[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-lennox-avtcore-srtp-encrypted-header-ext) 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 6904

AVTCORE                                                        J. Lennox
Internet-Draft                                                     Vidyo
Updates: 3711 (if approved)                             February 8, 2013
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: August 12, 2013


   Encryption of Header Extensions in the Secure Real-Time Transport
                            Protocol (SRTP)
            draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-encrypted-header-ext-05

Abstract

   The Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol (SRTP) provides
   authentication, but not encryption, of the headers of Real-Time
   Transport Protocol (RTP) packets.  However, RTP header extensions may
   carry sensitive information for which participants in multimedia
   sessions want confidentiality.  This document provides a mechanism,
   extending the mechanisms of SRTP, to selectively encrypt RTP header
   extensions in SRTP.

   This document updates RFC 3711, the Secure Real-Time Transport
   Protocol specification, to require that all future SRTP encryption
   transforms specify how RTP header extensions are to be encrypted.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 12, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal



Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Encryption Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Example Encryption Mask  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Header Extension Keystream Generation for Existing
           Encryption Transforms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Header Extension Keystream Generation for Future
           Encryption Transforms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Signaling (Setup) Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Backward compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Appendix A.  Test Vectors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     A.1.  Key derivation test vectors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     A.2.  Header Encryption Test Vectors using AES-CM  . . . . . . . 13
   Appendix B.  Changes From Earlier Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     B.1.  Changes from draft-ietf-avtcore -04  . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     B.2.  Changes from draft-ietf-avtcore -03  . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     B.3.  Changes from draft-ietf-avtcore -02  . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     B.4.  Changes from draft-ietf-avtcore -01  . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     B.5.  Changes from draft-ietf-avtcore -00  . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     B.6.  Changes from draft-lennox-avtcore -00  . . . . . . . . . . 16
     B.7.  Changes from draft-lennox-avt -02  . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     B.8.  Changes From Individual Submission Draft -01 . . . . . . . 16
     B.9.  Changes From Individual Submission Draft -00 . . . . . . . 16
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16









Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


1.  Introduction

   The Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol [RFC3711] specification
   provides confidentiality, message authentication, and replay
   protection for multimedia payloads sent using the Real-Time Protocol
   (RTP) [RFC3550].  However, in order to preserve RTP header
   compression efficiency, SRTP provides only authentication and replay
   protection for the headers of RTP packets, not confidentiality.

   For the standard portions of an RTP header, this does not normally
   present a problem, as the information carried in an RTP header does
   not provide much information beyond that which an attacker could
   infer by observing the size and timing of RTP packets.  Thus, there
   is little need for confidentiality of the header information.

   However, this is not necessarily true for information carried in RTP
   header extensions.  A number of recent proposals for header
   extensions using the General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions
   [RFC5285] carry information for which confidentiality could be
   desired or essential.  Notably, two recent specifications ([RFC6464]
   and [RFC6465]) carry information about per-packet sound levels of the
   media data carried in the RTP payload, and exposing this to an
   eavesdropper is unacceptable in many circumstances (as described in
   the respective RFCs' Security Considerations sections).

   This document, therefore, defines a mechanism by which encryption can
   be applied to RTP header extensions when they are transported using
   SRTP.  As an RTP sender may wish some extension information to be
   sent in the clear (for example, it may be useful for a network
   monitoring device to be aware of RTP transmission time offsets
   [RFC5450]), this mechanism can be selectively applied to a subset of
   the header extension elements carried in an SRTP packet.

   The mechanism defined by this document encrypts packets' header
   extensions using the same cryptographic algorithms and parameters as
   are used to encrypt the packets' RTP payloads.  This document defines
   how this is done for the encryption transforms defined in [RFC3711],
   [RFC5669], and [RFC6188], the SRTP encryption transforms defined by
   standards-track IETF documents at the time of this writing.  It also
   updates [RFC3711], to indicate that specifications of future SRTP
   encryption transforms must define how header extension encryption is
   to be performed.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this



Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] and
   indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations.


