»TLS in Boundary

As a security product, Boundary has been designed from the ground up to ensure its connections are secure. There are three types of connections in Boundary; this page will describe how TLS works with each of them.

Some of the ways that Boundary uses TLS, e.g. for client-to-worker connections, are different from most other products. It may not be readily apparent that user configuration of TLS on the listening port of Workers is not only not required, but more secure; however, when it comes to TLS, Boundary tries to provide high security by default with simplicity of operation.

Details are in the individual sections below.

»Client-to-Controller TLS

Boundary's API access (that is, the Controller server defaulting to port 9200) uses standard PKI. TLS is configured by providing a valid certificate (and optionally CA certificate or chain) and clients must trust that CA chain. This provides broad compatibility with a wide array of clients.

»Worker-to-Controller TLS

The service exposed by the a Controller to handle Worker requests takes advantage of the KMS key designated for worker-auth within Boundary's configuration file, which must point to the same key on the KMS for both the Controller and the Worker. Security of the connection relies on secure transmission of a single set of allowed TLS parameters, which forms the entire allowable CA chain for the connection.

TLS establishment is performed as follows:

  1. The Worker generates a TLS certificate acting as a self-contained chain, as well as a nonce. The generated key type is currently Ed25519. The certificate is valid for a total of 2.5 minutes: thirty seconds before the current time (to allow for some minor clock drift) and two minutes after (to allow time to establish the connection).

  2. The Worker marshals the TLS chain and nonce and encrypts the resulting bytes via the shared KMS. This value is marshaled and split into chunks.

  3. The Worker establishes a TLS 1.3 connection to the Controller. The encrypted value is transmitted to the Controller via the TLS ALPN field as numbered chunks.

  4. The Controller reads the chunks and reassembles them into the original encrypted value.

  5. The Controller decrypts this value via the shared KMS. If successful, the Controller validates that the nonce is not known, to ensure that this is not a replay.

  6. The Controller uses the decrypted parameters to configures its TLS stack with the same certificate and key.

  7. The connection is mutually authenticated; on each end, only the single self-signed CA certificate that was securely transmitted is configured as a valid root CA for validation checking.

  8. If successful, the nonce is stored in the database along with an expiration time set several minutes past the actual expiration time of the certificate itself. This ensures that any replay attempt that occurs is detected and rejected until after the certificate is otherwise invalid.

»Client-to-Worker TLS

Workers do not require any configuration for their client-facing listeners to support a high degree of security. Instead, the TLS configuration to use is determined dynamically via SNI, and the session is then mutually authenticated. Here's how it works:

TLS establishment is performed as follows:

  1. When the session is authorized, the Controller generates a TLS certificate acting as a self-contained chain. This is similar to the Worker-to-Controller flow above, but in this case the key is an Ed25519 key generated via derivation from a base key within the Controller, which itself is protected at rest via the controller's "root" KMS. The derivation uses HKDF-SHA256 with the user ID and the session ID as inputs. The lifetime of the certificate is tied to the lifetime of the session.

  2. The certificate and private key (along with other session authorization data, notably the session ID) are returned to the client as part of the output of an authorize-session action against a target, in the form of a marshaled object. The controller persists the certificate in the database, but not the private key.

  3. The client (that is, the boundary connect command) parses this session authorization data and uses the certificate and private key to construct a TLS stack. It then makes a TLS 1.3 connection to a Worker, passing the session ID as the SNI value.

  4. The worker sees the SNI value and makes a call to the Controller to fetch session authorization information, keyed by the session ID.

  5. The Controller looks for a session with the given ID and fetches the information. Using the session ID and the user ID tied to the session, it re-derives the private key and passes all of the information back to the Worker. Notably, this may include a TOFU (Trust On First Use) token.

  6. The Worker uses the given data to construct a TLS stack with the same certificate and key.

  7. The connection is mutually authenticated; on each end, only the single self-signed CA certificate that was securely transmitted is configured as a valid root CA for validation checking.

  8. If successful, the client and Worker perform a handshake, where the client passes a TOFU (Trust On First Use) value to the Worker. This value is derived when the client is created; that is, when boundary connect is run. This allows for a single client to make multiple connections within a session, without the credentials being usable via a different client:

  • If the worker was not given a TOFU token in step 5, the worker submits the value to the Controller. The Controller verifies (via a database transaction) that the session has not had a different TOFU token submitted prior and stores it. Otherwise it's rejected, and so is the connection, as a possible replay attack.
  • If the Worker was given a TOFU token in step 5, it checks to see whether the token values match. If not, the connection is rejected as a possible replay attack.

In the future, to support other client paradigms, we may support user configuration of the Worker's client-facing TLS. In this model, the shared certificate/private key would instead act as credentials for the session, similar to a username/password.