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

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation

Network Working Group                                        E. Rescorla
Internet-Draft                                                RTFM, Inc.
Intended status:  Standards Track                                 M. Ray
Expires:  May 21, 2010                                       S. Dispensa
                                                                N. Oskov
                                                       November 17, 2009

   Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication Extension

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may contain material
   from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
   available before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
   Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
   IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an adequate license from
   the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
   derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
   Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

   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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2010.

Copyright Notice

Rescorla, et al.          Expires May 21, 2010                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         TLS Renegotiation Extension         November 2009

   Copyright (c) 2009 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
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.


   SSL and TLS renegotiation are vulnerable to an attack in which the
   attacker forms a TLS connection with the target server, injects
   content of his choice, and then splices in a new TLS connection from
   a client.  The server treats the client's initial TLS handshake as a
   renegotiation and thus believes that the initial data transmitted by
   the attacker is from the same entity as the subsequent client data.
   This draft defines a TLS extension to cryptographically tie
   renegotiations to the TLS connections they are being performed over,
   thus preventing this attack.

Rescorla, et al.          Expires May 21, 2010                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         TLS Renegotiation Extension         November 2009

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   2.  Conventions Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   3.  Extension Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     4.1.  Client Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     4.2.  Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     4.3.  SSLv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
       4.3.1.  Fallback Cipher Suite Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Rescorla, et al.          Expires May 21, 2010                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         TLS Renegotiation Extension         November 2009

1.  Introduction

   TLS [RFC5246] allows either the client or the server to initiate
   renegotiation--a new handshake which establishes new cryptographic
   parameters.  Unfortunately, although the new handshake is carried out
   over the protected channel established by the original handshake,
   there is no cryptographic connection between the two.  This creates
   the opportunity for an attack in which the attacker who can intercept
   a client's transport layer connection can inject traffic of his own
   as a prefix to the client's interaction with the server.  The attack
   proceeds as shown below:

   Client                        Attacker                        Server
   ------                        -------                         ------
                                     <----------- Handshake ---------->
                                     <======= Initial Traffic ========>
   <--------------------------  Handshake ============================>
   <======================== Client Traffic ==========================>

   To start the attack, the attacker forms a TLS connection to the
   server (perhaps in response to an initial intercepted connection from
   the client).  He then sends any traffic of his choice to the server.
   This may involve multiple requests and responses at the application
   layer, or may simply be a partial application layer request intended
   to prefix the client's data.  This traffic is shown with == to
   indicate it is encrypted.  He then allows the client's TLS handshake
   to proceed with the server.  The handshake is in the clear to the
   attacker but encrypted over the attacker's channel to the server.
   Once the handshake has completed, the client communicates with the
   server over the new channel.  The attacker cannot read this traffic,
   but the server believes that the initial traffic to and from the
   attacker is the same as that to and from the client.

   If certificate-based client authentication is used, the server will
   believe that the initial traffic corresponds to the authenticated
   client identity.  Even without certificate-based authentication, a
   variety of attacks may be possible in which the attacker convinces
   the server to accept data from it as data from the client.  For
   instance, if HTTPS [RFC2818] is in use with HTTP cookies [REF], the
   attacker may be able to generate a request of his choice validated by
   the client's cookie.

   This attack can be prevented by cryptographically binding
   renegotiation handshakes to the enclosing TLS channel, thus allowing
   the server to differentiate renegotiation from initial negotiation,
   as well as preventing renegotiations from being spliced in between
   connections.  An attempt by an attacker to inject himself as
   described above will result in a mismatch of the extension and can

Rescorla, et al.          Expires May 21, 2010                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         TLS Renegotiation Extension         November 2009

   thus be detected This document defines an extension that performs
   that cryptographic binding.  The extension described here is similar
   to that used for TLS Channel Bindings

2.  Conventions Used In This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3.  Extension Definition

   This document defines a new TLS extension:  "renegotiation_info",
   which contains a cryptographic binding to the enclosing TLS
   connection (if any) for which the renegotiation is being performed.
   The "extension data" field of this extension contains a
   "Renegotiation_Info" structure:

             struct {
               opaque renegotiated_connection<0..255>;
             } Renegotiation_Info;

   All TLS implementations SHOULD support this extension.  TLS clients
   SHOULD generate it with every handshake and TLS servers SHOULD
   generate it in response to any client which offers it.

