- From: Adam Roach <adam@dynamicsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:46:12 -0500
- To: "'ietf-http-wg@w3.org'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In implementing MD5-sess, we've encountered some ambiguities with the interaction between MD5 sessions and nextnonce. The only description of signaling the end of an authentication session is in section 3.3. In particular, it says that an authentication session lasts until the client receives another WWW-Authenticate header. Presumably, the session ends at this point because the nonce has changed. Using this logic, the authentication session should also terminate if the client receives a response with an Authentication-Info header containing a nextnonce parameter. Termination of a session with nextnonce isn't mentioned anywhere, though -- so it's not clear whether this was the intention when the RFC was written. In particular, it's not clear to me what value changing a nonce within the same session would provide. To be specific, when using MD5-sess, the proper client behavior upon receiving nextnonce is not particularly clear. To illustrate the ambiguity, I'll demonstrate the exact issue with a use case. 1) Client sends a request. 2) Server challenges request, with an algorithm of "MD5-Sess". We will call the nonce sent in this challenge "nonce-value-1". 3) Client re-sends request, with response to challenge. This response includes a cnonce, which we will call "cnonce-value-1". The response is calculated as follows: KD(H(unq(username-value) ":" unq(realm-value) ":" passwd) ":" unq(nonce-value-1) ":" unq(cnonce-value-1), unq(nonce-value-1) ":" nc-value ":" unq(cnonce-value-1) ":" unq(qop-value) ":" Method ":" digest-uri-value) 4) Server responds to request with a 200 response. This response contains a new nonce in a nextnonce parameter. We will call this value "nonce-value-2". 5) Later, the client sends a second request. It preemptively includes an "Authentication" header with a cnonce that we will call "cnonce-value-2". Here's where the confusion lies. For the highest chance of success, should the client calculate the response-digest as: A) KD(H(unq(username-value) ":" unq(realm-value) ":" passwd) ":" unq(nonce-value-1) ":" unq(cnonce-value-1), unq(nonce-value-2) ":" nc-value ":" unq(cnonce-value-2) ":" unq(qop-value) ":" Method ":" digest-uri-value) or as: B) KD(H(unq(username-value) ":" unq(realm-value) ":" passwd) ":" unq(nonce-value-2) ":" unq(cnonce-value-2), unq(nonce-value-2) ":" nc-value ":" unq(cnonce-value-2) ":" unq(qop-value) ":" Method ":" digest-uri-value) The text in the document would support A (since only WWW-Authenticate ends an authentication session and H(A1) "is calculated only once" per authentication session), while B seems far more intuitive. So, what have people here actually implemented? /a
Received on Monday, 8 September 2003 15:46:13 UTC