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

["John Hufferd" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>]

Pierre asks the following question.

"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? "

I would like to see more discussion on the feasibility of this approach,
especially
since iSCSI and IKE/IPSec are disjoint processes.  Please, anyone, that
understands
how these different layers would communicate with each other (using
Standard IKE/IPSec
implementations) please help.  For instance how does the IKE get the iSCSI
name of the
system on which it is running, and how does the iSCSI layer find out the
"Subjectname"
the remote system used to establish the connection, since it must be check
that it is the
same name sent on the iSCSI Login."  (Otherwise any valid Certificate owner
could still
masquerade as any other iSCSI Initiator Node.)

Also, if we can figure out how the above works, we need to understand how,
in an SRP environment,
the iqn or eui type name can be used.  (Environment 3).

Further, following Mark's Environment 2, we still need to find a way to use
the iSCSI initiator Node
Name, or understand the ramifications of establishing and using a related
Alias for the
iSCSI initiator node name.

.
.
.
John L. Hufferd
Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
Home Office (408) 997-6136
Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com


Pierre Labat <pierre_labat@hp.com>@cup.hp.com on 08/30/2001 08:37:46 AM

Sent by:  plabat@cup.hp.com


To:   John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject:  Re: ISCSI: User authentication vs. Machine Authentication for
      iSCSI




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.)