INTERNET_DRAFT Printer Working Group
<draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>
March 20, 1997 Expires September 24, 1997
Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Security
Status of this memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft
documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated,
replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is
inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or
to cite them other than as "work in progress."
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check
the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts
Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
Abstract
This document is one of a set of documents which together describe
all aspects of a new Internet Printing Protocol (IPP). IPP is an
application level protocol that can be used for distributed
printing on the Internet. The protocol is heavily influenced by
the printing model introduced in the Document Printing Application
(ISO/IEC 10175 DPA) standard, which describes a distributed printing
service. The full set of IPP documents includes:
Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Requirements
Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Model and Semantics
Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Security
Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Protocol Specification
Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Directory Schema
This document deals with the security considerations for IPP.
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
Printer Working Group [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>, expires September 24, 1997
2.0 Internet Printing Environments
2.1 Client, content and printer in the same security domain
2.2 Client and printer in one security domain, content in another
2.3 Client and content in one security domain, printer in another
2.4 Printer and content in one security domain, client in another
2.5 Printer, content and client all in different security domains
3.0 Security Services
3.1 Basic concepts
3.2 Security service attributes
3.3 Encryption concepts
3.4 Authorization concepts
3.5 Miscellaneous
4.0 IPP Security threats and methods of attack
4.1 Threats
4.2 Methods of attack
4.3 Quality of service
5.0 Attacks vs. security services
6.0 Quality of service vs. security services
7.0 Required security services provided by current security methods
8.0 Further references.
9.0 Author's Address
10.0 Other Contributors
1.0 Introduction
It is required that the Internet Printing Protocol be able to operate
within a secure environment. Wherever possible, IPP ought to make use
of existing security protocols and services. IPP will not invent new
security features when the requirements described in this document can
be met by existing protocols and services. Examples of such services
include Secure Sockets (SSL), Digest Access Authentication in HTTP,
and the Content MD-5 Header Field in MIME.
It is difficult to anticipate the security risks that might exist in
any given IPP environment. For example, if IPP is used within a given
corporation over a private network, the risks of exposing print data
may be low enough that the corporation will choose to not use
encryption on that data. However, if the connection between the
client and the Printer is over a public network, the client may wish
to protect the content of the information during transmission through
the network with encryption.
Furthermore, the value of the information being printed may vary from
one use of the protocol to the next. Printing payroll checks, for
example, might have a different value than printing public information
from a file.
Printer Working Group [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>, expires September 24, 1997
Since we cannot anticipate the security levels or the specific threats
that any given IPP print administrator may be concerned with, IPP must
be capable of operating with different security mechanisms and
security policies as required by the individual installation. Security
policies might vary from very strong, to very weak, to none at all,
and corresponding security mechanisms will be required.
This document will describe the various environments within which IPP
must operate. It will then introduce security related terminology used
in this document, describe the various security services available and
the possible threats and methods of attack. Finally, it will provide a
mapping of threats to services and discuss how existing security methods
address these requirements.
2.0 Internet Printing Environments
The printing environments described in this section must take into
account the fact that the client, the Printer, and the document to be
printed may all exist in separate security domains. This is complicated
by the fact that IPP allows documents to be included in the print
request or they may be printed by reference. When printing by reference
a Printer may fetch the document from the client, but more often the
document will be on another network node. Furthermore, there are at
least two parties that have an interest in the value of the information
being printed:
the client: the person asking to have the information printed
the author: the person who originated the information. This brings
into the picture the need to worry about copyrights and protection
of the content.
This requires consideration of the following Internet printing
environments. Where examples are provided they should be considered
illustrative of the environment and not an exhaustive set.
2.1 Client, Content and Printer in the same security domain
This environment would be typical of the traditional office where
users print the output of office applications on shared work-group
printers, or where batch applications print their output on large
production printers. Documents may be included in a print request
or printed by reference. Depending upon company policies security
could range from none to very secure.
