rfc2078.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

Linn                        Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 2078                        GSS-API                     January 1997


Table 1: GSS-API Major Status Codes

   FATAL ERROR CODES

   GSS_S_BAD_BINDINGS            channel binding mismatch
   GSS_S_BAD_MECH                unsupported mechanism requested
   GSS_S_BAD_NAME                invalid name provided
   GSS_S_BAD_NAMETYPE            name of unsupported type provided
   GSS_S_BAD_STATUS              invalid input status selector
   GSS_S_BAD_SIG                 token had invalid integrity check
   GSS_S_CONTEXT_EXPIRED         specified security context expired
   GSS_S_CREDENTIALS_EXPIRED     expired credentials detected
   GSS_S_DEFECTIVE_CREDENTIAL    defective credential detected
   GSS_S_DEFECTIVE_TOKEN         defective token detected
   GSS_S_FAILURE                 failure, unspecified at GSS-API
                                   level
   GSS_S_NO_CONTEXT              no valid security context specified
   GSS_S_NO_CRED                 no valid credentials provided
   GSS_S_BAD_QOP                 unsupported QOP value
   GSS_S_UNAUTHORIZED            operation unauthorized
   GSS_S_UNAVAILABLE             operation unavailable
   GSS_S_DUPLICATE_ELEMENT       duplicate credential element requested
   GSS_S_NAME_NOT_MN             name contains multi-mechanism elements

   INFORMATORY STATUS CODES

   GSS_S_COMPLETE                normal completion
   GSS_S_CONTINUE_NEEDED         continuation call to routine
                                  required
   GSS_S_DUPLICATE_TOKEN         duplicate per-message token
                                  detected
   GSS_S_OLD_TOKEN               timed-out per-message token
                                  detected
   GSS_S_UNSEQ_TOKEN             reordered (early) per-message token
                                  detected
   GSS_S_GAP_TOKEN               skipped predecessor token(s)
                                  detected

   Minor_status provides more detailed status information which may
   include status codes specific to the underlying security mechanism.
   Minor_status values are not specified in this document.

   GSS_S_CONTINUE_NEEDED major_status returns, and optional message
   outputs, are provided in GSS_Init_sec_context() and
   GSS_Accept_sec_context()  calls so that different mechanisms'
   employment of different numbers of messages within their
   authentication sequences need not be reflected in separate code paths
   within calling applications. Instead, such cases are accommodated



Linn                        Standards Track                    [Page 16]

RFC 2078                        GSS-API                     January 1997


   with sequences of continuation calls to GSS_Init_sec_context()  and
   GSS_Accept_sec_context().  The same mechanism is used to encapsulate
   mutual authentication within the GSS-API's context initiation calls.

   For mech_types which require interactions with third-party servers in
   order to establish a security context, GSS-API context establishment
   calls may block pending completion of such third-party interactions.

   On the other hand, no GSS-API calls pend on serialized interactions
   with GSS-API peer entities.  As a result, local GSS-API status
   returns cannot reflect unpredictable or asynchronous exceptions
   occurring at remote peers, and reflection of such status information
   is a caller responsibility outside the GSS-API.

1.2.2: Per-Message Security Service Availability

   When a context is established, two flags are returned to indicate the
   set of per-message protection security services which will be
   available on the context:

      the integ_avail flag indicates whether per-message integrity and
      data origin authentication services are available

      the conf_avail flag indicates whether per-message confidentiality
      services are available, and will never be returned TRUE unless the
      integ_avail flag is also returned TRUE

      GSS-API callers desiring per-message security services should
      check the values of these flags at context establishment time, and
      must be aware that a returned FALSE value for integ_avail means
      that invocation of GSS_GetMIC()  or GSS_Wrap() primitives on the
      associated context will apply no cryptographic protection to user
      data messages.

   The GSS-API per-message integrity and data origin authentication
   services provide assurance to a receiving caller that protection was
   applied to a message by the caller's peer on the security context,
   corresponding to the entity named at context initiation.  The GSS-API
   per-message confidentiality service provides assurance to a sending
   caller that the message's content is protected from access by
   entities other than the context's named peer.










Linn                        Standards Track                    [Page 17]

RFC 2078                        GSS-API                     January 1997


   The GSS-API per-message protection service primitives, as the
   category name implies, are oriented to operation at the granularity
   of protocol data units. They perform cryptographic operations on the
   data units, transfer cryptographic control information in tokens,
   and, in the case of GSS_Wrap(), encapsulate the protected data unit.
   As such, these primitives are not oriented to efficient data
   protection for stream-paradigm protocols (e.g., Telnet) if
   cryptography must be applied on an octet-by-octet basis.

1.2.3: Per-Message Replay Detection and Sequencing

   Certain underlying mech_types offer support for replay detection
   and/or sequencing of messages transferred on the contexts they
   support. These optionally-selectable protection features are distinct
   from replay detection and sequencing features applied to the context
   establishment operation itself; the presence or absence of context-
   level replay or sequencing features is wholly a function of the
   underlying mech_type's capabilities, and is not selected or omitted
   as a caller option.

