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

Versions: (draft-weis-esp-group-counter-cipher) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 6054

MSEC Working Group                                             D. McGrew
Internet-Draft                                                   B. Weis
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: September 6, 2010                                 March 5, 2010


   Using Counter Modes with Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
          Authentication Header (AH) to Protect Group Traffic
              draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-group-counter-modes-05

Abstract

   Counter modes have been defined for block ciphers such as the
   Advanced Encryption Standard (AES).  Counter modes use a counter,
   which is typically assumed to be incremented by a single sender.
   This memo describes the use of counter modes when applied to the
   Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)
   in multiple-sender group applications.

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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



McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             Group Counter Modes                March 2010


   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 BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   3.  IV formation for Counter Modes with Group Keys . . . . . . . .  5

   4.  Group Key Management Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   Appendix A.  Rationale for the IV formation for Counter Modes
                with Group Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

   Appendix B.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14














McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             Group Counter Modes                March 2010


1.  Introduction

   Several new AES encryption modes of operation have been specified for
   the IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303]: ESP: Counter
   Mode (CTR) [RFC3686], Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) [RFC4106], Counter
   with CBC-MAC Mode (CCM) [RFC4309]; and one that has been specified
   for both ESP and the Authentication Header (AH) [RFC4302]: Galois MAC
   Mode (GMAC) [RFC4543].  A Camilla counter mode [RFC5528] and a GOST
   counter mode [RFC4357] has also been specified.  These new modes
   offer advantages over traditional modes of operation.  However, they
   all have restrictions on their use in situations in which multiple
   senders are protecting traffic using the same key.  This document
   addresses this restriction and describes how these modes can be used
   with group key management protocols such as the Group Domain of
   Interpretation (GDOI) protocol [RFC3547] and the Group Secure
   Association Key Management Protocol (GSAKMP) [RFC4535].

1.1.  Requirements notation

   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 [RFC2119].





























McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             Group Counter Modes                March 2010


2.  Problem Statement

   The counter mode of operation (CTR) [FIPS.800-38A.2001] has become
   important because of its performance and implementation advantages.
   It is the basis for several modes of operation that combine
   encryption, including CCM and GCM.  All of the counter-based modes
   require that, if a single key is shared by multiple encryption
   engines, those engines must coordinate to ensure that every
   initialization vector (IV) used with that key is distinct.  That is,
   for each key, no IV value can be used more than once.  This
   restriction on IV usage is imposed on ESP CTR, ESP GCM, and ESP CCM.
   In cryptographic terms, the IV is a nonce.  (Note that CBC mode
   [RFC3602] requires IVs that are unpredictable.  CTR, GCM, GMAC, and
   CCM do not have these restrictions.)

   All ESP and AH transforms using a block cipher counter mode have a
   restriction that an application must not use the same key, IV, and
   Salt values to protect two different data payloads.  Notwithstanding
   this security condition, block cipher counter mode transforms are
   often preferred because of their favorable performance
   characteristics as compared to other modes.

   Each of the block cipher counter mode transforms specify the
   construction of keying material for point-to-point applications which
   are keyed by the Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) [RFC4306].
   The specified constructions guarantee that the security condition is
   not violated by a single sender.  Group applications of IPsec
   [RFC5374] may also find counter mode transforms to be valuable.  Some
   group applications can create a IPsec SA per sender, which meets the
   security condition, and no further specification is required.
   However, IPsec can be used to protect group applications known as a
   Many-to-Many Applications [RFC3170], where a single IPsec Security
   Association (SA) is used to protect network traffic between members
   of a multiple-sender IP multicast application.  Some Many-to-Many
   Applications are comprised of a large number of senders, in which
   case defining an individual IPsec SA for each sender is unmanageable.















McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             Group Counter Modes                March 2010


3.  IV formation for Counter Modes with Group Keys

   This section specifies a particular construction of the IV that
   enables a group of senders to safely share a single IPsec SA.  This
   construction conforms to the recommendations of [RFC5116].  A
   rationale for this method is given in Appendix A.  In the
   construction defined by this specification, each IV is formed by
   concatenating a Sender Identifier (SID) field with a Sender-Specific
   IV (SSIV) field.  The value of the SID MUST be unique for each
   sender, across all of the senders sharing a particular Security
   Association.  The value of the SSIV field MUST be unique for each IV
   constructed by a particular sender for use with a particular SA.  The
   SSIV MAY be chosen in any manner convenient to the sender, e.g.
   successive values of a counter.  The leftmost bits of the IV contain
   the SID, and the remaining bits contain the SSIV.

   The number of bits used by the SID may vary depending on group
   policy, though for each particular Security Association, each SID
   used with that SA MUST have the same length.  To facilitate
   interoperability, a conforming implementation MUST support SID
   lengths of 8, 12, and 16 bits.  It should be noted that the size of
   the SID associated with an SA provides a tradeoff between the number
   of possible senders and the number of packets that each sending
   station is able to send using that SA.



























McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             Group Counter Modes                March 2010


4.  Group Key Management Conventions

   Group applications use a Group Key Management System (GKMS) composed
   of one or more Group Controller Key Server (GCKS) entities [RFC3740].
   The GKMS distributes IPsec transform policy and associated keying
   material to authorized group members.  This document RECOMMENDS that
   the GKMS both allocate unique SIDs to group members and distribute
   them to group members using a GKM protocol such as GDOI or GSAKMP.
   The strategy used by the GKMS does not need to be mandated in order
   to achieve interoperability; the GKMS is solely responsible for
   allocating SIDs for the group.  Allocating SIDs sequentially is
   acceptable as long as the allocation method follows the requirements
   in this section.

   The following requirements apply to a GKMS that manages SIDs.

   o  For each SA for which sender identifiers are used, the GKMS MUST
      NOT give the same sender identifier to more than one active group
      member.  If the GKMS is uncertain as to the SID associated with a
      group member it MUST allocate it a new one.  If more than one
      entity within the GKMS is distributing sender identifiers, then
      the sets of identifiers distributed by each entity MUST NOT
      overlap.  If the entire set of sender identifiers has been
      exhausted, the GKMS MUST refuse to allow new group members to
      join.

   o  The GKMS SHOULD allocate a single sender identifier for each group
      member, and issue this value to the sender for all group SAs for
      which that member is a sender.  This strategy enables both the
      GKMS and the senders to avoid managing SIDs on a per-SA basis.  It
      also simplifies the rekeying process, since SIDs do not need to be
      changed or re-issued along with replacement SAs during a rekey
      event.

   o  When a GKMS determines that a particular group member is no longer
      a part of the group, then it MAY re-allocate any sender identifier
      associated with that group member for use with new group member.
      In this case, the GKMS MUST first delete and replace any active AH
      or ESP SAs with which the SID may have been used.  This is
      necessary to avoid re-use of an IV with the cipher key associated
      with the SA.

   A GKMS MUST support a group member notifying the GCKS that its IV
   space will soon be exhausted and requires a new SA to be distributed.
   A group member SHOULD notify the GCKS in advance of its IV space
   being exhausted.  A GCKS MAY choose to ignore this notification based
   on policy (e.g., if the group member appears to be asking for new SAs
   so frequent as to negatively affect group communications).



McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             Group Counter Modes                March 2010


5.  IANA Considerations

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.

   This memo has no IANA considerations.













































McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             Group Counter Modes                March 2010


6.  Security Considerations

   This specification provides a method for securely using cryptographic
   algorithms that require a unique IV, such as a block cipher mode of
   operation based on counter mode, in a scenario in which there are
   multiple cryptographic devices that each generate IVs.  This is done
   by partitioning the set of possible IV values such that each
   cryptographic device has exclusive use of a set of IV values.  When
   the recommendation in this specification are followed, the security
   of the cryptographic algorithms is equivalent to the conventional
   case in which there is a single sender.  Unlike CBC mode CTR, GCM,
   GMAC, and CCM do not require IVs that are unpredictable.

   The security of a group depends upon the correct operation of the
   group members.  Any group member using an SID not allocated to it may
   reduce the security of the system.

   As is the case with a single sender, a cryptographic device storing
   keying material over a reboot is responsible for storing a counter
   value such that upon resumption it never re-uses counters.  In the
   context of this specification, the cryptographic device would need to
   store both SID and SSIV values used with a particular IPsec SA in
   addition to policy associated with the IPsec SA.

   This specification does not address virtual machine rollbacks that
   may cause the cryptographic device to re-use nonce values.

   Other security considerations applying to IPsec SAs with multiple
   senders are described in [RFC5374].






















McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             Group Counter Modes                March 2010


7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank David Black, Sheela Rowles, and Alfred
   Hoenes for their helpful comments and suggestions.















































McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             Group Counter Modes                March 2010


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.

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              December 2005.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, December 2005.

8.2.  Informative References

   [FIPS.800-38A.2001]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology,
              "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation",
              FIPS PUB 800-38A, December 2001, <http://csrc.nist.gov/
              publications/nistpubs/800-38a/sp800-38a.pdf>.

   [H52]      Huffman, D., "A Method for the Construction of Minimum-
              Redundancy Codes", Proceedings of the IRE, Volume:40,
              Issue:9, On page(s): 1098-1101, ISSN: 0096-8390,
              September 1952, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/
              freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4051119>.

   [RFC3170]  Quinn, B. and K. Almeroth, "IP Multicast Applications:
              Challenges and Solutions", RFC 3170, September 2001.

   [RFC3547]  Baugher, M., Weis, B., Hardjono, T., and H. Harney, "The
              Group Domain of Interpretation", RFC 3547, July 2003.

   [RFC3602]  Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC Cipher
              Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602,
              September 2003.

   [RFC3686]  Housley, R., "Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
              Counter Mode With IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload
              (ESP)", RFC 3686, January 2004.

