rfc5997
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. DeKok
Request for Comments: 5997 FreeRADIUS
Updates: 2866 August 2010
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721
Use of Status-Server Packets in the
Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Protocol
Abstract
This document describes a deployed extension to the Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) protocol, enabling
clients to query the status of a RADIUS server. This extension
utilizes the Status-Server (12) Code, which was reserved for
experimental use in RFC 2865.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5997.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
DeKok Informational [Page 1]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Applicability ..............................................3
1.2. Terminology ................................................4
1.3. Requirements Language ......................................4
2. Overview ........................................................4
2.1. Why Access-Request is Inappropriate ........................6
2.1.1. Recommendation against Access-Request ...............7
2.2. Why Accounting-Request is Inappropriate ....................7
2.2.1. Recommendation against Accounting-Request ...........7
3. Packet Format ...................................................8
3.1. Single Definition for Status-Server .......................10
4. Implementation Notes ...........................................10
4.1. Client Requirements .......................................11
4.2. Server Requirements .......................................12
4.3. Failover with Status-Server ...............................14
4.4. Proxy Server Handling of Status-Server ....................14
4.5. Limitations of Status-Server ..............................15
4.6. Management Information Base (MIB) Considerations ..........17
4.6.1. Interaction with RADIUS Server MIB Modules .........17
4.6.2. Interaction with RADIUS Client MIB Modules .........17
5. Table of Attributes ............................................18
6. Examples .......................................................19
6.1. Minimal Query to Authentication Port ......................19
6.2. Minimal Query to Accounting Port ..........................20
6.3. Verbose Query and Response ................................21
7. Security Considerations ........................................21
8. References .....................................................23
8.1. Normative References ......................................23
8.2. Informative References ....................................23
Acknowledgments ...................................................24
DeKok Informational [Page 2]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
1. Introduction
This document specifies a deployed extension to the Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) protocol, enabling
clients to query the status of a RADIUS server. While the Status-
Server (12) Code was defined as experimental in [RFC2865], Section 3,
details of the operation and potential uses of the Code were not
provided.
As with the core RADIUS protocol, the Status-Server extension is
stateless, and queries do not otherwise affect the normal operation
of a server, nor do they result in any side effects, other than
perhaps incrementing an internal packet counter. Most of the
implementations of this extension have utilized it alongside
implementations of RADIUS as defined in [RFC2865], so that this
document focuses solely on the use of this extension with UDP
transport.
The rest of this document is laid out as follows. Section 2 contains
the problem statement, and explanations as to why some possible
solutions can have unwanted side effects. Section 3 defines the
Status-Server packet format. Section 4 contains client and server
requirements, along with some implementation notes. Section 5
contains a RADIUS table of attributes. The remaining text discusses
security considerations not covered elsewhere in the document.
1.1. Applicability
This protocol is being recommended for publication as an
Informational RFC rather than as a Standards-Track RFC because of
problems with deployed implementations. This includes security
vulnerabilities. The fixes recommended here are compatible with
existing servers that receive Status-Server packets, but impose new
security requirements on clients that send Status-Server packets.
Some existing implementations of this protocol do not support the
Message-Authenticator attribute ([RFC3579]). This enables an
unauthorized client to spoof Status-Server packets, potentially
leading to incorrect Access-Accepts. In order to remedy this
problem, this specification requires the use of the Message-
Authenticator attribute to provide per-packet authentication and
integrity protection.
With existing implementations of this protocol, the potential exists
for Status-Server requests to be in conflict with Access-Request or
Accounting-Request packets using the same Identifier. This
specification recommends techniques to avoid this problem.
DeKok Informational [Page 3]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
These limitations are discussed in more detail below.
1.2. Terminology
This document uses the following terms:
"Network Access Server (NAS)"
The device providing access to the network. Also known as the
Authenticator (in IEEE 802.1X terminology) or RADIUS client.
"RADIUS Proxy"
In order to provide for the routing of RADIUS authentication and
accounting requests, a RADIUS proxy can be employed. To the NAS,
the RADIUS proxy appears to act as a RADIUS server, and to the
RADIUS server, the proxy appears to act as a RADIUS client.
"silently discard"
This means the implementation discards the packet without further
processing. The implementation MAY provide the capability of
logging the error, including the contents of the silently
discarded packet, and SHOULD record the event in a statistics
counter.
1.3. Requirements Language
In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
of the specification. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
2. Overview
Status-Server packets are sent by a RADIUS client to a RADIUS server
in order to test the status of that server. The destination of a
Status-Server packet is set to the IP address and port of the server
that is being tested. A single Status-Server packet MUST be included
within a UDP datagram. A Message-Authenticator attribute MUST be
included so as to provide per-packet authentication and integrity
protection.
