[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-zimmermann-...] [Diff1] [Diff2] [IPR]

INFORMATIONAL

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     P. Zimmermann
Request for Comments: 6189                                 Zfone Project
Category: Informational                                 A. Johnston, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                    Avaya
                                                               J. Callas
                                                             Apple, Inc.
                                                              April 2011


         ZRTP: Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure RTP

Abstract

   This document defines ZRTP, a protocol for media path Diffie-Hellman
   exchange to agree on a session key and parameters for establishing
   unicast Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) sessions for Voice
   over IP (VoIP) applications.  The ZRTP protocol is media path keying
   because it is multiplexed on the same port as RTP and does not
   require support in the signaling protocol.  ZRTP does not assume a
   Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) or require the complexity of
   certificates in end devices.  For the media session, ZRTP provides
   confidentiality, protection against man-in-the-middle (MiTM) attacks,
   and, in cases where the signaling protocol provides end-to-end
   integrity protection, authentication.  ZRTP can utilize a Session
   Description Protocol (SDP) attribute to provide discovery and
   authentication through the signaling channel.  To provide best effort
   SRTP, ZRTP utilizes normal RTP/AVP (Audio-Visual Profile) profiles.
   ZRTP secures media sessions that include a voice media stream and can
   also secure media sessions that do not include voice by using an
   optional digital signature.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6189.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   (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 ....................................................4
   2. Terminology .....................................................5
   3. Overview ........................................................6
      3.1. Key Agreement Modes ........................................7
           3.1.1. Diffie-Hellman Mode Overview ........................7
           3.1.2. Preshared Mode Overview .............................9
           3.1.3. Multistream Mode Overview ...........................9
   4. Protocol Description ...........................................10
      4.1. Discovery .................................................10
           4.1.1. Protocol Version Negotiation .......................11
           4.1.2. Algorithm Negotiation ..............................13
      4.2. Commit Contention .........................................14
      4.3. Matching Shared Secret Determination ......................15
           4.3.1. Calculation and Comparison of Hashes of
                  Shared Secrets .....................................17
           4.3.2. Handling a Shared Secret Cache Mismatch ............18
      4.4. DH and Non-DH Key Agreements ..............................19
           4.4.1. Diffie-Hellman Mode ................................19
                  4.4.1.1. Hash Commitment in Diffie-Hellman Mode ....20
                  4.4.1.2. Responder Behavior in
                           Diffie-Hellman Mode .......................21
                  4.4.1.3. Initiator Behavior in
                           Diffie-Hellman Mode .......................22
                  4.4.1.4. Shared Secret Calculation for DH Mode .....22
           4.4.2. Preshared Mode .....................................25
                  4.4.2.1. Commitment in Preshared Mode ..............25
                  4.4.2.2. Initiator Behavior in Preshared Mode ......26
                  4.4.2.3. Responder Behavior in Preshared Mode ......26
                  4.4.2.4. Shared Secret Calculation for
                           Preshared Mode ............................27




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


           4.4.3. Multistream Mode ...................................28
                  4.4.3.1. Commitment in Multistream Mode ............29
                  4.4.3.2. Shared Secret Calculation for
                           Multistream Mode ..........................29
      4.5. Key Derivations ...........................................31
           4.5.1. The ZRTP Key Derivation Function ...................31
           4.5.2. Deriving ZRTPSess Key and SAS in DH or
                  Preshared Modes ....................................32
           4.5.3. Deriving the Rest of the Keys from s0 ..............33
      4.6. Confirmation ..............................................35
           4.6.1. Updating the Cache of Shared Secrets ...............35
                  4.6.1.1. Cache Update Following a Cache Mismatch ...36
      4.7. Termination ...............................................37
           4.7.1. Termination via Error Message ......................37
           4.7.2. Termination via GoClear Message ....................37
                  4.7.2.1. Key Destruction for GoClear Message .......39
           4.7.3. Key Destruction at Termination .....................40
      4.8. Random Number Generation ..................................40
      4.9. ZID and Cache Operation ...................................41
           4.9.1. Cacheless Implementations ..........................42
   5. ZRTP Messages ..................................................42
      5.1. ZRTP Message Formats ......................................44
           5.1.1. Message Type Block .................................44
           5.1.2. Hash Type Block ....................................45
                  5.1.2.1. Negotiated Hash and MAC Algorithm .........46
                  5.1.2.2. Implicit Hash and MAC Algorithm ...........47
           5.1.3. Cipher Type Block ..................................47
           5.1.4. Auth Tag Type Block ................................48
           5.1.5. Key Agreement Type Block ...........................49
           5.1.6. SAS Type Block .....................................51
           5.1.7. Signature Type Block ...............................52
      5.2. Hello Message .............................................53
      5.3. HelloACK Message ..........................................56
      5.4. Commit Message ............................................56
      5.5. DHPart1 Message ...........................................60
      5.6. DHPart2 Message ...........................................62
      5.7. Confirm1 and Confirm2 Messages ............................63
      5.8. Conf2ACK Message ..........................................66
      5.9. Error Message .............................................66
      5.10. ErrorACK Message .........................................68
      5.11. GoClear Message ..........................................68
      5.12. ClearACK Message .........................................69
      5.13. SASrelay Message .........................................69
      5.14. RelayACK Message .........................................72
      5.15. Ping Message .............................................72
      5.16. PingACK Message ..........................................73
   6. Retransmissions ................................................74




