 Message Types
The following message types are used with PF_KEY. These are defined
in the file .
#define SADB_RESERVED 0
#define SADB_GETSPI 1
#define SADB_UPDATE 2
#define SADB_ADD 3
#define SADB_DELETE 4
#define SADB_GET 5
#define SADB_ACQUIRE 6
#define SADB_REGISTER 7
#define SADB_EXPIRE 8
#define SADB_FLUSH 9
#define SADB_DUMP 10 /* not used normally */
#define SADB_MAX 10
Each message has a behavior. A behavior is defined as where the
initial message travels (e.g. user to kernel), and what subsequent
actions are expected to take place. Contents of messages are
illustrated as:
The SA extension is sometimes used only for its SPI field. If all
other fields MUST be ignored, this is represented by "SA(*)".
The lifetime extensions are represented with one to three letters
after the word "lifetime," representing (H)ARD, (S)OFT, and
(C)URRENT.
The address extensions are represented with one to three letters
after the word "address," representing (S)RC, (D)ST, (P)ROXY.
NOTE: Some security association types do not use a source
address for SA identification, where others do. This may
cause EEXIST errors for some SA types where others do not
report collisions. It is expected that application
authors know enough about the underlying security
association types to understand these differences.
The key extensions are represented with one or two letters after the
word "key," representing (A)UTH and (E)NCRYPT.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 31]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
The identity extensions are represented with one or two letters after
the word "identity," representing (S)RC and (D)ST.
In the case of an error, only the base header is returned.
Note that any standard error could be returned for any message.
Typically, they will be either one of the errors specifically listed
in the description for a message or one of the following:
EINVAL Various message improprieties, including SPI ranges
that are malformed.
ENOMEM Needed memory was not available.
ENOBUFS Needed memory was not available.
EMSGSIZ The message exceeds the maximum length allowed.
3.1.1 SADB_GETSPI
The SADB_GETSPI message allows a process to obtain a unique SPI value
for given security association type, source address, and destination
address. This message followed by an SADB_UPDATE is one way to
create a security association (SADB_ADD is the other method). The
process specifies the type in the base header, the source and
destination address in address extension. If the SADB_GETSPI message
is in response to a kernel-generated SADB_ACQUIRE, the sadb_msg_seq
MUST be the same as the SADB_ACQUIRE message. The application may
also specify the SPI. This is done by having the kernel select
within a range of SPI values by using the SPI range extension. To
specify a single SPI value to be verified, the application sets the
high and low values to be equal. Permitting range specification is
important because the kernel can allocate an SPI value based on what
it knows about SPI values already in use. The kernel returns the
same message with the allocated SPI value stored in the spi field of
an association extension. The allocate SPI (and destination address)
refer to a LARVAL security association. An SADB_UPDATE message can
later be used to add an entry with the requested SPI value.
It is recommended that associations that are created with SADB_GETSPI
SHOULD be automatically deleted within a fixed amount of time if they
are not updated by an SADB_UPDATE message. This allows SA storage
not to get cluttered with larval associations.
The message behavior of the SADB_GETSPI message is:
Send an SADB_GETSPI message from a user process to the kernel.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 32]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
The kernel returns the SADB_GETSPI message to all listening
processes.
Errors:
EEXIST Requested SPI or SPI range is not available or already
used.
3.1.2 SADB_UPDATE Message
The SADB_UPDATE message allows a process to update the information in
an existing Security Association. Since SADB_GETSPI does not allow
setting of certain parameters, this message is needed to fully form
the SADB_SASTATE_LARVAL security association created with
SADB_GETSPI. The format of the update message is a base header,
followed by an association header and possibly by several extension
headers. The kernel searches for the security association with the
same type, spi, source address and destination address specified in
the message and updates the Security Association information using
the content of the SADB_UPDATE message.
The kernel MAY disallow SADB_UPDATE to succeed unless the message is
issued from the same socket that created the security association.
Such enforcement significantly reduces the chance of accidental
changes to an in-use security association. Malicious trusted parties
could still issue an SADB_FLUSH or SADB_DELETE message, but deletion
of associations is more easily detected and less likely to occur
accidentally than an erroneous SADB_UPDATE. The counter argument to
supporting this behavior involves the case where a user-space key
management application fails and is restarted. The new instance of
the application will not have the same socket as the creator of the
security association.
The kernel MUST sanity check all significant values submitted in an
SADB_UPDATE message before changing the SA in its database and MUST
return EINVAL if any of the values are invalid. Examples of checks
that should be performed are DES key parity bits, key length
checking, checks for keys known to be weak for the specified
algorithm, and checks for flags or parameters known to be
incompatible with the specified algorithm.
Only SADB_SASTATE_MATURE SAs may be submitted in an SADB_UPDATE
message. If the original SA is an SADB_SASTATE_LARVAL SA, then any
value in the SA may be changed except for the source address,
destination address, and SPI. If the original SA is an
SADB_SASTATE_DEAD SA, any attempt to perform an SADB_UPDATE on the SA
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 33]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
MUST return EINVAL. It is not valid for established keying or
algorithm information to change without the SPI changing, which would
require creation of a new SA rather than a change to an existing SA.
Once keying and algorithm information is negotiated, address and
identity information is fixed for the SA. Therefore, if the original
SA is an SADB_SASTATE_MATURE or DYING SA, only the sadb_sa_state
field in the SA header and lifetimes (hard, soft, and current) may be
changed and any attempt to change other values MUST result in an
error return of EINVAL.
The message behavior of the SADB_UPDATE message is:
Send an SADB_UPDATE message from a user process to the kernel.
The kernel returns the SADB_UPDATE message to all listening
processes.
The keying material is not returned on the message from the kernel to
listening sockets because listeners might not have the privileges to
see such keying material.
Errors:
ESRCH The security association to be updated was not found.
EINVAL In addition to other possible causes, this error is
returned if sanity checking on the SA values (such
as the keys) fails.
EACCES Insufficient privilege to update entry. The socket
issuing the SADB_UPDATE is not creator of the entry
to be updated.
3.1.3 SADB_ADD
The SADB_ADD message is nearly identical to the SADB_UPDATE message,
except that it does not require a previous call to SADB_GETSPI. The
SADB_ADD message is used in manual keying applications, and in other
cases where the uniqueness of the SPI is known immediately.
An SADB_ADD message is also used when negotiation is finished, and
the second of a pair of associations is added. The SPI for this
association was determined by the peer machine. The sadb_msg_seq
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 34]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
MUST be set to the value set in a kernel-generated SADB_ACQUIRE so
that both associations in a pair are bound to the same ACQUIRE
request.
The kernel MUST sanity check all used fields in the SA submitted in
an SADB_ADD message before adding the SA to its database and MUST
return EINVAL if any of the values are invalid.
Only SADB_SASTATE_MATURE SAs may be submitted in an SADB_ADD message.
SADB_SASTATE_LARVAL SAs are created by SADB_GETSPI and it is not
sensible to add a new SA in the DYING or SADB_SASTATE_DEAD state.