3.  Encryption Mechanism

   Encrypted header extension elements are carried in the same manner as
   non-encrypted header extension elements, as defined by [RFC5285].
   The (one- or two-byte) header of the extension elements is not
   encrypted, nor is any of the header extension padding.  If multiple
   different header extension elements are being encrypted, they have
   separate element identifier values, just as they would if they were
   not encrypted; similarly, encrypted and non-encrypted header
   extension elements have separate identifier values.

   Encrypted extension headers are only carried in packets encrypted
   using the Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol [RFC3711].  To encrypt
   (or decrypt) encrypted extension headers, an SRTP participant first
   uses the SRTP Key Derivation Algorithm, specified in Section 4.3.1 of
   [RFC3711], to generate header encryption and header salting keys,
   using the same pseudo-random function family as are used for the key
   derivation for the SRTP session.  These keys are derived as follows:
   o  k_he (SRTP header encryption): <label> = 0x06, n=n_e.
   o  k_hs (SRTP header salting key): <label> = 0x07, n=n_s.
   where n_e and n_s are from the cryptographic context: the same size
   encryption key and salting key are used as are used for the SRTP
   payload.  Additionally, the same master key, master salt, index, and
   key_derivation_rate are used as are used for the SRTP payload.  (Note
   that since RTP headers, including extension headers, are
   authenticated in SRTP, no new authentication key is needed for
   extension headers.)

   A header extension keystream is generated for each packet containing
   encrypted header extension elements.  The details of how this header
   extension keystream is generated depend on the encryption transform
   that is used for the SRTP packet.  For encryption transforms that
   have been standardized as of the publication of this document, see
   Section 3.2; for requirements for new transforms, see Section 3.3.

   Once the header extension keystream is generated, the SRTP
   participant then computes an encryption mask for the header
   extension, identifying the portions of the header extension that are,
   or are to be, encrypted.  (For an example of this procedure, see
   Section 3.1 below.)  This encryption mask corresponds to the entire
   payload of each header extension element that is encrypted.  It does
   not include any non-encrypted header extension elements, any
   extension element headers, or any padding octets.  The encryption
   mask has all-bits-1 octets (i.e., hexadecimal 0xff) for header



Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


   extension octets which are to be encrypted, and all-bits-0 octets for
   header extension octets which are not to be.  The set of extension
   elements to be encrypted is communicated between the sender and the
   receiver using the signaling mechanisms described in Section 4.

   This encryption mask is computed separately for every packet that
   carries a header extension.  Based on the non-encrypted portions of
   the headers and the signaled list of encrypted extension elements, a
   receiver can always determine the correct encryption mask for any
   encrypted header extension.

   The SRTP participant bitwise-ANDs the encryption mask with the
   keystream to produce a masked keystream.  It then bitwise exclusive-
   ors the header extension with this masked keystream to produce the
   ciphertext version of the header extension.  (Thus, octets indicated
   as all-bits-1 in the encrypted mask are encrypted, whereas those
   indicated as all-bits-0 are not.)

   The header extension encryption process does not include the "defined
   by profile" or "length" fields of the header extension, only the
   field that [RFC3550] Section 5.3.1 calls "header extension" proper,
   starting with the first [RFC5285] ID and length.  Thus, both the
   encryption mask and the keystream begin at this point.

   This header extension encryption process could, equivalently, be
   computed by considering the encryption mask as a mixture of the
   encrypted and unencrypted headers, i.e. as

       EncryptedHeader = (Encrypt(Key, Plaintext) AND MASK) OR
                         (Plaintext AND (NOT MASK))

   where Encrypt is the encryption function, MASK is the encryption
   mask, and AND, OR, and NOT are bitwise operations.  This formulation
   of the encryption process might be preferred by implementations for
   which encryption is performed by a separate module, and cannot easily
   be modified.

