");
#======================================================================
vStop($IF0);
ikeReset();
ikeExitPass();
#NOTREACHED
######################################################################
__END__
=head1 NAME
R_RFC2408_5_3_1 - [Responder Test]cookie field check
=head1 TARGET
End-Node
=head1 SYNOPSIS
=begin html
R_RFC2408_5_3_1.seq [-tooloption ...] -pkt R_RFC2408_5_3_1.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
=end html
=head1 INITIALIZATION
=begin html
HOST-2(TN):initiator
|3ffe:501:ffff:101::11
|
Net-y --+--------+------------------------ 3ffe:501:ffff:101::/64
|
|
ROUTER-1(TN)
|3ffe:501:ffff:100::11
|
Net-z --+--------+------------------------ 3ffe:501:ffff:100::/64
|
|3ffe:501:ffff:100:XXXX
NUT:responder
XXXX: EUI64 address
Verification Points
There is no relationship between the two SAs and the initiator
and responder cookie pairs SHOULD be different.
Configuration
Initiator and Responder IKE parameter
At least, following parameter must be included in proposal.
| Machine |
Src |
Dest |
Phase I |
Phase II |
| Ex mode |
Key Value |
Enc Alg |
Hash Alg |
Auth Method |
DH Group |
PH1 Lt |
IDx |
Proto ID |
Trans ID |
Mode |
Auth Alg |
PH2 Lt |
Upper |
| NUT |
NUT addr |
HOST-2 addr |
Main |
IKE-TEST |
3DES |
SHA |
pre-shared key |
2 |
60 sec |
NUT addr |
PROTO_IPSEC_ESP |
ESP_3DES |
Transport |
HMAC-SHA |
8 Hour |
any |
| HOST-2 |
HOST-2 addr |
NUT addr |
Main |
IKE-TEST |
3DES |
SHA |
pre-shared key |
2 |
60 sec |
HOST-2 addr |
PROTO_IPSEC_ESP |
ESP_3DES |
Transport |
HMAC-SHA |
8 Hour |
any |
*Ex Mode = Exchange mode
*IDx = identity payload(FQDN or user FQDN can also be chosen as IDx)
*Enc Alg = IKE Encryption Algorithm
*Hash Alg = IKE Authentication Algorithm
*Key Value = pre-shared key value
*PH1 Lt = Phase-1 Lifetime
*PH2 Lt = Phase-2 Lifetime
*Proto ID = Protocol Identifier
*Trans ID = Transform Identifier
*Mode = Encapsulation Mode
*Auth Alg = Authentication Algorithm
*Auth Method = Authentication Method
*DH Group = Diffie-Hellman Group
*Upper = Upper Layer Protocol
*NUT addr = NUT address
*HOST-2 addr = HOST-2 address
=end html
=head1 TEST PROCEDURE
=begin html
This test check is following.
the first IDENTITY PROTECTION EXCHANGE
# Initiator(TN) Direction Responder(NUT)
(1) HDR; SA ========> <---- Life Time = 60sec
(2) <======== HDR; SA <---- Life Time = 60sec #1 : responder cookie
(3) HDR; KE; NONCE ========>
(4) <======== HDR; KE; NONCE
(5) HDR*; IDii; HASH_I ========>
(6) <======== HDR*; IDir; HASH_R
1. Send the first message from TN
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).
2. Receive the second message from NUT
In the second message (2), the responder indicates the protection
suite it has accepted with the Security Association, Proposal, and
Transform payloads.
3. Send the third message from TN
In the third (3) messages, the initiator send keying material
used to arrive at a common shared secret and random information
which is used to guarantee liveness and protect against replay attacks.
4. Receive the fourth message from NUT
In the fourth (4) messages, the responder send keying material
used to arrive at a common shared secret and random information
which is used to guarantee liveness and protect against replay attacks.
5. Send the fifth message from TN
In the fifth (5) messages, the initiator send identification
information and the results of the agreed upon authentication
function(hash function).
6. Receive the sixth message from NUT
In the sixth (6) messages, the responder send identification
information and the results of the agreed upon authentication
function(hash function).
10sec after the first IDENTITY PROTECTION EXCHANGE,
negotiation of IKE(the second IDENTITY PROTECTION EXCHANGE) is started.
The second IDENTITY PROTECTION EXCHANGE
# Initiator(TN) Direction Responder(NUT)
(1) HDR; SA ========>
(2) <======== HDR; SA <---- #2 : responder cookie
Judgement (Check *1)
1. Send the first message from TN
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).
In this message, initiator cookie is different from the first IDENTITY
PROTECTION EXCHANGE's initiator cookie.
2. Receive the second message from NUT
In the second message (2), the responder indicates the protection
suite it has accepted with the Security Association, Proposal, and
Transform payloads.
=end html
=head1 JUDGEMENT
In the first IDENTITY PROTECTION EXCHANGE,
the first to the sixth message must be exchanged correctly.
In the second IDENTITY PROTECTION EXCHANGE,
The first message must be accepted. And second message's responder cookie(#2)
is not same as the first IDENTITY PROTECTION EXCHANGE's responder cookie(#1).
=head1 TERMINATION
Clean up SAD and SPD
=head1 REFERENCE
=begin html
RFC2408
4.3 Security Association Modification
Security Association modification within ISAKMP is accomplished by
creating a new SA and initiating communications using that new SA.
Deletion of the old SA can be done anytime after the new SA is
established. Deletion of the old SA is dependent on local security
policy. Modification of SAs by using a "Create New SA followed by
Delete Old SA" method is done to avoid potential vulnerabilities in
synchronizing modification of existing SA attributes. The procedure
for creating new SAs is outlined in section 4.2. The procedure for
deleting SAs is outlined in section 5.15.
Modification of an ISAKMP SA (phase 1 negotiation) follows the same
procedure as creation of an ISAKMP SA. There is no relationship
between the two SAs and the initiator and responder cookie pairs
SHOULD be different, as outlined in section 2.5.3.
Modification of a Protocol SA (phase 2 negotiation) follows the same
procedure as creation of a Protocol SA. The creation of a new SA is
protected by the existing ISAKMP SA. There is no relationship between
the two Protocol SAs. A protocol implementation SHOULD begin using
the newly created SA for outbound traffic and SHOULD continue to
support incoming traffic on the old SA until it is deleted or until
traffic is received under the protection of the newly created SA. As
stated previously in this section, deletion of an old SA is then
dependent on local security policy.
(omit)
=end html
=head1 SEE ALSO
perldoc V6evalTool
=begin html
IKE.html IKE Test Common Utility
=end html
=cut