Therefore, the sadb_sa_state field of all submitted SAs MUST be
SADB_SASTATE_MATURE and the kernel MUST return an error if this is
not true.
The message behavior of the SADB_ADD message is:
Send an SADB_ADD message from a user process to the kernel.
The kernel returns the SADB_ADD message to all listening
processes.
The keying material is not returned on the message from the kernel to
listening sockets because listeners may not have the privileges to
see such keying material.
Errors:
EEXIST The security association that was to be added already
exists.
EINVAL In addition to other possible causes, this error is
returned if sanity checking on the SA values (such
as the keys) fails.
3.1.4 SADB_DELETE
The SADB_DELETE message causes the kernel to delete a Security
Association from the key table. The delete message consists of the
base header followed by the association, and the source and
destination sockaddrs in the address extension. The kernel deletes
the security association matching the type, spi, source address, and
destination address in the message.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 35]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
The message behavior for SADB_DELETE is as follows:
Send an SADB_DELETE message from a user process to the kernel.
The kernel returns the SADB_DELETE message to all listening
processes.
3.1.5 SADB_GET
The SADB_GET message allows a process to retrieve a copy of a
Security Association from the kernel's key table. The get message
consists of the base header follows by the relevant extension fields.
The Security Association matching the type, spi, source address, and
destination address is returned.
The message behavior of the SADB_GET message is:
Send an SADB_GET message from a user process to the kernel.
The kernel returns the SADB_GET message to the socket that sent
the SADB_GET message.
Errors:
ESRCH The sought security association was not found.
3.1.6 SADB_ACQUIRE
The SADB_ACQUIRE message is typically sent only by the kernel to key
socket listeners who have registered their key socket (see
SADB_REGISTER message). SADB_ACQUIRE messages can be sent by
application-level consumers of security associations (such as an
OSPFv2 implementation that uses OSPF security). The SADB_ACQUIRE
message is a base header along with an address extension, possibly an
identity extension, and a proposal extension. The proposed situation
contains a list of desirable algorithms that can be used if the
algorithms in the base header are not available. The values for the
fields in the base header and in the security association data which
follows the base header indicate the properties of the Security
Association that the listening process should attempt to acquire. If
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 36]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
the message originates from the kernel (i.e. the sadb_msg_pid is 0),
the sadb_msg_seq number MUST be used by a subsequent SADB_GETSPI and
SADB_UPDATE, or subsequent SADB_ADD message to bind a security
association to the request. This avoids the race condition of two
TCP connections between two IP hosts that each require unique
associations, and having one steal another's security association.
The sadb_msg_errno and sadb_msg_state fields should be ignored by the
listening process.
The SADB_ACQUIRE message is typically triggered by an outbound packet
that needs security but for which there is no applicable Security
Association existing in the key table. If the packet can be
sufficiently protected by more than one algorithm or combination of
options, the SADB_ACQUIRE message MUST order the preference of
possibilities in the Proposal extension.
There are three messaging behaviors for SADB_ACQUIRE. The first is
where the kernel needs a security association (e.g. for IPsec).
The kernel sends an SADB_ACQUIRE message to registered sockets.
NOTE: The address(SD) extensions MUST have the port fields
filled in with the port numbers of the session requiring
keys if appropriate.
The second is when, for some reason, key management fails, it can
send an ACQUIRE message with the same sadb_msg_seq as the initial
ACQUIRE with a non-zero errno.
Send an SADB_ACQUIRE to indicate key management failure.
The third is where an application-layer consumer of security
associations (e.g. an OSPFv2 or RIPv2 daemon) needs a security
association.
Send an SADB_ACQUIRE message from a user process to the kernel.
The kernel returns an SADB_ACQUIRE message to registered
sockets.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 37]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
The user-level consumer waits for an SADB_UPDATE or SADB_ADD
message for its particular type, and then can use that
association by using SADB_GET messages.
Errors:
EINVAL Invalid acquire request.
EPROTONOSUPPORT No KM application has registered with the Key
Engine as being able to obtain the requested SA type, so
the requested SA cannot be acquired.
3.1.7 SADB_REGISTER
The SADB_REGISTER message allows an application to register its key
socket as able to acquire new security associations for the kernel.
SADB_REGISTER allows a socket to receive SADB_ACQUIRE messages for
the type of security association specified in sadb_msg_satype. The
application specifies the type of security association that it can
acquire for the kernel in the type field of its register message. If
an application can acquire multiple types of security association, it
MUST register each type in a separate message. Only the base header
is needed for the register message. Key management applications MAY
register for a type not known to the kernel, because the consumer may
be in user-space (e.g. OSPFv2 security).
The reply of the SADB_REGISTER message contains a supported algorithm
extension. That field contains an array of supported algorithms, one
per octet. This allows key management applications to know what
algorithm are supported by the kernel.
In an environment where algorithms can be dynamically loaded and
unloaded, an asynchronous SADB_REGISTER reply MAY be generated. The
list of supported algorithms MUST be a complete list, so the
application can make note of omissions or additions.
The messaging behavior of the SADB_REGISTER message is:
Send an SADB_REGISTER message from a user process to the kernel.
The kernel returns an SADB_REGISTER message to registered
sockets, with algorithm types supported by the kernel being
indicated in the supported algorithms field.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 38]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
NOTE: This message may arrive asynchronously due to an
algorithm being loaded or unloaded into a dynamically
linked kernel.
3.1.8 SADB_EXPIRE Message
The operating system kernel is responsible for tracking SA
expirations for security protocols that are implemented inside the
kernel. If the soft limit or hard limit of a Security Association
has expired for a security protocol implemented inside the kernel,
then the kernel MUST issue an SADB_EXPIRE message to all key socket
listeners. If the soft limit or hard limit of a Security Association
for a user-level security protocol has expired, the user-level
protocol SHOULD issue an SADB_EXPIRE message.
The base header will contain the security association information
followed by the source sockaddr, destination sockaddr, (and, if
present, internal sockaddr,) (and, if present, one or both
compartment bitmaps).
The lifetime extension of an SADB_EXPIRE message is important to
indicate which lifetime expired. If a HARD lifetime extension is
included, it indicates that the HARD lifetime expired. This means
the association MAY be deleted already from the SADB. If a SOFT
lifetime extension is included, it indicates that the SOFT lifetime
expired. The CURRENT lifetime extension will indicate the current
status, and comparisons to the HARD or SOFT lifetime will indicate
which limit was reached. HARD lifetimes MUST take precedence over
SOFT lifetimes, meaning if the HARD and SOFT lifetimes are the same,
the HARD lifetime will appear on the EXPIRE message. The
pathological case of HARD lifetimes being shorter than SOFT lifetimes
is handled such that the SOFT lifetime will never expire.
The messaging behavior of the SADB_EXPIRE message is:
The kernel sends an SADB_EXPIRE message to all listeners when
the soft limit of a security association has been expired.