   The SRTP authentication tag is computed across the encrypted header
   extension, i.e., the data that is actually transmitted on the wire.
   Thus, header extension encryption MUST be done before the
   authentication tag is computed, and authentication tag validation
   MUST be done on the encrypted header extensions.  For receivers,
   header extension decryption SHOULD be done only after the receiver
   has validated the packet's message authentication tag, and the
   receiver MUST NOT take any actions based on decrypted headers that
   could affect the security or proper functioning of the system, prior
   to validating the authentication tag.




Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


3.1.  Example Encryption Mask

   If a sender wished to send a header extension containing an encrypted
   SMPTE timecode [RFC5484] with ID 1, a plaintext transmission time
   offset [RFC5450] with ID 2, an encrypted audio level indication
   [RFC6464] with ID 3, and an encrypted NTP Timestamp [RFC6051] with ID
   4, the plaintext RTP header extension might look like this:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  ID=1 | len=7 |     SMTPE timecode (long form)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       SMTPE timecode (continued)                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | SMTPE (cont'd)|  ID=2 | len=2 | toffset                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | toffset (ct'd)|  ID=3 | len=0 | audio level   |  ID=4 | len=6 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       NTP Timestamp (Variant B)                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       NTP Timestamp (Variant B, cont.)        | padding = 0   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                                 Figure 1

   The corresponding encryption mask would then be:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                 Figure 2

   In the mask, the octets corresponding to the payloads of the



Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


   encrypted header extension elements are set to all-1 values, and
   octets corresponding to non-encrypted header extension elements,
   element headers, and header extension padding are set to all-0
   values.

3.2.  Header Extension Keystream Generation for Existing Encryption
      Transforms

   For the AES-CM and AES-f8 transforms [RFC3711], the SEED-CTR
   transform [RFC5669], and the AES_192_CM and AES_256_CM transforms
   [RFC6188], the header extension keystream SHALL be generated for each
   packet containing encrypted header extension elements, using the same
   encryption transform and Initialization Vector (IV) as is used for
   that packet's SRTP payload, except that the SRTP encryption and
   salting keys k_e and k_s are replaced by the SRTP header encryption
   and header salting keys k_he and k_hs, defined above, respectively.

   For the SEED-CCM and SEED-GCM transforms [RFC5669], the header
   extension keystream SHALL be generated using the algorithm specified
   above for the SEED-CTR algorithm.  (Because the AEAD transform used
   on the payload in these algorithms includes the RTP header, including
   the RTP header extension, in its Associated Authenticated Data (AAD),
   counter-mode encryption for the header extension is believed to be of
   equivalent cryptographic strength to the CCM and GCM transforms.)

   For the NULL encryption transform [RFC3711], the header extension
   keystream SHALL be all-zero.

3.3.  Header Extension Keystream Generation for Future Encryption
      Transforms

   When new SRTP encryption transforms are defined, this document
   updates [RFC3711] as follows: in addition to the rules specified in
   Section 6 of RFC 3711, the standard track RFC defining the new
   transform MUST specify how the encryption transform is to be used
   with header extension encryption.

   It is RECOMMENDED that new transformations follow the same mechanisms
   as are defined in Section 3.2, if these are applicable and are
   believed to be cryptographically adequate for the transform in
   question.


4.  Signaling (Setup) Information

   Encrypted header extension elements are signaled in the SDP extmap
   attribute, using the URI "urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:encrypt",
   followed by the URI of the header extension element being encrypted



Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


   as well as any extensionattributes that extension normally takes.
   Figure 3 gives a formal Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234]
   showing this grammar extension, extending the grammar defined in
   [RFC5285].

   enc-extensionname = %x75.72.6e.3a.69.65.74.66.3a.70.61.72.61.6d.73.3a
       %x72.74.70.2d.68.64.72.65.78.74.3a.65.6e.63.72.79.70.74
       ; "urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:encrypt" in lower case

   extmap /= mapentry SP enc-extensionname SP extensionname
       [SP extensionattributes]