   The contents of this extension are specified as follows.

   o  If this is the initial handshake for a connection, then the
      "renegotiated_connection" field is of zero length in both the
      ClientHello and the ServerHello.  Thus, the entire encoding of the
      extension is:  ff 01 00 01 00.  The first two octets represent the
      extension type, the third and fourth octet the length of the
      extension itself, and the final octet the zero length byte for the
      "renegotiated_connection" field.
   o  For ClientHellos which are renegotiating, this field contains the
      verify_data from the Finished message sent by the client on the
      immediately previous handshake.  For current versions of TLS, this
      will be a 12-byte value.  Note that this value is the "tls-unique"
      channel binding from [I-D.altman-tls-channel-bindings]
   o  For ServerHellos which are renegotiating, this field contains the
      concatenation of the verify_data values sent by the client and the
      server (in that order) on the immediately previous handshake.  For
      current versions of TLS, this will be a 24-byte value.

Rescorla, et al.          Expires May 21, 2010                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         TLS Renegotiation Extension         November 2009

   The above rules apply even when TLS resumption is used.

   Upon receipt of the "renegotiation_info" extension, implementations
   which support the extension MUST verify that it contains the correct
   contents as specified above.  If the contents are incorrect, then it
   MUST generate a fatal "handshake_failure" alert and terminate the
   connection.  This allows two implementations both of which support
   the extension to safely renegotiate without fear of the above attack.

4.  Backward Compatibility

   Existing implementations which do not support this extension are
   widely deployed and in general must interoperate with newer
   implementations which do support it.  This section describes
   considerations for backward compatible interoperation. [[ OPEN ISSUE:
   The normative strength of these recommendations needs to be

4.1.  Client Considerations

   If a client offers the "renegotiation_info" extension and the server
   does not respond, then this indicates that the server either does not
   support the extension or is unwilling to use it.  Because the above
   attack looks like a single handshake to the client, the client cannot
   determine whether the connection is under attack or not.  Note,
   however, that merely because the server does not acknowledge the
   extension does not mean that it is vulnerable; it might choose to
   reject all rehandshakes.  However, it is not possible for the client
   to determine purely via TLS mechanisms whether this is the case or

   If clients wish to ensure that such attacks are impossible, they MUST
   terminate the connection immediately upon failure to receive the
   extension without completing the handshake.  Otherwise, they may be
   performing client authentication and thus potentially authorizing the
   data already sent by the attacker even if the client itself sends no
   data.  Note that initially deployment of this extension will be very
   sparse and thus choosing to terminate the connection immediately is
   likely to result in significant interoperability problems.

   While this specification does not require the client to send RI on
   initial handshakes, clients which choose not to do so have no
   mechanism for determining whether the server is operating in a
   vulnerable mode (and provide no such indication to the server) and
   are therefore relying entirely on the server refusing to renegotiate
   in the absence of the extension as opposed to explicitly indicating
   to the server that the initial handshake is in fact the first one on

Rescorla, et al.          Expires May 21, 2010                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         TLS Renegotiation Extension         November 2009

   the connection.

4.2.  Server Considerations

   If the client does not offer the "renegotiation_info" extension, then
   this indicates that the client does not support the extension or is
   unwilling to use it.  Note that TLS does not permit servers to offer
   unsolicited extensions.  However, because the above attack looks like
   two handshakes to the server, the server can safely continue the
   connection as long as it does not allow the client to rehandshake.
   If servers wish to ensure that such attacks are impossible they MUST
   NOT allow clients who do not offer the "renegotiation_info" extension
   to renegotiate with them and SHOULD respond to such requests with a
   "no_renegotiation" alert [RFC 5246 requires this alert to be at the
   "warning" level.]  Servers SHOULD follow this behavior.