Printer Working Group [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>, expires September 24, 1997
2.2 Client and Printer in one security domain, Content in another
In this environment, printing can only be done by reference (If the
client has already obtained the content, then it is in the client's
security domain). Examples of this environment include printing a
document, such as software documentation, from a publicly available
source on the Internet; or a copy of a contract or purchase order from
a business partner, on a local Printer. Controlling access to content
would be a major concern in this environment.
2.3 Client and Content in one security domain, Printer in another
Examples of this environment include printing a document created by the
client on a publicly available printer, such as at a commercial print
shop; or printing a contract on a business partner's printer. This
latter operation would be functionally equivalent to sending the
contract to the business partner as a facsimile. Documents may be
included in the print request or printed by reference. Some credentials
are required for the printer to fetch a document not in it's security
domain.
2.4 Printer and Content in one security domain, Client in another
Printing in this environment is by reference only. Examples would
include an employee at home connecting to his office through the
Internet to print a document on a printer at work, or a student
using the Internet to connect to the college library and asking
to have the results of a literature search printed on the library's
printer. Authentication of the user and controlling access to print
resources would be major concerns in this environment.
2.5 Printer, Content, and Client all in different security domains
Printing in this environment is by reference only. Examples include a
person at home using the Internet to print a document from a remote
site, at a commercial print shop. Authentication and controlling
access to content and to print resources would be concerns in this
environment.
3.0 Security Services
This section introduces common security terms used in this paper.
3.1 Basic Concepts
AAA: Overall term for security. The three A's are generally taken to be
Printer Working Group [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>, expires September 24, 1997
Authentication, Authorization, and Auditing although it may mean
Authentication, Authorization & Accounting in some contexts.
Security Domain: Security domain refers to the domain within which a
specific set of security policies and mechanisms define access to
resources within that domain.
Authentication: The process of reliably determining the identity of a
communicating party. There are three classic ways of authenticating
oneself: something you know, something you have and something you are.
The two entities involved in the communication could use the following
two ways to authenticate themselves.
Single entity authentication. Only one of the entities is authenticated
by the other. In the case of IPP this may either by the end user or the
Printer.
Mutual authentication. Both the parties authenticate each other.
Authorization: The granting of rights to a user, program or process to
access a resource such as a Printer. Authorization may also apply to
content being printed or to protect a resource from unauthorized use.
This can be achieved by the use of access control lists (ACL) or
capabilities.
Auditing: Keep a record of events that might have some significance,
such as when a Printer is used and by whom. To record independently
and later examine system activity. Audit data is generally used for
security concerns (e.g. intrusion detection and consistency checks).
Accounting: Keep a record of events that might have some significance,
such as when access to a Printer occurred, who accessed it, what print
resources were used. Accounting data is generally used for commercial
concerns (e.g. billing and charges).
3.2 Security Service Attributes
Anonymity: The ability to communicate so that the other principal can't
find out the identity of the sender.
Integrity: Keeping information from corruption or unauthorized
modification either maliciously or accidentally. Integrity protects
against forgery or tampering. Many document printing applications, such
as payroll, absolutely require integrity.
Non-Repudiation: There is proof who sent a message that a recipient can
show to a third party and the third party can independently verify the
source.
Printer Working Group [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>, expires September 24, 1997
Confidentiality: Protection from the unauthorized disclosure of print
data, both during transport, in storage, and on the printer.
3.3 Encryption Concepts
Encryption: To scramble information so that only someone knowing the
appropriate secret can obtain the original information. This might
apply to the document being printed, or to the entire print request.
Nonce: In order to prevent an attacker from launching a replay attack,
a very large random number or sequence number that is different every
time the cryptographic protocol is run is used. A nonce can also be
created from a time stamp that indicates the current date and time
up to milliseconds accuracy.
Public Key: Dual key (RSA/PGP style) cryptography. Uses two different
keys, either one for encryption and the other for decryption. Also
called a asymmetric cryptography.
Secret Key: Single key cryptography. Also called symmetric cryptography.
Session Key: A short lived Secret Key used by two principals for the
purpose of secure communications between them.
3.4 Authorization Concepts
ACL: Access Control List. A list of the subjects authorized to access a
Printer, a print resource, or a document. The list usually indicates
what type of access is allowed for each user.