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   7. Short Authentication String ....................................77
      7.1. SAS Verified Flag .........................................78
      7.2. Signing the SAS ...........................................79
           7.2.1. OpenPGP Signatures .................................81
           7.2.2. ECDSA Signatures with X.509v3 Certs ................82
           7.2.3. Signing the SAS without a PKI ......................83
      7.3. Relaying the SAS through a PBX ............................84
           7.3.1. PBX Enrollment and the PBX Enrollment Flag .........87
   8. Signaling Interactions .........................................89
      8.1. Binding the Media Stream to the Signaling Layer
           via the Hello Hash ........................................90
           8.1.1. Integrity-Protected Signaling Enables
                  Integrity-Protected DH Exchange ....................92
      8.2. Deriving the SRTP Secret (srtps) from the
           Signaling Layer ...........................................93
      8.3. Codec Selection for Secure Media ..........................94
   9. False ZRTP Packet Rejection ....................................95
   10. Intermediary ZRTP Devices .....................................97
   11. The ZRTP Disclosure Flag ......................................98
      11.1. Guidelines on Proper Implementation of the
            Disclosure Flag .........................................100
   12. Mapping between ZID and AOR (SIP URI) ........................100
   13. IANA Considerations ..........................................102
   14. Media Security Requirements ..................................102
   15. Security Considerations ......................................104
      15.1. Self-Healing Key Continuity Feature .....................107
   16. Acknowledgments ..............................................108
   17. References ...................................................109
      17.1. Normative References ....................................109
      17.2. Informative References ..................................111

1.  Introduction

   ZRTP is a key agreement protocol that performs a Diffie-Hellman key
   exchange during call setup in the media path and is transported over
   the same port as the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550]
   media stream which has been established using a signaling protocol
   such as Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261].  This generates
   a shared secret, which is then used to generate keys and salt for a
   Secure RTP (SRTP) [RFC3711] session.  ZRTP borrows ideas from
   [PGPfone].  A reference implementation of ZRTP is available in
   [Zfone].

   The ZRTP protocol has some nice cryptographic features lacking in
   many other approaches to media session encryption.  Although it uses
   a public key algorithm, it does not rely on a public key
   infrastructure (PKI).  In fact, it does not use persistent public
   keys at all.  It uses ephemeral Diffie-Hellman (DH) with hash



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   commitment and allows the detection of man-in-the-middle (MiTM)
   attacks by displaying a short authentication string (SAS) for the
   users to read and verbally compare over the phone.  It has Perfect
   Forward Secrecy, meaning the keys are destroyed at the end of the
   call, which precludes retroactively compromising the call by future
   disclosures of key material.  But even if the users are too lazy to
   bother with short authentication strings, we still get reasonable
   authentication against a MiTM attack, based on a form of key
   continuity.  It does this by caching some key material to use in the
   next call, to be mixed in with the next call's DH shared secret,
   giving it key continuity properties analogous to Secure SHell (SSH).
   All this is done without reliance on a PKI, key certification, trust
   models, certificate authorities, or key management complexity that
   bedevils the email encryption world.  It also does not rely on SIP
   signaling for the key management, and in fact, it does not rely on
   any servers at all.  It performs its key agreements and key
   management in a purely peer-to-peer manner over the RTP packet
   stream.