Note that the SADB_EXPIRE message is ONLY sent by the kernel to the
KMd. It is a one-way informational message that does not have a
reply.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 39]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
3.1.9 SADB_FLUSH
The SADB_FLUSH message causes the kernel to delete all entries in its
key table for a certain sadb_msg_satype. Only the base header is
required for a flush message. If sadb_msg_satype is filled in with a
specific value, only associations of that type are deleted. If it is
filled in with SADB_SATYPE_UNSPEC, ALL associations are deleted.
The messaging behavior for SADB_FLUSH is:
Send an SADB_FLUSH message from a user process to the kernel.
The kernel will return an SADB_FLUSH message to all listening
sockets.
The reply message happens only after the actual flushing
of security associations has been attempted.
3.1.10 SADB_DUMP
The SADB_DUMP message causes the kernel to dump the operating
system's entire Key Table to the requesting key socket. As in
SADB_FLUSH, if a sadb_msg_satype value is in the message, only
associations of that type will be dumped. If SADB_SATYPE_UNSPEC is
specified, all associations will be dumped. Each Security Association
is returned in its own SADB_DUMP message. A SADB_DUMP message with a
sadb_seq field of zero indicates the end of the dump transaction. The
dump message is used for debugging purposes only and is not intended
for production use.
Support for the dump message MAY be discontinued in future versions
of PF_KEY. Key management applications MUST NOT depend on this
message for basic operation.
The messaging behavior for SADB_DUMP is:
Send an SADB_DUMP message from a user process to the kernel.
Several SADB_DUMP messages will return from the kernel to the
sending socket.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 40]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
3.2 Security Association Flags
The Security Association's flags are a bitmask field. These flags
also appear in a combination that is part of a PROPOSAL extension.
The related symbolic definitions below should be used in order that
applications will be portable:
#define SADB_SAFLAGS_PFS 1 /* perfect forward secrecy */
The SADB_SAFLAGS_PFS flag indicates to key management that this
association should have perfect forward secrecy in its key. (In
other words, any given session key cannot be determined by
cryptanalysis of previous session keys or some master key.)
3.3 Security Association States
The security association state field is an integer that describes the
states of a security association. They are:
#define SADB_SASTATE_LARVAL 0
#define SADB_SASTATE_MATURE 1
#define SADB_SASTATE_DYING 2
#define SADB_SASTATE_DEAD 3
#define SADB_SASTATE_MAX 3
A SADB_SASTATE_LARVAL security association is one that was created by
the SADB_GETSPI message. A SADB_SASTATE_MATURE association is one
that was updated with the SADB_UPDATE message or added with the
SADB_ADD message. A DYING association is one whose soft lifetime has
expired. A SADB_SASTATE_DEAD association is one whose hard lifetime
has expired, but hasn't been reaped by system garbage collection. If
a consumer of security associations has to extend an association
beyond its normal lifetime (e.g. OSPF Security) it MUST only set the
soft lifetime for an association.
3.4 Security Association Types
This defines the type of Security Association in this message. The
symbolic names are always the same, even on different
implementations. Applications SHOULD use the symbolic name in order
to have maximum portability across different implementations. These
are defined in the file .
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 41]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
#define SADB_SATYPE_UNSPEC 0
#define SADB_SATYPE_AH 2 /* RFC-1826 */
#define SADB_SATYPE_ESP 3 /* RFC-1827 */
#define SADB_SATYPE_RSVP 5 /* RSVP Authentication */
#define SADB_SATYPE_OSPFV2 6 /* OSPFv2 Authentication */
#define SADB_SATYPE_RIPV2 7 /* RIPv2 Authentication */
#define SADB_SATYPE_MIP 8 /* Mobile IP Auth. */
#define SADB_SATYPE_MAX 8
SADB_SATYPE_UNSPEC is defined for completeness and means no specific
type of security association. This type is never used with PF_KEY
SAs.
SADB_SATYPE_AH is for the IP Authentication Header [Atk95b].
SADB_SATYPE_ESP is for the IP Encapsulating Security Payload
[Atk95c].
SADB_SATYPE_RSVP is for the RSVP Integrity Object.
SADB_SATYPE_OSPFV2 is for OSPFv2 Cryptographic authentication
[Moy98].
SADB_SATYPE_RIPV2 is for RIPv2 Cryptographic authentication [BA97].
SADB_SATYPE_MIP is for Mobile IP's authentication extensions [Per97].
SADB_SATYPE_MAX is always set to the highest valid numeric value.
3.5 Algorithm Types
The algorithm type is interpreted in the context of the Security
Association type defined above. The numeric value might vary between
implementations, but the symbolic name MUST NOT vary between
implementations. Applications should use the symbolic name in order
to have maximum portability to various implementations.
Some of the algorithm types defined below might not be standardized
or might be deprecated in the future. To obtain an assignment for a
symbolic name, contact the authors.
The symbols below are defined in .
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 42]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
/* Authentication algorithms */
#define SADB_AALG_NONE 0
#define SADB_AALG_MD5HMAC 2
#define SADB_AALG_SHA1HMAC 3
#define SADB_AALG_MAX 3
/* Encryption algorithms */
#define SADB_EALG_NONE 0
#define SADB_EALG_DESCBC 2
#define SADB_EALG_3DESCBC 3
#define SADB_EALG_NULL 11
#define SADB_EALG_MAX 11
The algorithm for SADB_AALG_MD5_HMAC is defined in [MG98a]. The
algorithm for SADB_AALG_SHA1HMAC is defined in [MG98b]. The
algorithm for SADB_EALG_DESCBC is defined in [MD98]. SADB_EALG_NULL
is the NULL encryption algorithm, defined in [GK98]. The
SADB_EALG_NONE value is not to be used in any security association
except those which have no possible encryption algorithm in them
(e.g. IPsec AH).
3.6 Extension Header Values
To briefly recap the extension header values:
#define SADB_EXT_RESERVED 0
#define SADB_EXT_SA 1
#define SADB_EXT_LIFETIME_CURRENT 2
#define SADB_EXT_LIFETIME_HARD 3
#define SADB_EXT_LIFETIME_SOFT 4
#define SADB_EXT_ADDRESS_SRC 5
#define SADB_EXT_ADDRESS_DST 6
#define SADB_EXT_ADDRESS_PROXY 7
#define SADB_EXT_KEY_AUTH 8
#define SADB_EXT_KEY_ENCRYPT 9
#define SADB_EXT_IDENTITY_SRC 10
#define SADB_EXT_IDENTITY_DST 11
#define SADB_EXT_SENSITIVITY 12
#define SADB_EXT_PROPOSAL 13
#define SADB_EXT_SUPPORTED_AUTH 14
#define SADB_EXT_SUPPORTED_ENCRYPT 15
#define SADB_EXT_SPIRANGE 16
#define SADB_EXT_MAX 16
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 43]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
3.7 Identity Extension Values
Each identity can have a certain type.