   ; extmap, mapentry, extensionname and extensionattributes
   ; are defined in [RFC5285]

                 Figure 3: Syntax of the "encrypt" extmap

   Thus, for example, to signal an SRTP session using encrypted SMPTE
   timecodes [RFC5484], while simultaneously signaling plaintext
   transmission time offsets [RFC5450], an SDP document could contain
   (line breaks added for formatting):

   m=audio 49170 RTP/SAVP 0
   a=crypto:1 AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_32 \
     inline:NzB4d1BINUAvLEw6UzF3WSJ+PSdFcGdUJShpX1Zj|2^20|1:32
   a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:encrypt \
       urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:smpte-tc 25@600/24
   a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:toffset


                                 Figure 4

   This example uses SDP Security Descriptions [RFC4568] for SRTP
   keying, but this is merely for illustration; any SRTP keying
   mechanism to establish session keys will work.

   The extmap SDP attribute is defined in [RFC5285] as being either a
   session or media attribute.  If the extmap for an encrypted header
   extension is specified as a media attribute, it MUST only be
   specified for media which use SRTP-based RTP profiles.  If such an
   extmap is specified as a session attribute, there MUST be at least
   one media in the SDP session which uses an SRTP-based RTP profile;
   the session-level extmap applies to all the SRTP-based media in the
   session, and MUST be ignored for all other (non-SRTP or non-RTP)
   media.

   The "urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:encrypt" extension MUST NOT be
   recursively applied to itself.



Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


4.1.  Backward compatibility

   Following the procedures in [RFC5285], an SDP endpoint which does not
   understand the "urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:encrypt" extension URI
   will ignore the extension, and (for SDP offer/answer) negotiate not
   to use it.

   For backward compatibility with endpoints which do not implement this
   specification, in a negotiated session (whether using offer/answer or
   some other means), best-effort encryption of a header extension
   element is possible: an endpoint MAY offer the same header extension
   element both encrypted and unencrypted.  An offerer MUST only offer
   best-effort negotiation when lack of confidentiality would be
   acceptable in the backward-compatible case.  Answerers (or equivalent
   peers in a negotiation) which understand header extension encryption
   SHOULD choose the encrypted form of the offered header extension
   element, and mark the unencrypted form "inactive", unless they have
   an explicit reason to prefer the unencrypted form.  In all cases,
   answerers MUST NOT negotiate the use of, and senders MUST NOT send,
   both encrypted and unencrypted forms of the same header extension.

   Note that, as always, users of best-effort encryption MUST be
   cautious of bid-down attacks, where a man-in-the-middle attacker
   removes a higher-security option, forcing endpoints to negotiate a
   lower-security one.  Appropriate countermeasures depend on the
   signaling protocol in use, but users can ensure, for example, that
   signaling is integrity-protected.


5.  Security Considerations

   The security properties of header extension elements protected by the
   mechanism in this document are equivalent to those for SRTP payloads.

   The mechanism defined in this document does not provide
   confidentiality about which header extension elements are used for a
   given SRTP packet, only for the content of those header extension
   elements.  This appears to be in the spirit of SRTP itself, which
   does not encrypt RTP headers.  If this is a concern, an alternate
   mechanism would be needed to provide confidentiality.

   For the two-byte-header form of header extension elements (0x100x),
   this mechanism does not provide any protection to zero-length header
   extension elements (for which their presence or absence is the only
   information they carry).  It also does not provide any protection for
   the two-byte-headers' app bits (field 256, the lowest four bits of
   the "defined by profile" field).  Neither of these features are
   present in for one-byte-header form of header extension elements



Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


   (0xBEDE), so these limitations do not apply in that case.

   This mechanism cannot protect RTP header extensions which do not use
   the mechanism defined in [RFC5285].

   This document does not specify the circumstances in which extension
   header encryption should be used.  Documents defining specific header
   extension elements should provide guidance on when encryption is
   appropriate for these elements.