RADIUS proxies or servers MUST NOT forward Status-Server packets. A
RADIUS server or proxy implementing this specification SHOULD respond
to a Status-Server packet with an Access-Accept (authentication port)
or Accounting-Response (accounting port). An Access-Challenge
DeKok Informational [Page 4]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
response is NOT RECOMMENDED. An Access-Reject response MAY be used.
The list of attributes that are permitted in Status-Server packets,
and in Access-Accept or Accounting-Response packets responding to
Status-Server packets, is provided in Section 5. Section 6 provides
several examples.
Since a Status-Server packet MUST NOT be forwarded by a RADIUS proxy
or server, the client is provided with an indication of the status of
that server only, since no RADIUS proxies are on the path between the
RADIUS client and server. As servers respond to a Status-Server
packet without examining the User-Name attribute, the response to a
Status-Server packet cannot be used to infer any information about
the reachability of specific realms.
The "hop-by-hop" functionality of Status-Server packets is useful to
RADIUS clients attempting to determine the status of the first
element on the path between the client and a server. Since the
Status-Server packet is non-forwardable, the lack of a response may
only be due to packet loss or the failure of the server at the
destination IP address, and not due to faults in downstream links,
proxies, or servers. It therefore provides an unambiguous indication
of the status of a server.
This information may be useful in situations in which the RADIUS
client does not receive a response to an Access-Request. A client
may have multiple proxies configured, with one proxy marked as
primary and another marked as secondary. If the client does not
receive a response to a request sent to the primary proxy, it can
"failover" to the secondary, and send requests to the secondary proxy
instead.
However, it is possible that the lack of a response to requests sent
to the primary proxy was due not to a failure within the primary, but
to alternative causes such as a failed link along the path to the
destination server or the failure of the destination server itself.
In such a situation, it may be useful for the client to be able to
distinguish between failure causes so that it does not trigger
failover inappropriately. For example, if the primary proxy is down,
then a quick failover to the secondary proxy would be prudent;
whereas, if a downstream failure is the cause, then the value of
failover to a secondary proxy will depend on whether packets
forwarded by the secondary will utilize independent links,
intermediaries, or destination servers.
DeKok Informational [Page 5]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
The Status-Server packet is not a "Keep-Alive" as discussed in
[RFC2865], Section 2.6. "Keep-Alives" are Access-Request packets
sent to determine whether a downstream server is responsive. These
packets are typically sent only when a server is suspected to be
down, and they are no longer sent as soon as the server is available
again.
2.1. Why Access-Request is Inappropriate
One possible solution to the problem of querying server status is for
a NAS to send specially formed Access-Request packets to a RADIUS
server's authentication port. The NAS can then look for a response
and use this information to determine if the server is active or
unresponsive.
However, the server may see the request as a normal login request for
a user and conclude that a real user has logged onto that NAS. The
server may then perform actions that are undesirable for a simple
status query. The server may alternatively respond with an Access-
Challenge, indicating that it believes an extended authentication
conversation is necessary.
Another possibility is that the server responds with an Access-
Reject, indicating that the user is not authorized to gain access to
the network. As above, the server may also perform local-site
actions, such as warning an administrator of failed login attempts.
The server may also delay the Access-Reject response, in the
traditional manner of rate-limiting failed authentication attempts.
This delay in response means that the querying administrator is
unsure as to whether or not the server is down, slow to respond, or
intentionally delaying its response to the query.
In addition, using Access-Request queries may mean that the server
may have local users configured whose sole reason for existence is to
enable these query requests. Unless the server policy is designed
carefully, it may be possible for an attacker to use those
credentials to gain unauthorized network access.
We note that some NAS implementations currently use Access-Request
packets as described above, with a fixed (and non-configurable) user
name and password. Implementation issues with that equipment mean
that if a RADIUS server does not respond to those queries, it may be
marked as unresponsive by the NAS. This marking may happen even if
the server is actively responding to other Access-Requests from that
same NAS. This behavior is confusing to administrators who then need
to determine why an active server has been marked as "unresponsive".
DeKok Informational [Page 6]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
2.1.1. Recommendation against Access-Request
For the reasons outlined above, NAS implementors SHOULD NOT generate
Access-Request packets solely to see if a server is alive.
Similarly, site administrators SHOULD NOT configure test users whose
sole reason for existence is to enable such queries via Access-
Request packets.
Note that it still may be useful to configure test users for the
purpose of performing end-to-end or in-depth testing of a server
policy. While this practice is widespread, we caution administrators
to use it with care.
2.2. Why Accounting-Request is Inappropriate
A similar solution for the problem of querying server status may be
for a NAS to send specially formed Accounting-Request packets to a
RADIUS server's accounting port. The NAS can then look for a
response and use this information to determine if the server is
active or unresponsive.
As seen above with Access-Request, the server may then conclude that
a real user has logged onto a NAS, and perform local-site actions
that are undesirable for a simple status query.