Groups: A named set of users, created for convenience in stating
authorization policy.
Roles: A specific function a principal plays with respect to another
principal. Examples include a print administrator, a printer operator,
or an end-user. If a principal has multiple functions with respect to
another principal, it has multiple roles (e.g. A person can have both
administrator and operator roles for a Printer).
Capability: An identifier that specifies an object, such as a Printer,
and the access rights for the subject who possess the capability. See
also "Certificate / Ticket / Token"
Proxy Agent: A principal that has been authorized to work on the behalf
of another.
Printer Working Group [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>, expires September 24, 1997
Proxy: A token that grants the rights of a principal to another.
Restricted Proxy: A token that grants the rights of a principal to
another while placing restrictions on the privileges granted.
Certificate / Ticket / Token: Different names for a object used to
grant privileges. While these terms have individual meanings in
specific contexts (Kerberos generates tickets, physical objects
are tokens), there is no general agreement on how they differ.
We will use Certificate / Ticket / Token largely interchangeably.
Capability & Proxy are related terms, but with narrower focus.
CRL: Certificate Revocation List. A list of revoked certificates.
3.5 Miscellaneous
Denial of Service: An action that prevents a system or its
resources from functioning efficiently and reliably.
4.0 IPP Security Threats and Methods of Attack
The purpose of a security system is to restrict access to information
and resources to just those users which are authorized to have access.
To produce a system that is demonstrably secure against specific
threats, it is useful to classify the threats and methods of attack by
which each of them may be achieved.
4.1 Threats
Security threats for IPP fall into the following broad categories:
Resource stealing: The unauthorized use of facilities, such as printers,
specific printer features, media, fonts, or logos etc. resulting in
some value to the perpetrator.
Vandalism: Similar to resource stealing, but usually without gain to the
perpetrator. Often results in denial of service to other authorized
users.
Leakage: The acquisition of information by unauthorized interceptors
during transmission.
Tampering: The interception and altering of information during
transmission.
4.2 Methods of Attack
The methods by which security violations can be perpetrated in the IPP
environment depend upon obtaining access to existing communication
Printer Working Group [Page 7]
draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>, expires September 24, 1997
channels or establishing channels that masquerade as connections to
a user with some desired authority. These methods are:
Masquerading: Submission of print jobs or performing other IPP
operations using the identity and password of another user without
their authority, or by using an access token or capability after the
authorization to use it has expired.
Eavesdropping: Obtaining copies of documents and job instructions
without authority, either directly from the network or by examining
information that is inadequately protected in storage.
Document tampering: Interception documents or other print job related
information and altering their contents before passing them on to the
printer or print server.
Replaying: Intercepting and storing print jobs or documents, and have
them submitted again later. Example: Stock Certificate Printing.
Spamming: Sending irrelevant or nonsensical print jobs or other IPP
operations to a printer or print server with the objective of
overloading the system and prevent legal users to get service.
Malicious Document Content Code: Sending documents that contain
malicious code which will bring the printer software into a loop
or even ruin hardware components in the print device. Example: Using
PostScript as a programming language to run the printer into an
infinite loop.
4.3 Quality of Service
Liability: Responsibility of the user for the printed content. This
holds the user accountable for making payments, usage of special
resources like transparencies, color printing, etc. The printer is
also responsible for the services performed and will be held
responsible for it.
Provability of Service: The printer should be able to prove that it
performed correctly according to the job attributes which the
client/user had indeed issued. Example: The printer should be able
to prove that the job request was indeed a monochrome when the user
claims it issued a color copy.
Payment and Accounting System: It is a mistake to charge the wrong
person when someone has issued a print request.
Printer Working Group [Page 8]
draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>, expires September 24, 1997
5.0 Attacks Vs. Security Services
The following table defines how the services described here address
security attacks. A (C) in the table refers to client side services,
an (S) server side services. CA = Client Authentication, SA = Server
Authentication, DC = Data Confidentiality, DI = Data Integrity, NR =
Non-repudiation, TS = Time Stamp and Nonce.
