NAME

  I_A_RFC2409_5_6 - [Initiator Test] Implementation of Aggressive Mode with RSA signatures check

TARGET

  End-Node

SYNOPSIS

  I_A_RFC2409_5_6.seq [-tooloption ...] -pkt I_A_RFC2409_5_6.def -tooloption : v6eval tool option
  See also ike_common.def and ike_ipsec.def and ike_addr.def and ike_pkt_ph1_recv.def and ike_pkt_ph2_recv.def

INITIALIZATION

TEST PROCEDURE

  This test check is following.


 * PHASE I


                       AGGRESSIVE EXCHANGE


 #   Initiator(NUT)         Direction      Responder(TN)
(1)  HDR; SA, KE, Ni, IDii ========>
                Judgement (Check *1)


(2)                        <========       HDR; SA, KE, Nr, IDir, SIG_R


(3)  HDR[*]; SIG_I         ========>
                Judgement (Check *2)


   1. Receive the first message from NUT
      In the first message (1), the initiator generates a proposal it
      considers adequate to protect traffic for the given situation.  The
      Security Association, Proposal, and Transform payloads are included
      in the Security Association payload (for notation purposes).
      Keying material used to arrive at a common shared secret and random 
      information which is used to guarantee liveness and protect against 
      replay attacks are also transmitted. Additionally, the initiator 
      transmits identification information.


   2. Send the second message from TN
      In the second message (2), the responder indicates the protection
      suite it has accepted with the Security Association, Proposal, and
      Transform payloads. 
      Keying material used to arrive at a common shared secret and random 
      information which is used to guarantee liveness and protect against
      replay attacks is also transmitted.Additionally, the responder 
      transmits identification information and the signed data, SIG_I is 
      the result of the negotiated digital signature algorithm applied 
      to HASH_I.


   3. Receive the third message from NUT
      In the third (3) message, the initiator send the signed data, SIG_I 
      is the result of the negotiated digital signature algorithm applied 
      to HASH_I.


 * PHASE II


                      QUICK MODE


 #   Initiator(NUT)     Direction      Responder(TN)
(1)  HDR*, HASH(1), 
           SA, Ni       ========>
                Judgement (Check *3)


   1. Receive the first message from NUT
      In the first message (1), the initiator generates a proposal it
      considers adequate to protect traffic for the given situation.  The
      Security Association, Proposal, and Transform payloads are included
      in the Security Association payload (for notation purposes).
      And initiator send HASH(1) and Nonce. HASH(1) is the prf over the 
      message id (M-ID) from the ISAKMP header concatenated with the entire 
      message that follows the hash including all payload headers, 
      but excluding any padding added for encryption. Nonce is random 
      information which is used to guarantee liveness.

JUDGEMENT

       In Phase I, the first to the third message must be exchanged correctly.
           Check *1 
               Security Association, Key Exchange, Nonce, Identification Payload Format must be base on description of RFC.
           Check *2
               Signature Payload Format must be base on description of RFC.
       In Phase II, the first message must be received.
           Check *3
               NUT must start Phase II negotiation.
       And must conform to above Configuration.

TERMINATION

  Clean up SAD and SPD

REFERENCE

  RFC2409 
  4. Introduction


   (omit)


     IKE implementations MUST support the following attribute values:


      - DES [DES] in CBC mode with a weak, and semi-weak, key check
      (weak and semi-weak keys are referenced in [Sch96] and listed in
      Appendix A). The key is derived according to Appendix B.


      - MD5 [MD5] and SHA [SHA].


      - Authentication via pre-shared keys.


      - MODP over default group number one (see below).


   In addition, IKE implementations SHOULD support: 3DES for encryption;
   Tiger ([TIGER]) for hash; the Digital Signature Standard, RSA [RSA]
   signatures and authentication with RSA public key encryption; and
   MODP group number 2.  IKE implementations MAY support any additional
   encryption algorithms defined in Appendix A and MAY support ECP and
   EC2N groups.


   (omit)


  5. Exchanges


   There are two basic methods used to establish an authenticated key
   exchange: Main Mode and Aggressive Mode. Each generates authenticated
   keying material from an ephemeral Diffie-Hellman exchange. Main Mode
   MUST be implemented; Aggressive Mode SHOULD be implemented. In
   addition, Quick Mode MUST be implemented as a mechanism to generate
   fresh keying material and negotiate non-ISAKMP security services. In
   addition, New Group Mode SHOULD be implemented as a mechanism to
   define private groups for Diffie-Hellman exchanges. Implementations
   MUST NOT switch exchange types in the middle of an exchange.


   (omit)

SEE ALSO

  perldoc V6evalTool
  IKE.html IKE Test Common Utility