Another consideration is that some attributes are mandatory to
include in an Accounting-Request. This requirement forces the
administrator to query an accounting server with fake values for
those attributes in a test packet. These fake values increase the
work required to perform a simple query, and they may pollute the
server's accounting database with incorrect data.
2.2.1. Recommendation against Accounting-Request
For the reasons outlined above, NAS implementors SHOULD NOT generate
Accounting-Request packets solely to see if a server is alive.
Similarly, site administrators SHOULD NOT configure accounting
policies whose sole reason for existence is to enable such queries
via Accounting-Request packets.
Note that it still may be useful to configure test users for the
purpose of performing end-to-end or in-depth testing of a server's
policy. While this practice is widespread, we caution administrators
to use it with care.
DeKok Informational [Page 7]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
3. Packet Format
Status-Server packets reuse the RADIUS packet format, with the fields
and values for those fields as defined in [RFC2865], Section 3. We
do not include all of the text or diagrams of that section here, but
instead explain the differences required to implement Status-Server.
The Authenticator field of Status-Server packets MUST be generated
using the same method as that used for the Request Authenticator
field of Access-Request packets, as given below.
The role of the Identifier field is the same for Status-Server as for
other packets. However, as Status-Server is taking the role of
Access-Request or Accounting-Request packets, there is the potential
for Status-Server requests to be in conflict with Access-Request or
Accounting-Request packets with the same Identifier. In Section 4.2
below, we describe a method for avoiding these problems. This method
MUST be used to avoid conflicts between Status-Server and other
packet types.
Request Authenticator
In Status-Server packets, the Authenticator value is a 16-octet
random number called the Request Authenticator. The value
SHOULD be unpredictable and unique over the lifetime of a
secret (the password shared between the client and the RADIUS
server), since repetition of a request value in conjunction
with the same secret would permit an attacker to reply with a
previously intercepted response. Since it is expected that the
same secret MAY be used to authenticate with servers in
disparate geographic regions, the Request Authenticator field
SHOULD exhibit global and temporal uniqueness. See [RFC4086]
for suggestions as to how random numbers may be generated.
The Request Authenticator value in a Status-Server packet
SHOULD also be unpredictable, lest an attacker trick a server
into responding to a predicted future request, and then use the
response to masquerade as that server to a future Status-Server
request from a client.
Similarly, the Response Authenticator field of an Access-Accept
packet sent in response to Status-Server queries MUST be generated
using the same method as used for calculating the Response
Authenticator of the Access-Accept sent in response to an Access-
Request, with the Status-Server Request Authenticator taking the
place of the Access-Request Request Authenticator.
DeKok Informational [Page 8]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
The Response Authenticator field of an Accounting-Response packet
sent in response to Status-Server queries MUST be generated using the
same method as used for calculating the Response Authenticator of the
Accounting-Response sent in response to an Accounting-Request, with
the Status-Server Request Authenticator taking the place of the
Accounting-Request Request Authenticator.
Note that when a server responds to a Status-Server request, it MUST
NOT send more than one Response packet.
Response Authenticator
The value of the Authenticator field in Access-Accept or
Accounting-Response packets is called the Response
Authenticator, and contains a one-way MD5 hash calculated over
a stream of octets consisting of: the RADIUS packet, beginning
with the Code field, including the Identifier, the Length, the
Request Authenticator field from the Status-Server packet, and
the response Attributes (if any), followed by the shared
secret. That is,
ResponseAuth =
MD5(Code+ID+Length+RequestAuth+Attributes+Secret)
where + denotes concatenation.
In addition to the above requirements, all Status-Server packets MUST
include a Message-Authenticator attribute. Failure to do so would
mean that the packets could be trivially spoofed.
Status-Server packets MAY include NAS-Identifier, and one of
NAS-IP-Address or NAS-IPv6-Address. These attributes are not
necessary for the operation of Status-Server, but may be useful
information to a server that receives those packets.
Other attributes SHOULD NOT be included in a Status-Server packet,
and MUST be ignored if they are included. User authentication
credentials such as User-Name, User-Password, CHAP-Password,
EAP-Message MUST NOT appear in a Status-Server packet sent to a
RADIUS authentication port. User or NAS accounting attributes such
as Acct-Session-Id, Acct-Status-Type, Acct-Input-Octets MUST NOT
appear in a Status-Server packet sent to a RADIUS accounting port.
The Access-Accept MAY contain a Reply-Message or Message-
Authenticator attribute. It SHOULD NOT contain other attributes.
The Accounting-Response packets sent in response to a Status-Server
query SHOULD NOT contain any attributes. As the intent is to
DeKok Informational [Page 9]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
implement a simple query instead of user authentication or
accounting, there is little reason to include other attributes in
either the query or the corresponding response.
Examples of Status-Server packet flows are given below in Section 6.