#define SADB_IDENTTYPE_RESERVED 0
#define SADB_IDENTTYPE_PREFIX 1
#define SADB_IDENTTYPE_FQDN 2
#define SADB_IDENTTYPE_USERFQDN 3
#define SADB_IDENTTYPE_MAX 3
The PREFIX identity string consists of a network address followed by a
forward slash and a prefix length. The network address is in a
printable numeric form appropriate for the protocol family. The
prefix length is a decimal number greater than or equal to zero and
less than the number of bits in the network address. It indicates the
number of bits in the network address that are significant; all bits
in the network address that are not significant MUST be set to zero.
Note that implementations MUST parse the contents of the printable
address into a binary form for comparison purposes because multiple
printable strings are valid representations of the same address in
many protocol families (for example, some allow leading zeros and some
have letters that are case insensitive). Examples of PREFIX identities
are "199.33.248.64/27" and "3ffe::1/128". If the source or destination
identity is a PREFIX identity, the source or destination address for
the SA (respectively) MUST be within that prefix. The sadb_ident_id
field is zeroed for these identity types.
The FQDN identity string contains a fully qualified domain name. An
example FQDN identity is "ministry-of-truth.inner.net". The
sadb_ident_id field is zeroed for these identity types.
The UserFQDN identity consists of a text string in the format commonly
used for Internet-standard electronic mail. The syntax is the text
username, followed by the "@" character, followed in turn by the
appropriate fully qualified domain name. This identity specifies both
a username and an associated FQDN. There is no requirement that this
string specify a mailbox valid for SMTP or other electronic mail
use. This identity is useful with protocols supporting user-oriented
keying. It is a convenient identity form because the DNS Security
extensions can be used to distribute signed public key values by
associating KEY and SIG records with an appropriate MB DNS record. An
example UserFQDN identity is "julia@ministry-of-love.inner.net". The
sadb_ident_id field is used to contain a POSIX user id in the absence
of an identity string itself so that a user-level application can use
the getpwuid{,_r}() routine to obtain a textual user login id. If a
string is present, it SHOULD match the numeric value in the
sadb_ident_id field. If it does not match, the string SHOULD override
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 44]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
the numeric value.
3.8 Sensitivity Extension Values
The only field currently defined in the sensitivity extension is the
sadb_sens_dpd, which represents the data protection domain. The other
data in the sensitivity extension is based off the sadb_sens_dpd
value.
The DP/DOI is defined to be the same as the "Labeled Domain Identifier
Value" of the IP Security DOI specification [Pip98]. As noted in that
specification, values in the range 0x80000000 to 0xffffffff
(inclusive) are reserved for private use and values in the range
0x00000001 through 0x7fffffff are assigned by IANA. The all-zeros
DP/DOI value is permanently reserved to mean that "no DP/DOI is in
use".
3.9 Proposal Extension Values
These are already mentioned in the Algorithm Types and Security
Association Flags sections.
4 Future Directions
While the current specification for the Sensitivity and Integrity
Labels is believed to be general enough, if a case should arise that
can't work with the current specification then this might cause a
change in a future version of PF_KEY.
Similarly, PF_KEY might need extensions to work with other kinds of
Security Associations in future. It is strongly desirable for such
extensions to be made in a backwards-compatible manner should they be
needed.
When more experience is gained with certificate management, it is
possible that the IDENTITY extension will have to be revisited to
allow a finer grained selection of certificate identities.
5. Examples
The following examples illustrate how PF_KEY is used. The first
example is an IP Security example, where the consumer of the security
associations is inside an operating system kernel. The second example
is an OSPF Security example, which illustrates a user-level consumer
of security associations. The third example covers things not
mentioned by the first two examples. A real system may closely
conform to one of these examples, or take parts of them. These
examples are purely illustrative, and are not intended to mandate a
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 45]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
particular implementation method.
5.1 Simple IP Security Example
+---------------+ +-------------+
|Key Mgmt Daemon| | Application |
+---------------+ +-------------+
| | /
| | /
| | | Applications
======[PF_KEY]====[PF_INET]==========================
| | | OS Kernel
+------------+ +-----------------+
| Key Engine | | TCP/IP, |
| or SADB |---| including IPsec |
+------------+ | |
+-----------------+
When the Key Management daemon (KMd) begins. It must tell PF_KEY
that it is willing to accept message for the two IPsec services, AH
and ESP. It does this by sending down two SADB_REGISTER messages.
KMd->Kernel: SADB_REGISTER for ESP
Kernel->Registered: SADB_REGISTER for ESP, Supported Algorithms
KMd->Kernel: SADB_REGISTER for AH
Kernel->Registered: SADB_REGISTER for AH, Supported Algorithms
Each REGISTER message will cause a reply to go to all PF_KEY sockets
registered for ESP and AH respectively (including the requester).
Assume that no security associations currently exist for IPsec to
use. Consider when a network application begins transmitting data
(e.g. a TCP SYN). Because of policy, or the application's request,
the kernel IPsec module needs an AH security association for this
data. Since there is not one present, the following message is
generated:
Kernel->Registered: SADB_ACQUIRE for AH, addrs, ID, sens,
proposals
The KMd reads the ACQUIRE message, especially the sadb_msg_seq
number. Before it begins the negotiation, it sends down an
SADB_GETSPI message with the sadb_msg_seq number equal to the one
received in the ACQUIRE. The kernel returns the results of the
GETSPI to all listening sockets.
KMd->Kernel: SADB_GETSPI for AH, addr, SPI range
Kernel->All: SADB_GETSPI for AH, assoc, addrs
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 46]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
The KMd may perform a second GETSPI operation if it needs both
directions of IPsec SPI values. Now that the KMd has an SPI for at
least one of the security associations, it begins negotiation. After
deriving keying material, and negotiating other parameters, it sends
down one (or more) SADB_UPDATE messages with the same value in
sadb_msg_seq.
If a KMd has any error at all during its negotiation, it can send
down:
KMd->Kernel: SADB_ACQUIRE for AH, assoc (with an error)
Kernel->All: SADB_ACQUIRE for AH, assoc (same error)
but if it succeeds, it can instead:
KMd->Kernel: SADB_UPDATE for AH, assoc, addrs, keys,
Kernel->All: SADB_UPDATE for AH, assoc, addrs,
The results of the UPDATE (minus the actual keys) are sent to all
listening sockets. If only one SPI value was determined locally, the
other SPI (since IPsec SAs are unidirectional) must be added with an
SADB_ADD message.
KMd->Kernel: SADB_ADD for AH, assoc, addrs, keys,
Kernel->All: SADB_ADD for AH, assoc, addrs,
If one of the extensions passed down was a Lifetime extension, it is
possible at some point an SADB_EXPIRE message will arrive when one of
the lifetimes has expired.
Kernel->All: SADB_EXPIRE for AH, assoc, addrs,
Hard or Soft, Current,
The KMd can use this as a clue to begin negotiation, or, if it has
some say in policy, send an SADB_UPDATE down with a lifetime
extension.