   If a middlebox does not have access to the SRTP authentication keys,
   it has no way to verify the authenticity of unencrypted RTP header
   extension elements (or the unencrypted RTP header), even though it
   can monitor them.  Therefore, such middleboxes MUST treat such
   headers as untrusted and potentially generated by an attacker, in the
   same way as unauthenticated traffic.  (This does not mean that
   middleboxes cannot view and interpret such traffic, of course, only
   that appropriate skepticism needs to be maintained about the results
   of such interpretation.).

   There is no mechanism defined to protect header extensions with
   different algorithms or encryption keys than are used to protect the
   RTP payloads.  In particular, it is not possible to provide
   confidentiality for a header extension while leaving the payload in
   cleartext.

   The dangers of using weak or NULL authentication with SRTP, described
   in [RFC3711] Section 9.5, apply to encrypted header extensions as
   well.  In particular, since some header extension elements will have
   some easily-guessed plaintext bits, strong authentication is REQUIRED
   if an attacker setting such bits could have a meaningful effect on
   the behavior of the system.

   The technique defined in this document can only be applied to
   encryption transforms that work by generating a pseudorandom
   keystream and bitwise exclusive-oring it with the plaintext, such as
   CTR or f8.  It will not work with ECB, CBC, or any other encryption
   method that does not use a keystream.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new extension URI to the RTP Compact Header
   Extensions subregistry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
   Parameters registry, according to the following data:






Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


   Extension URI:  urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:encrypt
   Description:  Encrypted extension header element
   Contact:  jonathan@vidyo.com
   Reference:  RFC XXXX

   (Note to the RFC-Editor: please replace "XXXX" with the number of
   this document prior to publication as an RFC.)


7.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Benoit Claise, Roni Even, Stephen Farrell, Kevin Igoe, Joel
   Jaeggli, David McGrew, Magnus Westerlund, David Singer, Robert
   Sparks, Qin Wu, and Felix Wyss for their comments and suggestions in
   the development of this specification.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, March 2004.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [RFC5285]  Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "A General Mechanism for RTP
              Header Extensions", RFC 5285, July 2008.

   [RFC5669]  Yoon, S., Kim, J., Park, H., Jeong, H., and Y. Won, "The
              SEED Cipher Algorithm and Its Use with the Secure Real-
              Time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5669, August 2010.

   [RFC6188]  McGrew, D., "The Use of AES-192 and AES-256 in Secure
              RTP", RFC 6188, March 2011.







Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4568]  Andreasen, F., Baugher, M., and D. Wing, "Session
              Description Protocol (SDP) Security Descriptions for Media
              Streams", RFC 4568, July 2006.

   [RFC5450]  Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "Transmission Time Offsets in
              RTP Streams", RFC 5450, March 2009.

   [RFC5484]  Singer, D., "Associating Time-Codes with RTP Streams",
              RFC 5484, March 2009.

   [RFC6051]  Perkins, C. and T. Schierl, "Rapid Synchronisation of RTP
              Flows", RFC 6051, November 2010.

   [RFC6464]  Lennox, J., Ivov, E., and E. Marocco, "A Real-time
              Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Client-to-
              Mixer Audio Level Indication", RFC 6464, December 2011.

   [RFC6465]  Ivov, E., Marocco, E., and J. Lennox, "A Real-time
              Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Mixer-to-
              Client Audio Level Indication", RFC 6465, December 2011.


Appendix A.  Test Vectors

A.1.  Key derivation test vectors

   This section provides test data for the header extension key
   derivation function, using AES-128 in Counter Mode.  (The algorithms
   and keys used are the same as those for the the test vectors in
   Appendix B.3 of [RFC3711].)