   ZRTP can be used and discovered without being declared or indicated
   in the signaling path.  This provides a best effort SRTP capability.
   Also, this reduces the complexity of implementations and minimizes
   interdependency between the signaling and media layers.  However,
   when ZRTP is indicated in the signaling via the zrtp-hash SDP
   attribute, ZRTP has additional useful properties.  By sending a hash
   of the ZRTP Hello message in the signaling, ZRTP provides a useful
   binding between the signaling and media paths, which is explained in
   Section 8.1.  When this is done through a signaling path that has
   end-to-end integrity protection, the DH exchange is automatically
   protected from a MiTM attack, which is explained in Section 8.1.1.

   ZRTP is designed for unicast media sessions in which there is a voice
   media stream.  For multiparty secure conferencing, separate ZRTP
   sessions may be negotiated between each party and the conference
   bridge.  For sessions lacking a voice media stream, MiTM protection
   may be provided by the mechanisms in Sections 8.1.1 or 7.2.  In terms
   of the RTP topologies defined in [RFC5117], ZRTP is designed for
   Point-to-Point topologies only.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].

   In this document, a "call" is synonymous with a "session".




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


3.  Overview

   This section provides a description of how ZRTP works.  This
   description is non-normative in nature but is included to build
   understanding of the protocol.

   ZRTP is negotiated the same way a conventional RTP session is
   negotiated in an offer/answer exchange using the standard RTP/AVP
   profile.  The ZRTP protocol begins after two endpoints have utilized
   a signaling protocol, such as SIP, and are ready to exchange media.
   If Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245] is being
   used, ZRTP begins after ICE has completed its connectivity checks.

   ZRTP is multiplexed on the same ports as RTP.  It uses a unique
   header that makes it clearly differentiable from RTP or Session
   Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN).

   ZRTP support can be discovered in the signaling path by the presence
   of a ZRTP SDP attribute.  However, even in cases where this is not
   received in the signaling, an endpoint can still send ZRTP Hello
   messages to see if a response is received.  If a response is not
   received, no more ZRTP messages will be sent during this session.
   This is safe because ZRTP has been designed to be clearly different
   from RTP and have a similar structure to STUN packets received
   (sometimes by non-supporting endpoints) during an ICE exchange.

   Both ZRTP endpoints begin the ZRTP exchange by sending a ZRTP Hello
   message to the other endpoint.  The purpose of the Hello message is
   to confirm that the endpoint supports the protocol and to see what
   algorithms the two ZRTP endpoints have in common.

   The Hello message contains the SRTP configuration options and the
   ZID.  Each instance of ZRTP has a unique 96-bit random ZRTP ID or ZID
   that is generated once at installation time.  ZIDs are discovered
   during the Hello message exchange.  The received ZID is used to look
   up retained shared secrets from previous ZRTP sessions with the
   endpoint.

   A response to a ZRTP Hello message is a ZRTP HelloACK message.  The
   HelloACK message simply acknowledges receipt of the Hello.  Since RTP
   commonly uses best effort UDP transport, ZRTP has retransmission
   timers in case of lost datagrams.  There are two timers, both with
   exponential backoff mechanisms.  One timer is used for
   retransmissions of Hello messages and the other is used for
   retransmissions of all other messages after receipt of a HelloACK.






Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   If an integrity-protected signaling channel is available, a hash of
   the Hello message can be sent.  This allows rejection of false ZRTP
   Hello messages injected by an attacker.

   Hello and other ZRTP messages also contain a hash image that is used
   to link the messages together.  This allows rejection of false ZRTP
   messages injected during an exchange.

3.1.  Key Agreement Modes

   After both endpoints exchange Hello and HelloACK messages, the key
   agreement exchange can begin with the ZRTP Commit message.  ZRTP
   supports a number of key agreement modes including both Diffie-
   Hellman and non-Diffie-Hellman modes as described in the following
   sections.