5.2 Proxy IP Security Example
Many people are interested in using IP Security in a "proxy" or
"firewall" configuration in which an intermediate system provides
security services for "inside" hosts. In these environments, the
intermediate systems can use PF_KEY to communicate with key
management applications almost exactly as they would if they were the
actual endpoints. The messaging behavior of PF_KEY in these cases is
exactly the same as the previous example, but the address information
is slightly different.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 47]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
Consider this case:
A ========= B --------- C
Key:
A "outside" host that implements IPsec
B "firewall" that implements IPsec
C "inside" host that does not implement IPsec
=== IP_{A<->B} ESP [ IP_{A<->C} ULP ]
--- IP_{A<->C} ULP
A is a single system that wishes to communicate with the "inside"
system C. B is a "firewall" between C and the outside world that
will do ESP and tunneling on C's behalf. A discovers that it needs
to send traffic to C via B through methods not described here (Use of
the DNS' KX record might be one method for discovering this).
For packets that flow from left to right, A and B need an IPsec
Security Association with:
SA type of ESP tunnel-mode
Source Identity that dominates A (e.g. A's address)
Destination Identity that dominates B (e.g. B's address)
Source Address of A
Destination Address of B
For packets to flow from right to left, A and B need an IPsec
Security Association with:
SA type of ESP tunnel-mode
Source Identity that dominates C
Destination Identity that dominates A
Source Address of B
Destination Address of A
Proxy Address of C
For this second SA (for packets flowing from C towards A), node A
MUST verify that the inner source address is dominated by the Source
Identity for the SA used with those packets. If node A does not do
this, an adversary could forge packets with an arbitrary Source
Identity and defeat the packet origin protections provided by IPsec.
Now consider a slightly more complex case:
A_1 --| |-- D_1
|--- B ====== C ---|
A_2 --| |-- D_2
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 48]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
Key:
A_n "inside" host on net 1 that does not do IPsec.
B "firewall" for net 1 that supports IPsec.
C "firewall" for net 2 that supports IPsec.
D_n "inside" host on net 2 that does not do IPsec.
=== IP_{B<->C} ESP [ IP_{A<->C} ULP ]
--- IP_{A<->C} ULP
For A_1 to send a packet to D_1, B and C need an SA with:
SA Type of ESP
Source Identity that dominates A_1
Destination Identity that dominates C
Source Address of B
Destination Address of C
Proxy Address of A_1
For D_1 to send a packet to A_1, C and B need an SA with:
SA Type of ESP Tunnel-mode
Source Identity that dominates D_1
Destination Identity that dominates B
Source Address of C
Destination Address of B
Proxy Address of D_1
Note that A_2 and D_2 could be substituted for A_1 and D_1
(respectively) here; the association of an SA with a particular pair
of ends or group of those pairs is a policy decision on B and/or C
and not necessarily a function of key management. The same check of
the Source Identity against the inner source IP address MUST also be
performed in this case for the same reason.
For a more detailed discussion of the use of IP Security in complex
cases, please see [Atk97].
NOTE: The notion of identity domination might be unfamiliar. Let H
represent some node. Let Hn represent H's fully qualified domain
name. Let Ha represent the IP address of H. Let Hs represent the IP
subnet containing Ha. Let Hd represent a fully qualified domain
name that is a parent of the fully qualified domain name of H. Let
M be a UserFQDN identity that whose right-hand part is Hn or Ha.
Any of M, Hn, Ha, Hs, and Hd is considered to dominate H in the
example above. Hs dominates any node having an IP address within
the IP address range represented by Hs. Hd dominates any node
having a fully qualified domain name within underneath Hd.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 49]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
5.3 OSPF Security Example
+---------------+ +-------------+
|Key Mgmt Daemon| | OSPF daemon |
+---------------+ +-------------+
| | / / |
| /------|----+ / |
| / | +---+ | Applications
======[PF_KEY]====[PF_INET]===========[PF_ROUTE]================
| | | | OS Kernel
+------------+ +-----------------+ +---------+
| Key Engine | | TCP/IP, | | Routing |
| or SADB |---| including IPsec |--| Table |
+------------+ | | +---------+
+-----------------+
As in the previous examples, the KMd registers itself with the Key
Engine via PF_KEY. Even though the consumer of the security
associations is in user-space, the PF_KEY and Key Engine
implementation knows enough to store SAs and to relay messages.
When the OSPF daemon needs to communicate securely with its peers, it
would perform an SADB_GET message and retrieve the appropriate
association:
OSPFd->Kernel: SADB_GET of OSPF, assoc, addrs
Kernel->OSPFd: SADB_GET of OSPF, assoc, addrs, keys,
If this GET fails, the OSPFd may need to acquire a new security
association. This interaction is as follows:
OSPFd->Kernel: SADB_ACQUIRE of OSPF, addrs,
proposal
Kernel->Registered: SADB_ACQUIRE of OSPF,
The KMd sees this and performs actions similar to the previous
example. One difference, however, is that when the UPDATE message
comes back, the OSPFd will then perform a GET of the updated SA to
retrieve all of its parameters.
5.4 Miscellaneous
Some messages work well only in system maintenance programs, for
debugging, or for auditing. In a system panic situation, such as a
detected compromise, an SADB_FLUSH message should be issued for a
particular SA type, or for ALL SA types.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 50]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
Program->Kernel: SADB_FLUSH for ALL
Kernel->All: SADB_FLUSH for ALL
Some SAs may need to be explicitly deleted, either by a KMd, or by a
system maintenance program.
Program->Kernel: SADB_DELETE for AH, association, addrs
Kernel->All: SADB_DELETE for AH, association, addrs
Common usage of the SADB_DUMP message is discouraged. For debugging
purposes, however, it can be quite useful. The output of a DUMP
message should be read quickly, in order to avoid socket buffer
overflows.
Program->Kernel: SADB_DUMP for ESP
Kernel->Program: SADB_DUMP for ESP, association,
Kernel->Program: SADB_DUMP for ESP, association,
Kernel->Program: SADB_DUMP for ESP, association,
6 Security Considerations
This memo discusses a method for creating, reading, modifying, and
deleting Security Associations from an operating system. Only
trusted, privileged users and processes should be able to perform any
of these operations. It is unclear whether this mechanism provides
any security when used with operating systems not having the concept
of a trusted, privileged user.
If an unprivileged user is able to perform any of these operations,
then the operating system cannot actually provide the related
security services. If an adversary knows the keys and algorithms in
use, then cryptography cannot provide any form of protection.
This mechanism is not a panacea, but it does provide an important
operating system component that can be useful in creating a secure
internetwork.
Users need to understand that the quality of the security provided by
an implementation of this specification depends completely upon the
overall security of the operating system, the correctness of the
PF_KEY implementation, and upon the security and correctness of the
applications that connect to PF_KEY. It is appropriate to use high
assurance development techniques when implementing PF_KEY and the
related security association components of the operating system.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 51]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
Acknowledgments
The authors of this document are listed primarily in alphabetical
order. Randall Atkinson and Ron Lee provided useful feedback on
earlier versions of this document.