3.1. Single Definition for Status-Server
When sent to a RADIUS accounting port, the contents of the Status-
Server packets are calculated as described above. That is, even
though the packets are being sent to an accounting port, they are not
created using the same method as is used for Accounting-Requests.
This difference has a number of benefits.
Having a single definition for Status-Server packets is simpler than
having different definitions for different destination ports. In
addition, if we were to define Status-Server as being similar to
Accounting-Request but containing no attributes, then those packets
could be trivially forged.
We therefore define Status-Server consistently, and vary the response
packets depending on the port to which the request is sent. When
sent to an authentication port, the response to a Status-Server query
is an Access-Accept packet. When sent to an accounting port, the
response to a Status-Server query is an Accounting-Response packet.
4. Implementation Notes
There are a number of considerations to take into account when
implementing support for Status-Server. This section describes
implementation details and requirements for RADIUS clients and
servers that support Status-Server.
The following text applies to the authentication and accounting
ports. We use the generic terms below to simplify the discussion:
* Request packet
An Access-Request packet sent to an authentication port or an
Accounting-Request packet sent to an accounting port.
* Response packet
An Access-Accept, Access-Challenge, or Access-Reject packet
sent from an authentication port or an Accounting-Response
packet sent from an accounting port.
DeKok Informational [Page 10]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
We also refer to "client" as the originator of the Status-Server
packet, and "server" as the receiver of that packet and the
originator of the Response packet.
Using generic terms to describe the Status-Server conversations is
simpler than duplicating the text for authentication and accounting
packets.
4.1. Client Requirements
Clients SHOULD permit administrators to globally enable or disable
the generation of Status-Server packets. The default SHOULD be that
it is disabled. As it is undesirable to send queries to servers that
do not support Status-Server, clients SHOULD also have a per-server
configuration indicating whether or not to enable Status-Server for a
particular destination. The default SHOULD be that it is disabled.
The client SHOULD use a watchdog timer, such as is defined in Section
2.2.1 of [RFC5080], to determine when to send Status-Server packets.
When Status-Server packets are sent from a client, they MUST NOT be
retransmitted. Instead, the Identity field MUST be changed every
time a packet is transmitted. The old packet should be discarded,
and a new Status-Server packet should be generated and sent, with new
Identity and Authenticator fields.
Clients MUST include the Message-Authenticator attribute in all
Status-Server packets. Failure to do so would mean that the packets
could be trivially spoofed, leading to potential denial-of-service
(DoS) attacks. Other attributes SHOULD NOT appear in a Status-Server
packet, except as outlined below in Section 5. As the intent of the
packet is a simple status query, there is little reason for any
additional attributes to appear in Status-Server packets.
The client MAY increment packet counters as a result of sending a
Status-Server request or of receiving a Response packet. The client
MUST NOT perform any other action that is normally performed when it
receives a Response packet, such as permitting a user to have login
access to a port.
Clients MAY send Status-Server requests to the RADIUS destination
ports from the same source port used to send normal Request packets.
Other clients MAY choose to send Status-Server requests from a unique
source port that is not used to send Request packets.
The above suggestion for a unique source port for Status-Server
packets aids in matching responses to requests. Since the response
to a Status-Server packet is an Access-Accept or Accounting-Response
DeKok Informational [Page 11]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
packet, those responses are indistinguishable from other packets sent
in response to a Request packet. Therefore, the best way to
distinguish them from other traffic is to have a unique port.
A client MAY send a Status-Server packet from a source port also used
to send Request packets. In that case, the Identifier field MUST be
unique across all outstanding Request packets for that source port,
independent of the value of the RADIUS Code field for those
outstanding requests. Once the client has either received a response
to the Status-Server packet or determined that the Status-Server
packet has timed out, it may reuse that Identifier in another packet.
Robust implementations SHOULD accept any Response packet as a valid
response to a Status-Server packet, subject to the validation
requirements defined above for the Response Authenticator. The Code
field of the packet matters less than the fact that a valid, signed
response has been received.
That is, prior to accepting the response as valid, the client should
check that the Response packet Code field is either Access-Accept (2)
or Accounting-Response (5). If the Code does not match any of these
values, the packet MUST be silently discarded. The client MUST then
validate the Response Authenticator via the algorithm given above in
Section 3. If the Response Authenticator is not valid, the packet
MUST be silently discarded. If the Response Authenticator is valid,
then the packet MUST be deemed to be a valid response from the
server.
If the client instead discarded the response because the packet Code
did not match what it expected, then it could erroneously discard
valid responses from a server, and mark that server as unresponsive.
This behavior would affect the stability of a RADIUS network, as
responsive servers would erroneously be marked as unresponsive. We
therefore recommend that clients should be liberal in what they
accept as responses to Status-Server queries.
4.2. Server Requirements
Servers SHOULD permit administrators to globally enable or disable
the acceptance of Status-Server packets. The default SHOULD be that
acceptance is enabled. Servers SHOULD also permit administrators to
enable or disable acceptance of Status-Server packets on a per-client
basis. The default SHOULD be that acceptance is enabled.