   The Commit message may be sent immediately after both endpoints have
   completed the Hello/HelloACK discovery handshake, or it may be
   deferred until later in the call, after the participants engage in
   some unencrypted conversation.  The Commit message may be manually
   activated by a user interface element, such as a GO SECURE button,
   which becomes enabled after the Hello/HelloACK discovery phase.  This
   emulates the user experience of a number of secure phones in the
   Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) world [comsec].  However, it
   is expected that most simple ZRTP user agents will omit such buttons
   and proceed directly to secure mode by sending a Commit message
   immediately after the Hello/HelloACK handshake.

3.1.1.  Diffie-Hellman Mode Overview

   An example ZRTP call flow is shown in Figure 1.  Note that the order
   of the Hello/HelloACK exchanges in F1/F2 and F3/F4 may be reversed.
   That is, either Alice or Bob might send the first Hello message.
   Note that the endpoint that sends the Commit message is considered
   the initiator of the ZRTP session and drives the key agreement
   exchange.  The Diffie-Hellman public values are exchanged in the
   DHPart1 and DHPart2 messages.  SRTP keys and salts are then
   calculated.

   The initiator needs to generate its ephemeral key pair before sending
   the Commit, and the responder generates its key pair before sending
   DHPart1.









Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Alice                                                Bob
    |                                                   |
    |      Alice and Bob establish a media session.     |
    |         They initiate ZRTP on media ports         |
    |                                                   |
    | F1 Hello (version, options, Alice's ZID)          |
    |-------------------------------------------------->|
    |                                       HelloACK F2 |
    |<--------------------------------------------------|
    |            Hello (version, options, Bob's ZID) F3 |
    |<--------------------------------------------------|
    | F4 HelloACK                                       |
    |-------------------------------------------------->|
    |                                                   |
    |             Bob acts as the initiator.            |
    |                                                   |
    |        Commit (Bob's ZID, options, hash value) F5 |
    |<--------------------------------------------------|
    | F6 DHPart1 (pvr, shared secret hashes)            |
    |-------------------------------------------------->|
    |            DHPart2 (pvi, shared secret hashes) F7 |
    |<--------------------------------------------------|
    |                                                   |
    |     Alice and Bob generate SRTP session key.      |
    |                                                   |
    | F8 Confirm1 (MAC, D,A,V,E flags, sig)             |
    |-------------------------------------------------->|
    |             Confirm2 (MAC, D,A,V,E flags, sig) F9 |
    |<--------------------------------------------------|
    | F10 Conf2ACK                                      |
    |-------------------------------------------------->|
    |                    SRTP begins                    |
    |<=================================================>|
    |                                                   |

           Figure 1: Establishment of an SRTP Session Using ZRTP

   ZRTP authentication uses a Short Authentication String (SAS), which
   is ideally displayed for the human user.  Alternatively, the SAS can
   be authenticated by exchanging an optional digital signature (sig)
   over the SAS in the Confirm1 or Confirm2 messages (described in
   Section 7.2).

   The ZRTP Confirm1 and Confirm2 messages are sent for a number of
   reasons, not the least of which is that they confirm that all the key
   agreement calculations were successful and thus the encryption will
   work.  They also carry other information such as the Disclosure flag
   (D), the Allow Clear flag (A), the SAS Verified flag (V), and the



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Private Branch Exchange (PBX) Enrollment flag (E).  All flags are
   encrypted to shield them from a passive observer.

3.1.2.  Preshared Mode Overview

   In the Preshared mode, endpoints can skip the DH calculation if they
   have a shared secret from a previous ZRTP session.  Preshared mode is
   indicated in the Commit message and results in the same call flow as
   Multistream mode.  The principal difference between Multistream mode
   and Preshared mode is that Preshared mode uses a previously cached
   shared secret, rs1, instead of an active ZRTP Session key as the
   initial keying material.

   This mode could be useful for slow processor endpoints so that a DH
   calculation does not need to be performed every session.  Or, this
   mode could be used to rapidly re-establish an earlier session that
   was recently torn down or interrupted without the need to perform
   another DH calculation.