At one time or other, all of the authors worked at the Center for
High Assurance Computer Systems at the U.S. Naval Research
Laboratory. This work was sponsored by the Information Security
Program Office (PMW-161), U.S. Space and Naval Warfare Systems
Command (SPAWAR) and the Computing Systems Technology Office, Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA/CSTO). We really appreciate
their sponsorship of our efforts and their continued support of
PF_KEY development. Without that support, PF_KEY would not exist.
The "CONFORMANCE and COMPLIANCE" wording was taken from [MSST98].
Finally, the authors would like to thank those who sent in comments
and questions on the various iterations of this document. This
specification and implementations of it are discussed on the PF_KEY
mailing list. If you would like to be added to this list, send a note
to .
References
[AMPMC96] Randall J. Atkinson, Daniel L. McDonald, Bao G. Phan, Craig
W. Metz, and Kenneth C. Chin, "Implementation of IPv6 in 4.4-Lite
BSD", Proceedings of the 1996 USENIX Conference, San Diego, CA,
January 1996, USENIX Association.
[Atk95a] Atkinson, R., "IP Security Architecture", RFC 1825, August
1995.
[Atk95b] Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 1826, August
1995.
[Atk95c] Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload", RFC 1827,
August 1995.
[Atk97] Atkinson, R., "Key Exchange Delegation Record for the Domain
Name System", RFC 2230, October 1997.
[BA97] Baker, F., and R. Atkinson, "RIP-2 MD5 Authentication", RFC
2082, January 1997.
[Biba77] K. J. Biba, "Integrity Considerations for Secure Computer
Systems", MTR-3153, The MITRE Corporation, June 1975; ESD-TR-76-372,
April 1977.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 52]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
[BL74] D. Elliot Bell and Leonard J. LaPadula, "Secure Computer
Systems: Unified Exposition and Multics Interpretation", MTR 2997,
The MITRE Corporation, April 1974. (AD/A 020 445)
[Bra97] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[CW87] D. D. Clark and D. R. Wilson, "A Comparison of Commercial and
Military Computer Security Policies", Proceedings of the 1987
Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 184-195, IEEE Computer
Society, Washington, D.C., 1987.
[DIA] US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), "Compartmented Mode
Workstation Specification", Technical Report DDS-2600-6243-87.
[GK98] Glenn, R., and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and Its
Use with IPsec", Work in Progress.
[HM97a] Harney, H., and C. Muckenhirn, "Group Key Management Protocol
(GKMP) Specification", RFC 2093, July 1997.
[HM97b] Harney, H., and C. Muckenhirn, "Group Key Management Protocol
(GKMP) Architecture", RFC 2094, July 1997.
[MD98] Madsen, C., and N. Doraswamy, "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm With Explicit IV", Work in Progress.
[MG98a] Madsen, C., and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within ESP
and AH", Work in Progress.
[MG98b] Madsen, C., and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within
ESP and AH", Work in Progress.
[MSST98] Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and J. Turner,
"Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP)",
Work in Progress.
[Moy98] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[Per97] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002, October 1996.
[Pip98] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of Interpretation
for ISAKMP", Work in Progress.
[Sch96] Bruce Schneier, Applied Cryptography, p. 360, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1996.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 53]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
[Skl91] Keith Sklower, "A Tree-based Packet Routing Table for
Berkeley UNIX", Proceedings of the Winter 1991 USENIX Conference,
Dallas, TX, USENIX Association. 1991. pp. 93-103.
Disclaimer
The views and specification here are those of the editors and are not
necessarily those of their employers. The employers have not passed
judgment on the merits, if any, of this work. The editors and their
employers specifically disclaim responsibility for any problems
arising from correct or incorrect implementation or use of this
specification.
Authors' Addresses
Daniel L. McDonald
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
901 San Antonio Road, MS UMPK17-202
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: +1 650 786 6815
EMail: danmcd@eng.sun.com
Craig Metz
(for Code 5544)
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20375
Phone: (DSN) 754-8590
EMail: cmetz@inner.net
Bao G. Phan
U. S. Naval Research Laboratory
EMail: phan@itd.nrl.navy.mil
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 54]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
Appendix A: Promiscuous Send/Receive Message Type
A kernel supporting PF_KEY MAY implement the following extension for
development and debugging purposes. If it does, it MUST implement the
extension as specified here. An implementation MAY require an
application to have additional privileges to perform promiscuous send
and/or receive operations.
The SADB_X_PROMISC message allows an application to send and receive
messages in a "promiscuous mode." There are two forms of this
message: control and data. The control form consists of only a
message header. This message is used to toggle the promiscuous-
receive function. A value of one in the sadb_msg_satype field enables
promiscuous message reception for this socket, while a value of zero
in that field disables it.
The second form of this message is the data form. This is used to
send or receive messages in their raw form. Messages in the data form
consist of a message header followed by an entire new message. There
will be two message headers in a row: one for the SADB_X_PROMISC
message, and one for the payload message.
Data messages sent from the application are sent to either the PF_KEY
socket of a single process identified by a nonzero sadb_msg_seq or to
all PF_KEY sockets if sadb_msg_seq is zero. These messages are sent
without any processing of their contents by the PF_KEY interface
(including sanity checking). This promiscuous-send capability allows
an application to send messages as if it were the kernel. This also
allows it to send erroneous messages.
If the promiscuous-receive function has been enabled, a copy of any
message sent via PF_KEY by another application or by the kernel is
sent to the promiscuous application. This is done before any
processing of the message's contents by the PF_KEY interface (again,
including sanity checking). This promiscuous-receive capability
allows an application to receive all messages sent by other parties
using PF_KEY.
The messaging behavior of the SADB_X_PROMISC message is:
Send a control-form SADB_X_PROMISC message from a user process
to the kernel.
The kernel returns the SADB_X_PROMISC message to all listening
processes.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 55]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
Send a data-form SADB_X_PROMISC message from a user process to
the kernel.
The kernel sends the encapsulated message to the target
process(s).
If promiscuous-receive is enabled, the kernel will encapsulate
and send copies of all messages sent via the PF_KEY interface.
Errors:
EPERM Additional privileges are required to perform the
requested operations.
ESRCH (Data form, sending) The target process in sadb_msg_seq
does not exist or does not have an open PF_KEY Version 2
socket.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 56]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
Appendix B: Passive Change Message Type
The SADB_X_PCHANGE message is a passive-side (aka. the "listener" or
"receiver") counterpart to the SADB_ACQUIRE message. It is useful
for when key management applications wish to more effectively handle
incoming key management requests for passive-side sessions that
deviate from systemwide default security services. If a passive
session requests that only certain levels of security service be
allowed, the SADB_X_PCHANGE message expresses this change to any
registered PF_KEY sockets. Unlike SADB_ACQUIRE, this message is
purely informational, and demands no other PF_KEY interaction.