Status-Server packets originating from clients that are not permitted
to send the server Request packets MUST be silently discarded. If a
server does not support Status-Server packets, or is configured not
to respond to them, then it MUST silently discard the packet.
DeKok Informational [Page 12]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
We note that [RFC2865], Section 3, defines a number of RADIUS Codes,
but does not make statements about which Codes are valid for
port 1812. In contrast, [RFC2866], Section 3, specifies that only
RADIUS Accounting packets are to be sent to port 1813. This
specification is compatible with [RFC2865], as it uses a known Code
for packets to port 1812. This specification is not compatible with
[RFC2866], as it adds a new Code (Status-Server) that is valid for
port 1812. However, as the category of [RFC2866] is Informational,
this conflict is acceptable.
Servers SHOULD silently discard Status-Server packets if they
determine that a client is sending too many Status-Server requests in
a particular time period. The method used by a server to make this
determination is implementation specific and out of scope for this
specification.
If a server supports Status-Server packets, and is configured to
respond to them, and receives a packet from a known client, it MUST
validate the Message-Authenticator attribute as defined in [RFC3579],
Section 3.2. Packets failing that validation MUST be silently
discarded.
Servers SHOULD NOT otherwise discard Status-Server packets if they
have recently sent the client a Response packet. The query may have
originated from an administrator who does not have access to the
Response packet stream or one who is interested in obtaining
additional information about the server.
The server MAY prioritize the handling of Status-Server packets over
the handling of other requests, subject to the rate limiting
described above.
The server MAY decide not to respond to a Status-Server, depending on
local-site policy. For example, a server that is running but is
unable to perform its normal activities MAY silently discard Status-
Server packets. This situation can happen, for example, when a
server requires access to a database for normal operation, but the
connection to that database is down. Or, it may happen when the
accepted load on the server is lower than the offered load.
Some server implementations require that Access-Request packets be
accepted only on "authentication" ports (e.g., 1812/udp), and that
Accounting-Request packets be accepted only on "accounting" ports
(e.g., 1813/udp). Those implementations SHOULD reply to Status-
Server packets sent to an "authentication" port with an Access-Accept
packet and SHOULD reply to Status-Server packets sent to an
"accounting" port with an Accounting-Response packet.
DeKok Informational [Page 13]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
Some server implementations accept both Access-Request and
Accounting-Request packets on the same port, and they do not
distinguish between "authentication only" ports and "accounting only"
ports. Those implementations SHOULD reply to Status-Server packets
with an Access-Accept packet.
The server MAY increment packet counters as a result of receiving a
Status-Server packet or sending a Response packet. The server SHOULD
NOT perform any other action that is normally performed when it
receives a Request packet, other than sending a Response packet.
4.3. Failover with Status-Server
A client may wish to "failover" from one proxy to another in the
event that it does not receive a response to an Access-Request or
Accounting-Request. In order to determine whether the lack of
response is due to a problem with the proxy or a downstream server,
the client can send periodic Status-Server packets to a proxy after
the lack of a response.
These packets will help the client determine if the failure was due
to an issue on the path between the client and proxy or the proxy
itself, or whether the issue is occurring downstream.
If no response is received to Status-Server packets, the RADIUS
client can initiate failover to another proxy. By continuing to send
Status-Server packets to the original proxy, the RADIUS client can
determine when it becomes responsive again.
Once the server has been deemed responsive, normal RADIUS requests
may be sent to it again. This determination should be made
separately for each server with which the client has a relationship.
The same algorithm SHOULD be used for both authentication and
accounting ports. The client MUST treat each destination (IP, port)
combination as a unique server for the purposes of this
determination.
Clients SHOULD use a retransmission mechanism similar to that given
in Section 2.2.1 of [RFC5080]. If a reliable transport is used for
RADIUS, then the watchdog timer algorithm specified in [RFC3539] MUST
be used.
4.4. Proxy Server Handling of Status-Server
Many RADIUS servers can act as proxy servers, and can forward
requests to another RADIUS server. Such servers MUST NOT proxy
Status-Server packets. The purpose of Status-Server as specified
here is to permit the client to query the responsiveness of a server
DeKok Informational [Page 14]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
with which it has a direct relationship. Proxying Status-Server
queries would negate any usefulness that may be gained by
implementing support for them.
Proxy servers MAY be configured to respond to Status-Server queries
from clients, and they MAY act as clients sending Status-Server
queries to other servers. However, those activities MUST be
independent of one another.
4.5. Limitations of Status-Server
RADIUS servers are commonly used in an environment where Network
Access Identifiers (NAIs) are used as routing identifiers [RFC4282].