   Preshared mode has forward secrecy properties.  If a phone's cache is
   captured by an opponent, the cached shared secrets cannot be used to
   recover earlier encrypted calls, because the shared secrets are
   replaced with new ones in each new call, as in DH mode.  However, the
   captured secrets can be used by a passive wiretapper in the media
   path to decrypt the next call, if the next call is in Preshared mode.
   This differs from DH mode, which requires an active MiTM wiretapper
   to exploit captured secrets in the next call.  However, if the next
   call is missed by the wiretapper, he cannot wiretap any further
   calls.  Thus, it preserves most of the self-healing properties
   (Section 15.1) of key continuity enjoyed by DH mode.

3.1.3.  Multistream Mode Overview

   Multistream mode is an alternative key agreement method used when two
   endpoints have an established SRTP media stream between them with an
   active ZRTP Session key.  ZRTP can derive multiple SRTP keys from a
   single DH exchange.  For example, an established secure voice call
   that adds a video stream uses Multistream mode to quickly initiate
   the video stream without a second DH exchange.

   When Multistream mode is indicated in the Commit message, a call flow
   similar to Figure 1 is used, but no DH calculation is performed by
   either endpoint and the DHPart1 and DHPart2 messages are omitted.
   The Confirm1, Confirm2, and Conf2ACK messages are still sent.  Since
   the cache is not affected during this mode, multiple Multistream ZRTP
   exchanges can be performed in parallel between two endpoints.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   When adding additional media streams to an existing call, only
   Multistream mode is used.  Only one DH operation is performed, just
   for the first media stream.

4.  Protocol Description

   This section begins the normative description of the protocol.

   ZRTP MUST be multiplexed on the same ports as the RTP media packets.

   To support best effort encryption from the Media Security
   Requirements [RFC5479], ZRTP uses normal RTP/AVP profile (AVP) media
   lines in the initial offer/answer exchange.  The ZRTP SDP attribute
   a=zrtp-hash defined in Section 8 SHOULD be used in all offers and
   answers to indicate support for the ZRTP protocol.

      ZRTP can be utilized by endpoints that do not have a common
      signaling protocol but both support SRTP and are relying on a
      gateway for conversion.  As such, it is not always possible for
      the signaling protocol to relay the zrtp-hash as can be done using
      SIP.

   The Secure RTP/AVP (SAVP) profile MAY be used in subsequent offer/
   answer exchanges after a successful ZRTP exchange has resulted in an
   SRTP session, or if it is known that the other endpoint supports this
   profile.  Other profiles MAY also be used.

      The use of the RTP/SAVP profile has caused failures in negotiating
      best effort SRTP due to the limitations on negotiating profiles
      using SDP.  This is why ZRTP supports the RTP/AVP profile and
      includes its own discovery mechanisms.

   In all key agreement modes, the initiator SHOULD NOT send RTP media
   after sending the Commit message, and it MUST NOT send SRTP media
   before receiving either the Conf2ACK or the first SRTP media (with a
   valid SRTP auth tag) from the responder.  The responder SHOULD NOT
   send RTP media after receiving the Commit message, and MUST NOT send
   SRTP media before receiving the Confirm2 message.

4.1.  Discovery

   During the ZRTP discovery phase, a ZRTP endpoint discovers if the
   other endpoint supports ZRTP and the supported algorithms and
   options.  This information is transported in a Hello message, which
   is described in Section 5.2.

   ZRTP endpoints SHOULD include the SDP attribute a=zrtp-hash in offers
   and answers, as defined in Section 8.



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   The Hello message includes the ZRTP version, Hash Type, Cipher Type,
   SRTP authentication tag type, Key Agreement Type, and Short
   Authentication String (SAS) algorithms that are supported.  The Hello
   message also includes a hash image as described in Section 9.  In
   addition, each endpoint sends and discovers ZIDs.  The received ZID
   is used later in the protocol as an index into a cache of shared
   secrets that were previously negotiated and retained between the two
   parties.

   A Hello message can be sent at any time, but it is usually sent at
   the start of an RTP session to determine if the other endpoint
   supports ZRTP and also if the SRTP implementations are compatible.  A
   Hello message is retransmitted using timer T1 and an exponential
   backoff mechanism detailed in Section 6 until the receipt of a
   HelloACK message or a Commit message.

   The use of the a=zrtp-hash SDP attribute to authenticate the Hello
   message is described in Section 8.1.