   The inputs to the key derivation function are the 16 octet master key
   and the 14 octet master salt:
      master key: E1F97A0D3E018BE0D64FA32C06DE4139
      master salt: 0EC675AD498AFEEBB6960B3AABE6

   Following [RFC3711], the input block for AES-CM is generated by
   exclusive-oring the master salt with the concatenation of the
   encryption key label 0x06 with (index DIV kdr), then padding on the
   right with two null octets (which implements the multiply-by-2^16
   operation, see Section 4.3.3 of [RFC3711]).  The resulting value is
   then AES-CM- encrypted using the master key to get the cipher key.







Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


     index DIV kdr:                    000000000000
     label:                          06
     master salt:      0EC675AD498AFEEBB6960B3AABE6
     --------------------------------------------------
     xor:              0EC675AD498AFEEDB6960B3AABE6     (x, PRF input)

     x*2^16:           0EC675AD498AFEEDB6960B3AABE60000 (AES-CM input)

     hdr. cipher key:  549752054D6FB708622C4A2E596A1B93 (AES-CM output)

   Next, we show how the cipher salt is generated.  The input block for
   AES-CM is generated by exclusive-oring the master salt with the
   concatenation of the encryption salt label.  That value is padded and
   encrypted as above.

     index DIV kdr:                    000000000000
     label:                          07
     master salt:      0EC675AD498AFEEBB6960B3AABE6

     --------------------------------------------------
     xor:              0EC675AD498AFEECB6960B3AABE6     (x, PRF input)

     x*2^16:           0EC675AD498AFEECB6960B3AABE60000 (AES-CM input)

                       AB01818174C40D39A3781F7C2D270733 (AES-CM ouptut)

     hdr. cipher salt: AB01818174C40D39A3781F7C2D27

A.2.  Header Encryption Test Vectors using AES-CM

   This section provides test vectors for the encryption of a header
   extension, using the AES_CM cryptographic transform.

   The header extension is encrypted using the header cipher key and
   header cipher salt computed in Appendix A.1.  The header extension is
   carried in an SRTP-encrypted RTP packet with SSRC 0xCAFEBABE,
   sequence number 0x1234, and an all-zero rollover counter.

       Session Key:      549752054D6FB708622C4A2E596A1B93
       Session Salt:     AB01818174C40D39A3781F7C2D27

       SSRC:                     CAFEBABE
       Rollover Counter:                 00000000
       Sequence Number:                          1234
       ----------------------------------------------
       Init. Counter:    AB018181BE3AB787A3781F7C3F130000

   The SRTP session was negotiated to indicate that header extension ID



Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


   values 1, 3 and 4 are encrypted.

   In hexadecimal, the header extension being encrypted is (spaces added
   to show the internal structure of the header extension):

     17 414273A475262748 22 0000C8 30 8E 46 55996386B395FB 00

   This header extension is 24 bytes long.  (Its values are intended to
   represent plausible values of the header extension elements shown in
   Section 3.1, but their specific meaning is not important for the
   example.)  The header extension "defined by profile" and "length"
   fields, which in this case are BEDE 0006 in hexadecimal, are not
   included in the encryption process.

   In hexadecimal, the corresponding encryption mask selecting the
   bodies of header extensions 1, 2, and 4 (corresponding to the mask in
   Figure 2) is:

      00 FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 00 000000 00 FF 00 FFFFFFFFFFFFFF 00

   Finally, we compute the keystream from the session key and the
   initial counter, apply the mask to the keystream, and then xor the
   keystream with the plaintext:

       Initial keystream:  1E19C8E1D481C779549ED1617AAA1B7A
                           FC0D933AE7ED6CC8
       Mask (Hex):         00FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF0000000000FF00
                           FFFFFFFFFFFFFF00
       Masked keystream:   0019C8E1D481C7795400000000001B00
                           FC0D933AE7ED6C00
       Plaintext:          17414273A475262748220000C8308E46
                           55996386B395FB00
       Ciphertext:         17588A9270F4E15E1C220000C8309546
                           A994F0BC54789700


Appendix B.  Changes From Earlier Versions

   Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to
   publication as an RFC.