In this practice, the User-Name attribute is decorated with realm-
routing information, commonly in the format of "user@realm". Since a
particular RADIUS server may act as a proxy for more than one realm,
we need to explain how the behavior defined above in Section 4.3
affects realm routing.
The schematic below demonstrates this scenario.
/-> RADIUS Proxy P -----> RADIUS Server for Realm A
/ \ /
NAS X
\ / \
\-> RADIUS Proxy S -----> RADIUS Server for Realm B
That is, the NAS has relationships with two RADIUS Proxies, P and S.
Each RADIUS proxy has relationships with RADIUS servers for both
Realm A and Realm B.
In this scenario, the RADIUS proxies can determine if one or both of
the RADIUS servers are dead or unreachable. The NAS can determine if
one or both of the RADIUS proxies are dead or unreachable. There is
an additional case to consider, however.
If RADIUS Proxy P cannot reach the RADIUS server for Realm A, but
RADIUS Proxy S can reach that RADIUS server, then the NAS cannot
discover this information using the Status-Server queries as outlined
above. It would therefore be useful for the NAS to know that Realm A
is reachable from RADIUS Proxy S, as it can then route all requests
for Realm A to that RADIUS proxy. Without this knowledge, the client
may route requests to RADIUS Proxy P, where they may be discarded or
rejected.
To complicate matters, the behavior of RADIUS Proxies P and S in this
situation is not well defined. Some implementations simply fail to
respond to the request, and other implementations respond with an
DeKok Informational [Page 15]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
Access-Reject. If the implementation fails to respond, then the NAS
cannot distinguish between the RADIUS proxy being down and the next
server along the proxy chain being unreachable.
In the worst case, failures in routing for Realm A may affect users
of Realm B. For example, if RADIUS Proxy P can reach Realm B but not
Realm A, and RADIUS Proxy S can reach Realm A but not Realm B, then
active paths exist to handle all RADIUS requests. However, depending
on the NAS and RADIUS proxy implementation choices, the NAS may not
be able to determine to which server requests may be sent in order to
maintain network stability.
Unfortunately, this problem cannot be solved by using Status-Server
requests. A robust solution would involve either a RADIUS routing
table for the NAI realms or a RADIUS "destination unreachable"
response to authentication requests. Either solution would not fit
into the traditional RADIUS model, and both are therefore outside of
the scope of this specification.
The problem is discussed here in order to define how best to use
Status-Server in this situation, rather than to define a new
solution.
When a server has responded recently to a request from a client, that
client MUST mark the server as "responsive". In the above case, a
RADIUS proxy may be responding to requests destined for Realm A, but
not responding to requests destined for Realm B. The client
therefore considers the server to be responsive, as it is receiving
responses from the server.
The client will then continue to send requests to the RADIUS proxy
for destination Realm B, even though the RADIUS proxy cannot route
the requests to that destination. This failure is a known limitation
of RADIUS, and can be partially addressed through the use of failover
in the RADIUS proxies.
A more realistic situation than the one outlined above is one in
which each RADIUS proxy also has multiple choices of RADIUS servers
for a realm, as outlined below.
/-> RADIUS Proxy P -----> RADIUS Server P
/ \ /
NAS X
\ / \
\-> RADIUS Proxy S -----> RADIUS Server S
DeKok Informational [Page 16]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
In this situation, if all participants implement Status-Server as
defined herein, any one link may be broken, and all requests from the
NAS will still reach a RADIUS server. If two links are broken at
different places (i.e., not both links from the NAS), then all
requests from the NAS will still reach a RADIUS server. In many
situations where three or more links are broken, requests from the
NAS may still reach a RADIUS server.
It is RECOMMENDED, therefore, that implementations desiring the most
benefit from Status-Server also implement server failover. The
combination of these two practices will maximize network reliability
and stability.
4.6. Management Information Base (MIB) Considerations
4.6.1. Interaction with RADIUS Server MIB Modules
Since Status-Server packets are sent to the defined RADIUS ports,
they can affect the [RFC4669] and [RFC4671] RADIUS server MIB
modules. [RFC4669] defines a counter named
radiusAuthServTotalUnknownTypes that counts "The number of RADIUS
packets of unknown type that were received". [RFC4671] defines a
similar counter named radiusAccServTotalUnknownTypes.
Implementations not supporting Status-Server or implementations that
are configured not to respond to Status-Server packets MUST use these
counters to track received Status-Server packets.
If, however, Status-Server is supported and the server is configured
to respond as described above, then the counters defined in [RFC4669]
and [RFC4671] MUST NOT be used to track Status-Server requests or
responses to those requests. That is, when a server fully implements
Status-Server, the counters defined in [RFC4669] and [RFC4671] MUST
be unaffected by the transmission or reception of packets relating to
Status-Server.
If a server supports Status-Server and the [RFC4669] or [RFC4671] MIB
modules, then it SHOULD also support vendor-specific MIB extensions
dedicated solely to tracking Status-Server requests and responses.
