Requests For Comments ... for the community
Welcome to OpenRFC
Home Full RFC index RFC humour Our technology
<< Previous <<      RFC 4616      >> Next >>    
The PLAIN Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Mechanism.
K. Zeilenga, Ed.. August 2006.

[Direct link][Download PDF version][Download text version]

Network Working Group K. Zeilenga, Ed. Request for Comments: 4616 OpenLDAP Foundation Updates: 2595 August 2006 Category: Standards Track The PLAIN Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Mechanism Status of This Memo This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract This document defines a simple clear-text user/password Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) mechanism called the PLAIN mechanism. The PLAIN mechanism is intended to be used, in combination with data confidentiality services provided by a lower layer, in protocols that lack a simple password authentication command. Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006 1. Introduction Clear-text, multiple-use passwords are simple, interoperate with almost all existing operating system authentication databases, and are useful for a smooth transition to a more secure password-based authentication mechanism. The drawback is that they are unacceptable for use over network connections where data confidentiality is not ensured. This document defines the PLAIN Simple Authentication and Security Layer ([SASL]) mechanism for use in protocols with no clear-text login command (e.g., [ACAP] or [SMTP-AUTH]). This document updates RFC 2595, replacing Section 6. Changes since RFC 2595 are detailed in Appendix A. The name associated with this mechanism is "PLAIN". The PLAIN SASL mechanism does not provide a security layer. The PLAIN mechanism should not be used without adequate data security protection as this mechanism affords no integrity or confidentiality protections itself. The mechanism is intended to be used with data security protections provided by application-layer protocol, generally through its use of Transport Layer Security ([TLS]) services. By default, implementations SHOULD advertise and make use of the PLAIN mechanism only when adequate data security services are in place. Specifications for IETF protocols that indicate that this mechanism is an applicable authentication mechanism MUST mandate that implementations support an strong data security service, such as TLS. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [Keywords]. 2. PLAIN SASL Mechanism The mechanism consists of a single message, a string of [UTF-8] encoded [Unicode] characters, from the client to the server. The client presents the authorization identity (identity to act as), followed by a NUL (U+0000) character, followed by the authentication identity (identity whose password will be used), followed by a NUL (U+0000) character, followed by the clear-text password. As with other SASL mechanisms, the client does not provide an authorization identity when it wishes the server to derive an identity from the credentials and use that as the authorization identity. Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006 The formal grammar for the client message using Augmented BNF [ABNF] follows. message = [authzid] UTF8NUL authcid UTF8NUL passwd authcid = 1*SAFE ; MUST accept up to 255 octets authzid = 1*SAFE ; MUST accept up to 255 octets passwd = 1*SAFE ; MUST accept up to 255 octets UTF8NUL = %x00 ; UTF-8 encoded NUL character SAFE = UTF1 / UTF2 / UTF3 / UTF4 ;; any UTF-8 encoded Unicode character except NUL UTF1 = %x01-7F ;; except NUL UTF2 = %xC2-DF UTF0 UTF3 = %xE0 %xA0-BF UTF0 / %xE1-EC 2(UTF0) / %xED %x80-9F UTF0 / %xEE-EF 2(UTF0) UTF4 = %xF0 %x90-BF 2(UTF0) / %xF1-F3 3(UTF0) / %xF4 %x80-8F 2(UTF0) UTF0 = %x80-BF The authorization identity (authzid), authentication identity (authcid), password (passwd), and NUL character deliminators SHALL be transferred as [UTF-8] encoded strings of [Unicode] characters. As the NUL (U+0000) character is used as a deliminator, the NUL (U+0000) character MUST NOT appear in authzid, authcid, or passwd productions. The form of the authzid production is specific to the application- level protocol's SASL profile [SASL]. The authcid and passwd productions are form-free. Use of non-visible characters or characters that a user may be unable to enter on some keyboards is discouraged. Servers MUST be capable of accepting authzid, authcid, and passwd productions up to and including 255 octets. It is noted that the UTF-8 encoding of a Unicode character may be as long as 4 octets. Upon receipt of the message, the server will verify the presented (in the message) authentication identity (authcid) and password (passwd) with the system authentication database, and it will verify that the authentication credentials permit the client to act as the (presented or derived) authorization identity (authzid). If both steps succeed, the user is authenticated. The presented authentication identity and password strings, as well as the database authentication