   The caller initiating a context provides flags (replay_det_req_flag
   and sequence_req_flag) to specify whether the use of per-message
   replay detection and sequencing features is desired on the context
   being established. The GSS-API implementation at the initiator system
   can determine whether these features are supported (and whether they
   are optionally selectable) as a function of mech_type, without need
   for bilateral negotiation with the target. When enabled, these
   features provide recipients with indicators as a result of GSS-API
   processing of incoming messages, identifying whether those messages
   were detected as duplicates or out-of-sequence. Detection of such
   events does not prevent a suspect message from being provided to a
   recipient; the appropriate course of action on a suspect message is a
   matter of caller policy.

   The semantics of the replay detection and sequencing services applied
   to received messages, as visible across the interface which the GSS-
   API provides to its clients, are as follows:

   When replay_det_state is TRUE, the possible major_status returns for
   well-formed and correctly signed messages are as follows:

      1. GSS_S_COMPLETE indicates that the message was within the window
      (of time or sequence space) allowing replay events to be detected,
      and that the message was not a replay of a previously-processed
      message within that window.






Linn                        Standards Track                    [Page 18]

RFC 2078                        GSS-API                     January 1997


      2. GSS_S_DUPLICATE_TOKEN indicates that the cryptographic
      checkvalue on the received message was correct, but that the
      message was recognized as a duplicate of a previously-processed
      message.

      3. GSS_S_OLD_TOKEN indicates that the cryptographic checkvalue on
      the received message was correct, but that the message is too old
      to be checked for duplication.

   When sequence_state is TRUE, the possible major_status returns for
   well-formed and correctly signed messages are as follows:

      1. GSS_S_COMPLETE indicates that the message was within the window
      (of time or sequence space) allowing replay events to be detected,
      that the message was not a replay of a previously-processed
      message within that window, and that no predecessor sequenced
      messages are missing relative to the last received message (if
      any) processed on the context with a correct cryptographic
      checkvalue.

      2. GSS_S_DUPLICATE_TOKEN indicates that the integrity check value
      on the received message was correct, but that the message was
      recognized as a duplicate of a previously-processed message.

      3. GSS_S_OLD_TOKEN indicates that the integrity check value on the
      received message was correct, but that the token is too old to be
      checked for duplication.

      4. GSS_S_UNSEQ_TOKEN indicates that the cryptographic checkvalue
      on the received message was correct, but that it is earlier in a
      sequenced stream than a message already processed on the context.
      [Note: Mechanisms can be architected to provide a stricter form of
      sequencing service, delivering particular messages to recipients
      only after all predecessor messages in an ordered stream have been
      delivered.  This type of support is incompatible with the GSS-API
      paradigm in which recipients receive all messages, whether in
      order or not, and provide them (one at a time, without intra-GSS-
      API message buffering) to GSS-API routines for validation.  GSS-
      API facilities provide supportive functions, aiding clients to
      achieve strict message stream integrity in an efficient manner in
      conjunction with sequencing provisions in communications
      protocols, but the GSS-API does not offer this level of message
      stream integrity service by itself.]








Linn                        Standards Track                    [Page 19]

RFC 2078                        GSS-API                     January 1997


      5. GSS_S_GAP_TOKEN indicates that the cryptographic checkvalue on
      the received message was correct, but that one or more predecessor
      sequenced messages have not been successfully processed relative
      to the last received message (if any) processed on the context
      with a correct cryptographic checkvalue.

   As the message stream integrity features (especially sequencing) may
   interfere with certain applications' intended communications
   paradigms, and since support for such features is likely to be
   resource intensive, it is highly recommended that mech_types
   supporting these features allow them to be activated selectively on
   initiator request when a context is established. A context initiator
   and target are provided with corresponding indicators
   (replay_det_state and sequence_state), signifying whether these
   features are active on a given context.

   An example mech_type supporting per-message replay detection could
   (when replay_det_state is TRUE) implement the feature as follows: The
   underlying mechanism would insert timestamps in data elements output
   by GSS_GetMIC()  and GSS_Wrap(), and would maintain (within a time-
   limited window) a cache (qualified by originator-recipient pair)
   identifying received data elements processed by GSS_VerifyMIC()  and
   GSS_Unwrap(). When this feature is active, exception status returns
   (GSS_S_DUPLICATE_TOKEN, GSS_S_OLD_TOKEN) will be provided when
   GSS_VerifyMIC()  or GSS_Unwrap() is presented with a message which is
   either a detected duplicate of a prior message or which is too old to
   validate against a cache of recently received messages.

1.2.4:  Quality of Protection

   Some mech_types provide their users with fine granularity control
   over the means used to provide per-message protection, allowing
   callers to trade off security processing overhead dynamically against
   the protection requirements of particular messages. A per-message
   quality-of-protection parameter (analogous to quality-of-service, or
   QOS) selects among different QOP options supported by that mechanism.
   On context establishment for a multi-QOP mech_type, context-level
   data provides the prerequisite data for a range of protection