Any definition of the server MIB modules for Status-Server is outside
of the scope of this document.
4.6.2. Interaction with RADIUS Client MIB Modules
Clients implementing Status-Server MUST NOT increment [RFC4668] or
[RFC4670] counters upon reception of Response packets to Status-
Server queries. That is, when a server fully implements Status-
DeKok Informational [Page 17]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
Server, the counters defined in [RFC4668] and [RFC4670] MUST be
unaffected by the transmission or reception of packets relating to
Status-Server.
If an implementation supports Status-Server and the [RFC4668] or
[RFC4670] MIB modules, then it SHOULD also support vendor-specific
MIB extensions dedicated solely to tracking Status-Server requests
and responses. Any definition of the client MIB modules for Status-
Server is outside of the scope of this document.
5. Table of Attributes
The following table provides a guide to which attributes may be found
in Status-Server packets, and in what quantity. Attributes other
than the ones listed below SHOULD NOT be found in a Status-Server
packet.
Status- Access- Accounting-
Server Accept Response # Attribute
0 0 0 1 User-Name
0 0 0 2 User-Password
0 0 0 3 CHAP-Password
0-1 0 0 4 NAS-IP-Address (Note 1)
0 0+ 0 18 Reply-Message
0+ 0+ 0+ 26 Vendor-Specific
0-1 0 0 32 NAS-Identifier (Note 1)
0 0 0 79 EAP-Message
1 0-1 0-1 80 Message-Authenticator
0-1 0 0 95 NAS-IPv6-Address (Note 1)
0 0 0 103-121 Digest-*
Note 1: A Status-Server packet SHOULD contain one of
(NAS-IP-Address or NAS-IPv6-Address), or NAS-Identifier, or both
NAS-Identifier and one of (NAS-IP-Address or NAS-IPv6-Address).
The following table defines the meaning of the above table entries.
0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in packet.
0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present in
packet.
0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be present in
packet.
1 Exactly one instance of this attribute MUST be present in
packet.
DeKok Informational [Page 18]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
6. Examples
A few examples are presented to illustrate the flow of packets to
both the authentication and accounting ports. These examples are not
intended to be exhaustive; many others are possible. Hexadecimal
dumps of the example packets are given in network byte order, using
the shared secret "xyzzy5461".
6.1. Minimal Query to Authentication Port
The NAS sends a Status-Server UDP packet with minimal content to a
RADIUS server on port 1812.
The Request Authenticator is a 16-octet random number generated by
the NAS. Message-Authenticator is included in order to authenticate
that the request came from a known client.
0c da 00 26 8a 54 f4 68 6f b3 94 c5 28 66 e3 02
18 5d 06 23 50 12 5a 66 5e 2e 1e 84 11 f3 e2 43
82 20 97 c8 4f a3
1 Code = Status-Server (12)
1 ID = 218
2 Length = 38
16 Request Authenticator
Attributes:
18 Message-Authenticator (80) = 5a665e2e1e8411f3e243822097c84fa3
The Response Authenticator is a 16-octet MD5 checksum of the Code
(2), ID (218), Length (20), the Request Authenticator from above, and
the shared secret.
02 da 00 14 ef 0d 55 2a 4b f2 d6 93 ec 2b 6f e8
b5 41 1d 66
1 Code = Access-Accept (2)
1 ID = 218
2 Length = 20
16 Request Authenticator
Attributes:
None.
DeKok Informational [Page 19]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
6.2. Minimal Query to Accounting Port
The NAS sends a Status-Server UDP packet with minimal content to a
RADIUS server on port 1813.
The Request Authenticator is a 16-octet random number generated by
the NAS. Message-Authenticator is included in order to authenticate
that the request came from a known client.
0c b3 00 26 92 5f 6b 66 dd 5f ed 57 1f cb 1d b7
ad 38 82 60 50 12 e8 d6 ea bd a9 10 87 5c d9 1f
da de 26 36 78 58
1 Code = Status-Server (12)
1 ID = 179
2 Length = 38
16 Request Authenticator
Attributes:
18 Message-Authenticator (80) = e8d6eabda910875cd91fdade26367858
The Response Authenticator is a 16-octet MD5 checksum of the Code
(5), ID (179), Length (20), the Request Authenticator from above, and
the shared secret.
02 b3 00 14 0f 6f 92 14 5f 10 7e 2f 50 4e 86 0a
48 60 66 9c
1 Code = Accounting-Response (5)
1 ID = 179
2 Length = 20
16 Request Authenticator
Attributes:
None.
DeKok Informational [Page 20]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
6.3. Verbose Query and Response
The NAS at 192.0.2.16 sends a Status-Server UDP packet to the RADIUS
server on port 1812.
The Request Authenticator is a 16-octet random number generated by
the NAS.