B.1.  Changes from draft-ietf-avtcore -04

   o  Clarified that simultaneous offer of encrypted and unencrypted
      headers is only to be used for backward compatibility, and that
      endpoints must never actually negotiate or send encrypted and
      unencrypted versions of the same header extension simultaneously.




Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


   o  Clarified that the same master key, master salt, index, and key
      derivation rate are to be used for the header keys and salt as for
      the payload keys.
   o  Added a paragraph to the security consideration emphasizing the
      dangers of weak or NULL authentication.
   o  Editorial changes.
   o  Added Benoit Claise, Stephen Farrell, and Joel Jaeggli to the
      Acknowledgments.

B.2.  Changes from draft-ietf-avtcore -03

   o  Modified the ABNF syntax to avoid rule recursion.
   o  Added Robert Sparks to the Acknowledgments.

B.3.  Changes from draft-ietf-avtcore -02

   o  Clarified that the header extension encryption mask must be
      calculated separately for each packet, and can always be derived
      from the plaintext portions of the encrypted header extension.
   o  Presented an alternate formulation of the header extension
      encryption process, so implementations can use their existing
      encryption algorithms unmodified.
   o  Added a security consideration emphasizing that this mechanism
      must only be used with keystream-based encryption algorithms.

B.4.  Changes from draft-ietf-avtcore -01

   o  Made the draft update RFC 3711, and added a section specifying
      that all future SRTP encryption transforms must specify how header
      extension encryption is to be done.
   o  Explicitly distinguished the processing of existing encryption
      transforms from future ones.
   o  Clarified description of the process by which the encryption mask
      is applied, and that encryption does not apply to the header
      extension "defined by profile" or "length" fields.
   o  Defined how header extension encryption is to be done with the
      SEED algorithms defined in RFC 5669, and with the NULL algorithm.
   o  Added ABNF grammar for the SDP syntax.
   o  Clarified that header extension encryption must not be applied to
      itself.
   o  Expanded discussion of bid-down attacks.
   o  Pointed out that this mechanism can't protect non-RFC5285 header
      extensions, and that there's no way to give different protection
      to header extensions than to payloads.
   o  Updated references to now-published RFCs.
   o  Editorial clarifications.





Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


   o  Added Magnus Westerlund to the Acknowledgments.

B.5.  Changes from draft-ietf-avtcore -00

   o  Clarified usage of Key Derivation Algorithm
   o  Provided non-normative guidance for how to use this mechanism with
      Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) transforms.
   o  Corrected SMPTE Timecode header extension element in example
      header extension (it's eight bytes, not sixteen).  Added an NTP
      timestamp to the example to fill it back out to original size.
   o  Specified applicability of the extmap attribute if it's specified
      as a session-level attribute.
   o  Added description of backward compatibility, including a
      description of how you can negotiate best-effort encryption.
   o  Added a note to the security considerations about the dangers for
      middleboxes observing unencrypted headers (both header extension
      elements and RTP headers) without being able to verify the
      authentication keys.
   o  Added test vectors.
   o  Added acknowledgments section.

B.6.  Changes from draft-lennox-avtcore -00

   o  Published as working group item.
   o  Added discussion of limitations when used with the two-byte-header
      form of header extension elements.
   o  Added open issue about how to use this mechanism with
      Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) transforms.
   o  Updated references.

B.7.  Changes from draft-lennox-avt -02

   o  Retargeted at AVTCORE working group.
   o  Updated references.

B.8.  Changes From Individual Submission Draft -01

   o  Minor editorial changes.

B.9.  Changes From Individual Submission Draft -00

   o  Clarified description of encryption mask creation.
   o  Added example encryption mask.
   o  Editorial changes.







Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      Encrypted SRTP Header Extensions       February 2013


Author's Address

   Jonathan Lennox
   Vidyo, Inc.
   433 Hackensack Avenue
   Seventh Floor
   Hackensack, NJ  07601
   US

   Email: jonathan@vidyo.com









































Lennox                   Expires August 12, 2013               [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/