   [RFC3740]  Hardjono, T. and B. Weis, "The Multicast Group Security
              Architecture", RFC 3740, March 2004.

   [RFC3948]  Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and M.
              Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets",
              RFC 3948, January 2005.




McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             Group Counter Modes                March 2010


   [RFC4106]  Viega, J. and D. McGrew, "The Use of Galois/Counter Mode
              (GCM) in IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4106, June 2005.

   [RFC4306]  Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
              RFC 4306, December 2005.

   [RFC4309]  Housley, R., "Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) CCM
              Mode with IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4309, December 2005.

   [RFC4357]  Popov, V., Kurepkin, I., and S. Leontiev, "Additional
              Cryptographic Algorithms for Use with GOST 28147-89, GOST
              R 34.10-94, GOST R 34.10-2001, and GOST R 34.11-94
              Algorithms", RFC 4357, January 2006.

   [RFC4535]  Harney, H., Meth, U., Colegrove, A., and G. Gross,
              "GSAKMP: Group Secure Association Key Management
              Protocol", RFC 4535, June 2006.

   [RFC4543]  McGrew, D. and J. Viega, "The Use of Galois Message
              Authentication Code (GMAC) in IPsec ESP and AH", RFC 4543,
              May 2006.

   [RFC5116]  McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated
              Encryption", RFC 5116, January 2008.

   [RFC5374]  Weis, B., Gross, G., and D. Ignjatic, "Multicast
              Extensions to the Security Architecture for the Internet
              Protocol", RFC 5374, November 2008.

   [RFC5528]  Kato, A., Kanda, M., and S. Kanno, "Camellia Counter Mode
              and Camellia Counter with CBC-MAC Mode Algorithms",
              RFC 5528, April 2009.

















McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             Group Counter Modes                March 2010


Appendix A.  Rationale for the IV formation for Counter Modes with Group
             Keys

   The two main alternatives for ensuring the uniqueness of IVs in a
   multi-sender environment are to have each sender include a Sender
   Identifier (SID) value in either the Salt value or in the explicit IV
   field (recall that the IV used as input to the crypto algorithm is
   constructed by concatenating the Salt and the explicit IV).  The
   explicit IV field was chosen as the location for the SID because it
   is explicitly present in the packet.  If the SID had been included in
   the Salt, then a receiver would need to infer the SID value for a
   particular AH or ESP packet by recognizing which sender had sent that
   packet.  This inference could be made on the IP source address, if AH
   or ESP is transported directly over IP.  However, if an alternate
   transport mechanism such as UDP is being used [RFC3948] (e.g. for NAT
   traversal), the method used to infer the sender would need to take
   that mechanism into account.  It is simpler to use the explicit IV
   field, and thus avoid the need to infer the sender from the packet at
   all.

   The normative requirement that all of the SID values used with a
   particular Security Association must have the same length is not
   strictly necessary, but was added to promote simplicity of
   implementation.  Alternatively, it would be acceptable to have the
   SID values be chosen to be the codewords of a variable-length prefix
   free code.  This approach preserves security since the distinctness
   of the IVs follows from the fact that no SID is a prefix of another;
   thus any pair of IVs has a subset of bits that are distinct.  If a
   Huffman code [H52] is used to form the SIDs, then a set of optimal
   SIDs can be found, in the sense that the number of SIDs can be
   maximized for a given distribution of SID lengths.  Additionally,
   there are simple methods for generating efficient prefix free codes
   whose codewords are octet strings.  Nevertheless, these methods were
   disallowed in order to favor simplicity over generality.

















McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             Group Counter Modes                March 2010


Appendix B.  Example

   This section provides an example of SID allocation and IV generation,
   as defined in this document.  A GCKS administrator determines that
   the group has one SA that is shared by all senders.  The algorithm
   for the SA is AES-GCM using an SID of size 8 bits.

   When the first sender registers with the GCKS, it is allocated SID 1.
   The sender subsequently sends AES-GCM encrypted packets with the
   following IVs (shown in network byte order): 0x0100000000000001,
   0x0100000000000002, 0x0100000000000003, ....  The second sender
   registering with the GCKS is allocated SID 2, and begins sending
   packets with the following IVs: 0x0200000000000001,
   0x0200000000000002, 0x0200000000000003, .... and so on.

   According to group policy, the GCKS may later distribute policy and
   keying material for a replacement SA.  When group senders begin
   sending AES-GCM packets encrypted with the new SA each sender
   continues to use the SID value previously allocated to it.  For
   example, the sender allocated SID 2 would being sending on a new SA
   with IV values of 0x0200000000000001, 0x0200000000000002,
   0x0200000000000003, etc.





























McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             Group Counter Modes                March 2010


Authors' Addresses

   David A. McGrew
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, California  95134-1706
   USA

   Phone: +1-408-525-8651
   Email: mcgrew@cisco.com


   Brian Weis
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, California  95134-1706
   USA

   Phone: +1-408-526-4796
   Email: bew@cisco.com































McGrew & Weis           Expires September 6, 2010              [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/