0c 47 00 2c bf 58 de 56 ae 40 8a d3 b7 0c 85 13
f9 b0 3f be 04 06 c0 00 02 10 50 12 85 2d 6f ec
61 e7 ed 74 b8 e3 2d ac 2f 2a 5f b2
1 Code = Status-Server (12)
1 ID = 71
2 Length = 44
16 Request Authenticator
Attributes:
6 NAS-IP-Address (4) = 192.0.2.16
18 Message-Authenticator (80) = 852d6fec61e7ed74b8e32dac2f2a5fb2
The Response Authenticator is a 16-octet MD5 checksum of the Code
(2), ID (71), Length (52), the Request Authenticator from above, the
attributes in this reply, and the shared secret.
The Reply-Message is "RADIUS Server up 2 days, 18:40"
02 47 00 34 46 f4 3e 62 fd 03 54 42 4c bb eb fd
6d 21 4e 06 12 20 52 41 44 49 55 53 20 53 65 72
76 65 72 20 75 70 20 32 20 64 61 79 73 2c 20 31
38 3a 34 30
1 Code = Access-Accept (2)
1 ID = 71
2 Length = 52
16 Request Authenticator
Attributes:
32 Reply-Message (18)
7. Security Considerations
This document defines the Status-Server packet as being similar in
treatment to the Access-Request packet, and is therefore subject to
the same security considerations as described in [RFC2865],
Section 8. Status-Server packets also use the Message-Authenticator
attribute, and are therefore subject to the same security
considerations as [RFC3579], Section 4.
DeKok Informational [Page 21]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
We reiterate that Status-Server packets MUST contain a Message-
Authenticator attribute. Early implementations supporting Status-
Server did not enforce this requirement, and were vulnerable to the
following attacks:
* Servers not checking the Message-Authenticator attribute could
respond to Status-Server packets from an attacker, potentially
enabling a reflected DoS attack onto a real client.
* Servers not checking the Message-Authenticator attribute could
be subject to a race condition, where an attacker could see an
Access-Request packet from a valid client and synthesize a
Status-Server packet containing the same Request Authenticator.
If the attacker won the race against the valid client, the
server could respond with an Access-Accept and potentially
authorize unwanted service.
The last attack is similar to a related attack when Access-Request
packets contain a CHAP-Password but no Message-Authenticator. We
re-iterate the suggestion of [RFC5080], Section 2.2.2, which proposes
that all clients send a Message-Authenticator in every Access-Request
packet, and that all servers have a configuration setting to require
(or not) that a Message-Authenticator attribute be used in every
Access-Request packet.
Failure to include a Message-Authenticator attribute in a Status-
Server packet means that any RADIUS client or server may be
vulnerable to the attacks outlined above. For this reason,
implementations of this specification that fail to require use of the
Message-Authenticator attribute are NOT RECOMMENDED.
Where this document differs from [RFC2865] is that it defines a new
request/response method in RADIUS: the Status-Server request. As
this use is based on previously described and implemented standards,
we know of no additional security considerations that arise from the
use of Status-Server as defined herein.
Attacks on cryptographic hashes are well known [RFC4270] and getting
better with time. RADIUS uses the MD5 hash [RFC1321] for packet
authentication and attribute obfuscation. There are ongoing efforts
in the IETF to analyze and address these issues for the RADIUS
protocol.
DeKok Informational [Page 22]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
April 1992.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RFC3539] Aboba, B. and J. Wood, "Authentication, Authorization and
Accounting (AAA) Transport Profile", RFC 3539, June 2003.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106,
RFC 4086, June 2005.
[RFC4282] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The
Network Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.
[RFC5080] Nelson, D. and A. DeKok, "Common Remote Authentication
Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Implementation Issues and
Suggested Fixes", RFC 5080, December 2007.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2866] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication
Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003.
[RFC4270] Hoffman, P. and B. Schneier, "Attacks on Cryptographic
Hashes in Internet Protocols", RFC 4270, November 2005.
[RFC4668] Nelson, D., "RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6",
RFC 4668, August 2006.
[RFC4669] Nelson, D., "RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6",
RFC 4669, August 2006.
[RFC4670] Nelson, D., "RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6",
RFC 4670, August 2006.
DeKok Informational [Page 23]
RFC 5997 Status-Server Practices August 2010
[RFC4671] Nelson, D., "RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6",
RFC 4671, August 2006.
Acknowledgments
Parts of the text in Section 3 defining the Request and Response
Authenticators were taken, with minor edits, from [RFC2865],
Section 3.
The author would like to thank Mike McCauley of Open Systems
Consultants for making a Radiator server available for
interoperability testing.
Ignacio Goyret provided valuable feedback on the history and security
of the Status-Server packet.
Author's Address
Alan DeKok
The FreeRADIUS Server Project
http://freeradius.org
EMail: aland@freeradius.org
DeKok Informational [Page 24]
ERRATA
