Re: ISCSI: User authentication vs. Machine Authentication for iSCSI

[Pierre Labat <pierre_labat@hp.com>]

John Hufferd wrote:

Bill,
You are correct, in my opinion, on the problem statement, but not  on the
solution.

The IKE stuff will Get a system identified, and perhaps ensure that a
encrypted connection is put in place.  This then give the Source and Target
the Freedom to exchange stuff that would otherwise be in the clear, such as
iSCSI Node Names etc.  But after the iSCSI session is established, it is
between an OS and a target.  The OS, is the thing that actually owns the
resource, it only loans the resources, in some manor, to applications.

I was having a similar problem to what you stated, at the Irvine meeting,
and kept digging and objecting (off-stage) until I got the following more
acceptable response.

Environment 1: (Use of IKE with complete Certificates processing ( or
pre-Shared password), with ESP equal to something other then Null)
1. We use IKE to get a mutually authenticated and Encrypted communication
link.  This means that the Target knows that (at the IKE/TCP Layer) there
is, at the other end, an authorized thing.  (What or who that thing is,
relative to iSCSI is not really known).  This secure link can be
established either via Certificates or via a pre-Shared password.
2. An iSCSI Login can now be done, over a secure link, so the iSCSI
Initiator Name, and iSCSI Target Name etc can be exchanged securely.
Please note, just because you passed the IKE certificate gate does not mean
you are the iSCSI Initiator that you claim to be.

John,

Do i miss something? Why not use Certificate where
the subjectname is the iSCSI name (iqn or eui)?.
So as soon as the IPSEC SA are established each side
knows what intitiator/target is the other side.
There no need for extra password or alias.
The only problem with that is that some directory
as you mentionned below wouldn't support subjectname
as long as an iqn?

Regards,

Pierre

> Therefore, a password,
> for example, that is associated with the iSCSI Initiator Name can now
> be
> used to perform an iSCSI validation of the Initiator.  (Please
> note, this
> could, instead of a password,  be a Kerberos type Validation etc.)
> 3. David, and perhaps other used the words "User" or "Application"
> name to
> address what was being addressed in 2 above.  But there was more
> to this
> then just assuming that the iSCSI Initiator Name was the User name. 
> Since
> folks may actually want to use existing infrastructure, to handle the
> password management and authentication process, they will need to assign
> what I might call an "Alias for the iSCSI Initiator" which can actually
> be
> saved in the existing infrastructure user authentication repository. 
> The
> point that was made to me, is that iSCSI Initiator Name (iqn or eui)
> will
> not "fit" into things that contain "User Names" so we need to have
> a
> corresponding "User Name" that we can actually authenticate using,
> for
> example Microsoft Active Directory etc. Hence the need for a "Alias
> for the
> iSCSI initiator.  (I really hate this, and wish there was something
> else we
> could do.)
>