The SADB_X_PCHANGE message is typically triggered by either a change
in an endpoint's requested security services, or when an endpoint
that made a special request disappears. In the former case, an
SADB_X_PCHANGE looks like an SADB_ACQUIRE, complete with an
sadb_proposal extension indicating the preferred algorithms,
lifetimes, and other attributes. When a passive session either
disappears, or reverts to a default behavior, an SADB_X_PCHANGE will
be issued with _no_ sadb_proposal extension, indicating that the
exception to systemwide default behavior has disappeared.
There are two messaging behaviors for SADB_X_PCHANGE. The first is
the kernel-originated case:
The kernel sends an SADB_X_PCHANGE message to registered
sockets.
NOTE: The address(SD) extensions MUST have the port fields
filled in with the port numbers of the session
requiring keys if appropriate.
The second is for a user-level consumer of SAs.
Send an SADB_X_PCHANGE message from a user process to the
kernel.
The kernel returns an SADB_X_PCHANGE message to registered
sockets.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 57]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
Appendix C: Key Management Private Data Extension
The Key Management Private Data extension is attached to either an
SADB_ADD or an SADB_UPDATE message. It attaches a single piece of
arbitrary data to a security association. It may be useful for key
managment applications that could use an SADB_DUMP or SADB_GET
message to obtain additional state if it needs to restart or recover
after a crash. The format of this extension is:
#define SADB_X_EXT_KMPRIVATE 17
struct sadb_x_kmprivate {
uint16_t sadb_x_kmprivate_len;
uint16_t sadb_x_kmprivate_exttype;
uint32_t sadb_x_kmprivate_reserved;
};
/* sizeof(struct sadb_x_kmprivate) == 8 */
/* followed by arbitrary data */
The data following the sadb_x_kmprivate extension can be anything.
It will be stored with the actual security association in the kernel.
Like all data, it must be padded to an eight byte boundary.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 58]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
Appendix D: Sample Header File
/*
This file defines structures and symbols for the PF_KEY Version 2
key management interface. It was written at the U.S. Naval Research
Laboratory. This file is in the public domain. The authors ask that
you leave this credit intact on any copies of this file.
*/
#ifndef __PFKEY_V2_H
#define __PFKEY_V2_H 1
#define PF_KEY_V2 2
#define PFKEYV2_REVISION 199806L
#define SADB_RESERVED 0
#define SADB_GETSPI 1
#define SADB_UPDATE 2
#define SADB_ADD 3
#define SADB_DELETE 4
#define SADB_GET 5
#define SADB_ACQUIRE 6
#define SADB_REGISTER 7
#define SADB_EXPIRE 8
#define SADB_FLUSH 9
#define SADB_DUMP 10
#define SADB_X_PROMISC 11
#define SADB_X_PCHANGE 12
#define SADB_MAX 12
struct sadb_msg {
uint8_t sadb_msg_version;
uint8_t sadb_msg_type;
uint8_t sadb_msg_errno;
uint8_t sadb_msg_satype;
uint16_t sadb_msg_len;
uint16_t sadb_msg_reserved;
uint32_t sadb_msg_seq;
uint32_t sadb_msg_pid;
};
struct sadb_ext {
uint16_t sadb_ext_len;
uint16_t sadb_ext_type;
};
struct sadb_sa {
uint16_t sadb_sa_len;
uint16_t sadb_sa_exttype;
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 59]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
uint32_t sadb_sa_spi;
uint8_t sadb_sa_replay;
uint8_t sadb_sa_state;
uint8_t sadb_sa_auth;
uint8_t sadb_sa_encrypt;
uint32_t sadb_sa_flags;
};
struct sadb_lifetime {
uint16_t sadb_lifetime_len;
uint16_t sadb_lifetime_exttype;
uint32_t sadb_lifetime_allocations;
uint64_t sadb_lifetime_bytes;
uint64_t sadb_lifetime_addtime;
uint64_t sadb_lifetime_usetime;
};
struct sadb_address {
uint16_t sadb_address_len;
uint16_t sadb_address_exttype;
uint8_t sadb_address_proto;
uint8_t sadb_address_prefixlen;
uint16_t sadb_address_reserved;
};
struct sadb_key {
uint16_t sadb_key_len;
uint16_t sadb_key_exttype;
uint16_t sadb_key_bits;
uint16_t sadb_key_reserved;
};
struct sadb_ident {
uint16_t sadb_ident_len;
uint16_t sadb_ident_exttype;
uint16_t sadb_ident_type;
uint16_t sadb_ident_reserved;
uint64_t sadb_ident_id;
};
struct sadb_sens {
uint16_t sadb_sens_len;
uint16_t sadb_sens_exttype;
uint32_t sadb_sens_dpd;
uint8_t sadb_sens_sens_level;
uint8_t sadb_sens_sens_len;
uint8_t sadb_sens_integ_level;
uint8_t sadb_sens_integ_len;
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 60]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
uint32_t sadb_sens_reserved;
};
struct sadb_prop {
uint16_t sadb_prop_len;
uint16_t sadb_prop_exttype;
uint8_t sadb_prop_replay;
uint8_t sadb_prop_reserved[3];
};
struct sadb_comb {
uint8_t sadb_comb_auth;
uint8_t sadb_comb_encrypt;
uint16_t sadb_comb_flags;
uint16_t sadb_comb_auth_minbits;
uint16_t sadb_comb_auth_maxbits;
uint16_t sadb_comb_encrypt_minbits;
uint16_t sadb_comb_encrypt_maxbits;
uint32_t sadb_comb_reserved;
uint32_t sadb_comb_soft_allocations;
uint32_t sadb_comb_hard_allocations;
uint64_t sadb_comb_soft_bytes;
uint64_t sadb_comb_hard_bytes;
uint64_t sadb_comb_soft_addtime;
uint64_t sadb_comb_hard_addtime;
uint64_t sadb_comb_soft_usetime;
uint64_t sadb_comb_hard_usetime;
};
struct sadb_supported {
uint16_t sadb_supported_len;
uint16_t sadb_supported_exttype;
uint32_t sadb_supported_reserved;
};
struct sadb_alg {
uint8_t sadb_alg_id;
uint8_t sadb_alg_ivlen;
uint16_t sadb_alg_minbits;
uint16_t sadb_alg_maxbits;
uint16_t sadb_alg_reserved;
};
struct sadb_spirange {
uint16_t sadb_spirange_len;
uint16_t sadb_spirange_exttype;
uint32_t sadb_spirange_min;
uint32_t sadb_spirange_max;
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 61]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
uint32_t sadb_spirange_reserved;
};
struct sadb_x_kmprivate {
uint16_t sadb_x_kmprivate_len;
uint16_t sadb_x_kmprivate_exttype;
uint32_t sadb_x_kmprivate_reserved;
};
#define SADB_EXT_RESERVED 0
#define SADB_EXT_SA 1
#define SADB_EXT_LIFETIME_CURRENT 2
#define SADB_EXT_LIFETIME_HARD 3
#define SADB_EXT_LIFETIME_SOFT 4
#define SADB_EXT_ADDRESS_SRC 5
#define SADB_EXT_ADDRESS_DST 6
#define SADB_EXT_ADDRESS_PROXY 7
#define SADB_EXT_KEY_AUTH 8
#define SADB_EXT_KEY_ENCRYPT 9
#define SADB_EXT_IDENTITY_SRC 10
#define SADB_EXT_IDENTITY_DST 11
#define SADB_EXT_SENSITIVITY 12
#define SADB_EXT_PROPOSAL 13