identity and password strings, are to be prepared before being used in the verification process. The [SASLPrep] profile of the [StringPrep] algorithm is the RECOMMENDED preparation algorithm. The SASLprep preparation algorithm is Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006 recommended to improve the likelihood that comparisons behave in an expected manner. The SASLprep preparation algorithm is not mandatory so as to allow the server to employ other preparation algorithms (including none) when appropriate. For instance, use of a different preparation algorithm may be necessary for the server to interoperate with an external system. When preparing the presented strings using [SASLPrep], the presented strings are to be treated as "query" strings (Section 7 of [StringPrep]) and hence unassigned code points are allowed to appear in their prepared output. When preparing the database strings using [SASLPrep], the database strings are to be treated as "stored" strings (Section 7 of [StringPrep]) and hence unassigned code points are prohibited from appearing in their prepared output. Regardless of the preparation algorithm used, if the output of a non-invertible function (e.g., hash) of the expected string is stored, the string MUST be prepared before input to that function. Regardless of the preparation algorithm used, if preparation fails or results in an empty string, verification SHALL fail. When no authorization identity is provided, the server derives an authorization identity from the prepared representation of the provided authentication identity string. This ensures that the derivation of different representations of the authentication identity produces the same authorization identity. The server MAY use the credentials to initialize any new authentication database, such as one suitable for [CRAM-MD5] or [DIGEST-MD5]. 3. Pseudo-Code This section provides pseudo-code illustrating the verification process (using hashed passwords and the SASLprep preparation function) discussed above. This section is not definitive. boolean Verify(string authzid, string authcid, string passwd) { string pAuthcid = SASLprep(authcid, true); # prepare authcid string pPasswd = SASLprep(passwd, true); # prepare passwd if (pAuthcid == NULL || pPasswd == NULL) { return false; # preparation failed } if (pAuthcid == "" || pPasswd == "") { return false; # empty prepared string } Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006 storedHash = FetchPasswordHash(pAuthcid); if (storedHash == NULL || storedHash == "") { return false; # error or unknown authcid } if (!Compare(storedHash, Hash(pPasswd))) { return false; # incorrect password } if (authzid == NULL ) { authzid = DeriveAuthzid(pAuthcid); if (authzid == NULL || authzid == "") { return false; # could not derive authzid } } if (!Authorize(pAuthcid, authzid)) { return false; # not authorized } return true; } The second parameter of the SASLprep function, when true, indicates that unassigned code points are allowed in the input. When the SASLprep function is called to prepare the password prior to computing the stored hash, the second parameter would be false. The second parameter provided to the Authorize function is not prepared by this code. The application-level SASL profile should be consulted to determine what, if any, preparation is necessary. Note that the DeriveAuthzid and Authorize functions (whether implemented as one function or two, whether designed in a manner in which these functions or whether the mechanism implementation can be reused elsewhere) require knowledge and understanding of mechanism and the application-level protocol specification and/or implementation details to implement. Note that the Authorize function outcome is clearly dependent on details of the local authorization model and policy. Both functions may be dependent on other factors as well. Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006 4. Examples This section provides examples of PLAIN authentication exchanges. The examples are intended to help the readers understand the above text. The examples are not definitive. "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and server, respectively. "<NUL>" represents a single NUL (U+0000) character. The Application Configuration Access Protocol ([ACAP]) is used in the examples. The first example shows how the PLAIN mechanism might be used for user authentication. S: * ACAP (SASL "CRAM-MD5") (STARTTLS) C: a001 STARTTLS S: a001 OK "Begin TLS negotiation now" <TLS negotiation, further commands are under TLS layer> S: * ACAP (SASL "CRAM-MD5" "PLAIN") C: a002 AUTHENTICATE "PLAIN" S: + "" C: {21} C: <NUL>tim<NUL>tanstaaftanstaaf S: a002 OK "Authenticated" The second example shows how the PLAIN mechanism might be used to attempt to assume the identity of another user. In this example, the server rejects the request. Also, this example makes use of the protocol optional initial response capability to eliminate a round- trip. S: * ACAP (SASL "CRAM-MD5") (STARTTLS) C: a001 STARTTLS S: a001 OK "Begin TLS negotiation now" <TLS negotiation, further commands are under TLS layer> S: * ACAP (SASL "CRAM-MD5" "PLAIN") C: a002 AUTHENTICATE "PLAIN" {20+} C: Ursel<NUL>Kurt<NUL>xipj3plmq S: a002 NO "Not authorized to requested authorization identity" 5. Security Considerations As the PLAIN mechanism itself provided no integrity or confidentiality protections, it should not be used without adequate external data security protection, such as TLS services provided by many application-layer protocols. By default, implementations SHOULD NOT advertise and SHOULD NOT make use of the PLAIN mechanism unless adequate data security services are in place. Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006 When the PLAIN mechanism is used, the server gains the ability to impersonate the user to all services with the same password regardless of any encryption provided by TLS or other confidentiality protection mechanisms. Whereas many other authentication mechanisms have similar weaknesses, stronger SASL mechanisms address this issue. Clients are encouraged to have an operational mode where all mechanisms that are likely to reveal the user's password to the server are disabled. General [SASL] security considerations apply to this mechanism. Unicode, [UTF-8], and [StringPrep] security considerations also apply. 6. IANA Considerations The SASL Mechanism registry [IANA-SASL] entry for the PLAIN mechanism has been updated by the IANA to reflect that this document now provides its technical specification. To: Subject: Updated Registration of SASL mechanism PLAIN SASL mechanism name: PLAIN Security considerations: See RFC 4616. Published specification (optional, recommended): RFC 4616 Person & email address to contact for further information: Kurt Zeilenga <> IETF SASL WG <> Intended usage: COMMON Author/Change controller: IESG <> Note: Updates existing entry for PLAIN 7. Acknowledgements This document is a revision of RFC 2595 by Chris Newman. Portions of the grammar defined in Section 2 were borrowed from [UTF-8] by Francois Yergeau. This document is a product of the IETF Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Working Group. Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006 8. Normative References [ABNF] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005. [Keywords] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [SASL] Melnikov, A., Ed., and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006. [SASLPrep] Zeilenga, K., "SASLprep: Stringprep Profile for User Names and Passwords", RFC 4013, February 2005. [StringPrep] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454, December 2002. [Unicode] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version 3.2.0" is defined by "The Unicode Standard, Version 3.0" (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2000. ISBN 0-201- 61633-5), as amended by the "Unicode Standard Annex #27: Unicode 3.1" ( and by the "Unicode Standard Annex #28: Unicode 3.2" ( [UTF-8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003. [TLS] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006. 9. Informative References [ACAP] Newman, C. and J. Myers, "ACAP -- Application Configuration Access Protocol", RFC 2244, November 1997. [CRAM-MD5] Nerenberg, L., Ed., "The CRAM-MD5 SASL Mechanism", Work in Progress, June 2006. [DIGEST-MD5] Melnikov, A., Ed., "Using Digest Authentication as a SASL Mechanism", Work in Progress, June 2006. Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006 [IANA-SASL] IANA, "SIMPLE AUTHENTICATION AND SECURITY LAYER (SASL) MECHANISMS", <>. [SMTP-AUTH] Myers, J., "SMTP Service Extension for Authentication", RFC 2554, March 1999. Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006 Appendix A. Changes since RFC 2595 This appendix is non-normative. This document replaces Section 6 of RFC 2595. The specification details how the server is to compare client- provided character strings with stored character strings. The ABNF grammar was updated. In particular, the grammar now allows LINE FEED (U+000A) and CARRIAGE RETURN (U+000D) characters in the authzid, authcid, passwd productions. However, whether these control characters may be used depends on the string preparation rules applicable to the production. For passwd and authcid productions, control characters are prohibited. For authzid, one must consult the application-level SASL profile. This change allows PLAIN to carry all possible authorization identity strings allowed in SASL. Pseudo-code was added. The example section was expanded to illustrate more features of the PLAIN mechanism. Editor's Address Kurt D. Zeilenga OpenLDAP Foundation EMail: Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4616 The PLAIN SASL Mechanism August 2006 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 11]


[Home] [Full RFC index] [RFC humour] [Our technology]

Copyright © Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.  All rights reserved.
All trademarks and RFC contents are the property of their respective owners.