4.3.  SSLv3

   SSLv3 does not support extensions and thus it is not possible to
   securely renegotiate with SSLv3.  Deployments wishing to renegotiate
   securely will need to upgrade to at least TLS 1.0.  Although the
   later drafts of SSLv3 require implementations to ignore data
   following the ClientHello (i.e., extensions), some SSLv3 server
   implementations incorrectly fail the handshake.  TLS implementations
   which offer extensions sometimes will respond to such failures by
   falling back to an extensionless mode.  This practice can be
   exploited by a MITM to cause a client which would ordinarily offer
   the renegotiation extension not to do so.  Note that this
   consideration does not apply to implementations which ignore
   extensions since the ordinarily TLS Finished messages protect that

   When combined with a server which allows renegotiation without the
   extension (which, per Section 5, is NOT RECOMMENDED) this allows a
   downgrade attack.  Accordingly, clients which offer this extension
   SHOULD NOT fall back to extensionless modes upon handshake errors.
   Any SSLv3 or TLS implementation which chooses to address this issue
   by refusing to renegotiate at all MUST at minimum ensure that the
   extension is ignored (this is simply a restatement of existing
   requirements).  Thus, any such handshake failure can be assumed to
   represent either an attack or a vulnerable server; in either case the
   best practice is not to continue the connection.  Even servers which
   refuse to renegotiate SHOULD reply with an empty RI extension because
   this signals that they have been upgraded.

Rescorla, et al.          Expires May 21, 2010                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         TLS Renegotiation Extension         November 2009

4.3.1.  Fallback Cipher Suite Signaling

   [[OPEN ISSUE:  Should this feature be added?]]

   Clients which choose to fall back to an extensionless mode of
   operation MUST include the magic cipher suite [TBD] in any such
   handshake.  Servers MUST reject any ClientHello which uses this
   cipher suite but does not include RI with a fatal "handshake_failure"
   alert.  Because servers ordinarily ignore unknown cipher suites, this
   cipher suite can be added safely on any handshake, thus allowing
   detection and prevention of the MITM attack described above.  Servers
   MUST NOT select this cipher suite in any handshake, as it does not
   correspond to any valid cipher suite.

5.  Security Considerations

   The extension described in this document prevents an attack on TLS.
   If this extension is not used, TLS renegotiation is subject to an
   attack in which the attacker can inject their own conversation with
   the TLS server as a prefix of the client's conversation.  This attack
   is invisible to the client and looks like an ordinary renegotiation
   to the server.  The extension defined in this document allows
   renegotiation to be performed safely.  Servers SHOULD NOT allow
   clients to renegotiate without using this extension.

   While this extension mitigates the man-in-the-middle attack described
   in the overview, it does not resolve all possible problems an
   application may face if it is unaware of negotiation.  It is possible
   that the authenticated identity of the server or client may change as
   a result of renegotiation.  By default TLS implementations SHOULD
   verify that once an identity has been authenticated within the TLS
   handshake that it does not change on subsequent renegotiations.  If
   the identity changes the renegotiation should fail.  A TLS library
   MAY provide a means for the application to allow identity change
   across renegotiations, in which case the application is responsible
   for tracking the identity associated with data it is processing.
   This may require additional API facilities in the TLS library.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA [shall add/has added] the extension code point XXX [We request
   0xff01, which has been used for prototype implementations] for the
   "renegotiation_info" extension to the TLS ExtensionType values

Rescorla, et al.          Expires May 21, 2010                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         TLS Renegotiation Extension         November 2009

7.  Acknowledgements

   This vulnerability was originally discovered by Marsh Ray. The
   general concept behind the extension described here was independently
   invented by Steve Dispensa, Nasko Oskov, and Eric Rescorla.  Comments
   and refinements were received from Jesse Walker and the rest of the
   Project Mogul team.

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.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

8.2.  Informative References

              Altman, J., Williams, N., and L. Zhu, "Channel Bindings
              for TLS", draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings-07 (work in
              progress), October 2009.

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

Authors' Addresses

   Eric Rescorla
   RTFM, Inc.
   2064 Edgewood Drive
   Palo Alto, CA  94303

   Email:  ekr@rtfm.com

   Marsh Ray
   7301 W 129th Street
   Overland Park, KS  66213

   Email:  marsh@extendedsubset.com

Rescorla, et al.          Expires May 21, 2010                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         TLS Renegotiation Extension         November 2009

   Steve Dispensa
   7301 W 129th Street
   Overland Park, KS  66213

   Email:  dispensa@phonefactor.com

   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA  98052

   Email:  nasko.oskov@microsoft.com

Rescorla, et al.          Expires May 21, 2010                 [Page 10]

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