#define SADB_EXT_SUPPORTED_AUTH 14
#define SADB_EXT_SUPPORTED_ENCRYPT 15
#define SADB_EXT_SPIRANGE 16
#define SADB_X_EXT_KMPRIVATE 17
#define SADB_EXT_MAX 17
#define SADB_SATYPE_UNSPEC 0
#define SADB_SATYPE_AH 2
#define SADB_SATYPE_ESP 3
#define SADB_SATYPE_RSVP 5
#define SADB_SATYPE_OSPFV2 6
#define SADB_SATYPE_RIPV2 7
#define SADB_SATYPE_MIP 8
#define SADB_SATYPE_MAX 8
#define SADB_SASTATE_LARVAL 0
#define SADB_SASTATE_MATURE 1
#define SADB_SASTATE_DYING 2
#define SADB_SASTATE_DEAD 3
#define SADB_SASTATE_MAX 3
#define SADB_SAFLAGS_PFS 1
#define SADB_AALG_NONE 0
#define SADB_AALG_MD5HMAC 2
#define SADB_AALG_SHA1HMAC 3
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 62]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
#define SADB_AALG_MAX 3
#define SADB_EALG_NONE 0
#define SADB_EALG_DESCBC 2
#define SADB_EALG_3DESCBC 3
#define SADB_EALG_NULL 11
#define SADB_EALG_MAX 11
#define SADB_IDENTTYPE_RESERVED 0
#define SADB_IDENTTYPE_PREFIX 1
#define SADB_IDENTTYPE_FQDN 2
#define SADB_IDENTTYPE_USERFQDN 3
#define SADB_IDENTTYPE_MAX 3
#define SADB_KEY_FLAGS_MAX 0
#endif /* __PFKEY_V2_H */
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 63]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
Appendix E: Change Log
The following changes were made between 05 and 06:
* Last change before becoming an informational RFC. Removed all
Internet-Draft references. Also standardized citation strings.
Now cite RFC 2119 for MUST, etc.
* New appendix on optional KM private data extension.
* Fixed example to indicate the ACQUIRE messages with errno mean
KM failure.
* Added SADB_EALG_NULL.
* Clarified proxy examples to match definition of PROXY address being
the inner packet's source address. (Basically a sign-flip. The
example still shows how to protect against policy vulnerabilities
in tunnel endpoints.)
* Loosened definition of a destination address to include broadcast.
* Recommended that LARVAL security associations have implicit short
lifetimes.
The following changes were made between 04 and 05:
* New appendix on Passive Change message.
* New sadb_address_prefixlen field.
* Small clarifications on sadb_ident_id usage.
* New PFKEYV2_REVISION value.
* Small clarification on what a PROXY address is.
* Corrected sadb_spirange_{min,max} language.
* In ADD messages that are in response to an ACQUIRE, the
sadb_msg_seq MUST be the same as that of the originating ACQUIRE.
* Corrected ACQUIRE message behavior, ACQUIRE message SHOULD send up
PROXY addresses when it needs them.
* Clarification on SADB_EXPIRE and user-level security protocols.
The following changes were made between 03 and 04:
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 64]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
* Stronger language about manual keying.
* PFKEYV2_REVISION, ala POSIX.
* Put in language about sockaddr ports in ACQUIRE messages.
* Mention of asymmetric algorithms.
* New sadb_ident_id field for easier construction of USER_FQDN
identity strings.
* Caveat about source addresses not always used for collision
detection. (e.g. IPsec)
The following changes were made between 02 and 03:
* Formatting changes.
* Many editorial cleanups, rewordings, clarifications.
* Restrictions that prevent many strange and invalid cases.
* Added definitions section.
* Removed connection identity type (this will reappear when it is
more clear what it should look like).
* Removed 5.2.1 (Why involve the kernel?).
* Removed INBOUND, OUTBOUND, and FORWARD flags; they can be computed
from src, dst, and proxy and you had to anyway for sanity checking.
* Removed REPLAY flag; sadb_sa_replay==0 means the same thing.
* Renamed bit lengths to "bits" to avoid potential confusion.
* Explicitly listed lengths for structures.
* Reworked identities to always use a string format.
* Removed requirements for support of shutdown() and SO_USELOOPBACK.
* 64 bit alignment and 64 bit lengths instead of 32 bit.
* time_t replaced with uint64 in lifetimes.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 65]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
* Inserted Appendix A (SADB_X_PROMISC) and Appendix B (SAMPLE HEADER
FILE).
* Explicit error if PF_KEY_V2 not set at socket() call.
* More text on SO_USELOOPBACK.
* Made fields names and symbol names more consistent.
* Explicit error if PF_KEY_V2 is not in sadb_msg_version field.
* Bytes lifetime field now a 64-bit quantity.
* Explicit len/exttype wording.
* Flattening out of extensions (LIFETIME_HARD, LIFETIME_SOFT, etc.)
* UI example (0x123 == 0x1230 or 0x0123).
* Cleaned up and fixed some message behavior examples.
The following changes were made between 01 and 02:
* Mentioned that people COULD use these same messages between user
progs. (Also mentioned why you still might want to use the actual
socket.)
* Various wordsmithing changes.
* Took out netkey/ directory, and make net/pfkeyv2.h
* Inserted PF_KEY_V2 proto argument per C. Metz.
* Mentioned other socket calls and how their PF_KEY behavior is
undefined.
* SADB_EXPIRE now communicates both hard and soft lifetime expires.
* New "association" extension, even smaller base header.
* Lifetime extension improvements.
* Length now first in extensions.
* Errors can be sent from kernel to user, also.
* Examples section inserted.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 66]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
* Some bitfield cleanups, including STATE and SA_OPTIONS cleanup.
* Key splitting now only across auth algorithm and encryption
algorithm. Thanks for B. Sommerfeld for clues here.
The following changes were made between 00 and 01:
* Added this change log.
* Simplified TLV header syntax.
* Splitting of algorithms. This may be controversial, but it allows
PF_KEY to be used for more than just IPsec. It also allows some
kinds of policies to be placed in the KMd easier.
* Added solid definitions and formats for certificate identities,
multiple keys, etc.
* Specified how keys are to be layed out (most-to-least bits).
* Changed sequence number semantics to be like an RPC transaction ID
number.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 67]
RFC 2367 PF_KEY Key Management API July 1998
F. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
McDonald, et. al. Informational [Page 68]
|