Attacks\Services CA SA DC DI NR TS
Masquerading
1. User/Client Yes
(Incorrect source -
misuse of resources)
2. Printer/Server Yes Yes Yes (S)
(Incorrect destination)
Eavesdropping Yes
Document Tampering
1. incorrect rendering Yes
of data and job attributes
2. guarantee security Yes Yes
marks (watermarking,
fingerprinting, security
banners)
Replaying Yes
Denial of Service Yes Yes(C) Yes
(Spamming)
Document Malicious
Content Code
1. corruption of hardware Yes Yes Yes
resources
2. corruption of printer Yes Yes
software
Printer Working Group [Page 9]
draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>, expires September 24, 1997
6.0 Quality of Service vs. Security Services
The following table defines how the services described here address
security attacks. A (C) in the table refers to client side services,
an (S) server side services. CA = Client Authentication, SA = Server
Authentication, DC = Data Confidentiality, DI = Data Integrity, NR =
Non-repudiation, TS = Time Stamp and Nonce.
Qual of Service/Services CA SA DC DI NR TS
Liability for
1. printed content Yes Yes
2. for services Yes Yes
performed
Provability of Yes(S) Yes
service
Defeating payment Yes Yes(C) Yes
or accounting
system
Printer Working Group [Page 10]
draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>, expires September 24, 1997
7.0 Required Security Services provided by current security methods
The following table describes how current security methods address
the requirements discussed in this paper. Security methods would be
invoked by standard means, i.e. IPP would use the URL
https://www.xyz.com/printer-1 to name a printer that requires SSL.
Requirements HTTP/1.1 SSL (V2) SSL (V3) LDAP
Authentication
single entity Yes Yes No
mutual No No Yes
Authorization
ACL -- -- --
Capability -- -- --
Non-repudiation
Integrity -- Yes Yes
Confidentiality -- Yes Yes
Administration
Certificate
Mgmt. -- -- -- Yes
Secure Comm.
Printer Working Group [Page 11]
draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>, expires September 24, 1997
8.0 References
[1] C. Kaufmann, R. Perlman and M. Speciner, Network Security
[2] D. Russell and G.T. Gabgemi Sr., Computer Security Basics
[3] A. Freier, P. Karlton and P. Kocher, The SSL Protocol Version 3.0,
Internet Draft <draft-freier-ssl-version3-01.txt>, March 1996
[4] K. Hickman and T. Elgamal, The SSL Protocol, Internet Draft <
draft-hickman-netscape-ssl-01.txt> (deleted), February 1995
[5] X.500: The Directory -- Overview of Concepts, Models, and Service,
CCITT Recommendation X.500, December 1988
[6] W. Yeoung, T. Howes, and S. Kille, Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol, RFC 1777, 03/28/1995. (Work is alos underway in the
IETF to produce an extended version of LDAP.)
[7] R. Rivest, The MD5 Message Digest Algorithm, RFC 1321, April 1992
[8] M. Mahl, T. Howes, S. Kille, Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(v3), Work in progress, Internet Draft
<draft-ietf-asid-ldapv3-protocol-03.txt>, October 22, 1996
[9] J, Franks, P. Hallam-Baker, J. Hostetler, P. Leach, A. Luotonen,
E. Sink, and L. Stewart, An Extension to HTTP: Digest Access
Authentication, RFC 2069, January 1997
[10] J. Myers and M. Rose, The Content MD-5 Header Field, RFC 1864,
October 1995
Printer Working Group [Page 12]
draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>, expires September 24, 1997
9.0 Author's Address
Roger deBry
HUC/003G
IBM Corporation
P.O. Box 1900
Boulder, CO 80301-9191
Jerry Hadsell
1130
IBM Corporation
Rt. 100
Somers, N.Y. 10589
Daniel Manchala
Xerox Corporation
701 Aviation Blvd.
El Segundo, CA 90245
Xavier Riley
Xerox Corporation
701 Aviation Blvd.
El Segundo, CA 90245
10.0 Other Contributors
Scott Isaacson
Carl-Uno Manros
Printer Working Group [Page 13]
draft-ietf-ipp-security-00.txt>, expires September 24, 1997