   If a Hello message, or any other ZRTP message, indicates that there
   is a synchronization source (SSRC) collision, an Error message
   (Section 5.9) MUST be sent with the Error Code indicating SSRC
   collision, and the ZRTP negotiation MUST be terminated.  The
   procedures of RFC 3550, Section 8.2 [RFC3550], SHOULD be followed by
   both endpoints to resolve this condition, and if it is resolved, a
   new ZRTP secure session SHOULD be negotiated.

4.1.1.  Protocol Version Negotiation

   This specification defines ZRTP version 1.10.  Since new versions of
   ZRTP may be developed in the future, this specification defines a
   protocol version negotiation in this section.

   Each party declares what version of the ZRTP protocol they support
   via the version field in the Hello message (Section 5.2).  If both
   parties have the same version number in their Hello messages, they
   can proceed with the rest of the protocol.  To facilitate both
   parties reaching this state of protocol version agreement in their
   Hello messages, ZRTP should use information provided in the signaling
   layer, if available.  If a ZRTP endpoint supports more than one
   version of the protocol, it SHOULD declare them all in a list of SIP
   SDP a=zrtp-hash attributes (defined in Section 8), listing separate
   hashes, with separate ZRTP version numbers in each item in the list.

   Both parties should inspect the list of ZRTP version numbers supplied
   by the other party in the SIP SDP a=zrtp-hash attributes.  Both
   parties SHOULD choose the highest version number that appears in both
   parties' list of a=zrtp-hash version numbers, and use that version



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   for their Hello messages.  If both parties use the SIP signaling in
   this manner, their initial Hello messages will have the same ZRTP
   version number, provided they both have at least one supported
   protocol version in common.  Before the ZRTP key agreement can
   proceed, an endpoint MUST have sent and received Hellos with the same
   protocol version.

   It is best if the signaling layer is used to negotiate the protocol
   version number.  However, the a=zrtp-hash SDP attribute is not always
   present in the SIP packet, as explained in Section 8.1.  In the
   absence of any guidance from the signaling layer, an endpoint MUST
   send the highest supported version in initial Hello messages.  If the
   two parties send different protocol version numbers in their Hello
   messages, they can reach an agreement to use a common version, if one
   exists.  They iteratively apply the following rules until they both
   have matching version fields in their Hello messages and the key
   agreement can proceed:

   o  If an endpoint receives a Hello message with an unsupported
      version number that is higher than the endpoint's current Hello
      message version, the received Hello message MUST be ignored.  The
      endpoint continues to retransmit Hello messages on the standard
      retry schedule (Section 6).

   o  If an endpoint receives a Hello message with a version number that
      is lower than the endpoint's current Hello message, and the
      endpoint supports a version that is less than or equal to the
      received version number, the endpoint MUST stop retransmitting the
      old version number and MUST start sending a Hello message with the
      highest supported version number that is less than or equal to the
      received version number.

   o  If an endpoint receives a Hello message with an unsupported
      version number that is lower than the endpoint's current Hello
      message, the endpoint MUST send an Error message (Section 5.9)
      indicating failure to support this ZRTP version.

   The above comparisons are iterated until the version numbers match,
   or until it exits on a failure to match.

      For example, assume that Alice supports protocol versions 1.10 and
      2.00, and Bob supports versions 1.10 and 1.20.  Alice initially
      sends a Hello with version 2.00, and Bob initially sends a Hello
      with version 1.20.  Bob ignores Alice's 2.00 Hello and continues
      to send his 1.20 Hellos.  Alice detects that Bob does not support
      2.00 and she stops sending her 2.00 Hellos and starts sending a
      stream of 1.10 Hellos.  Bob sees the 1.10 Hello from Alice and
      stops sending his 1.20 Hellos and switches to sending 1.10 Hellos.



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


      At that point, they have converged on using version 1.10 and the
      protocol proceeds on that basis.

   When comparing protocol versions, a ZRTP endpoint MUST include only
   the first three octets of the version field in the comparison.  The
   final octet is ignored, because it is not significant for
   interoperability.  For example, "1.1 ", "1.10", "1.11", or "1.1a" are
   all regarded as a version match, because they would all be
   interoperable versions.

   Changes in protocol version numbers are expected to be infrequent
   after version 1.10.  Supporting multiple versions adds code
   complexity and may introduce security weaknesses in the
   implementation.  The old adage about keeping it simple applies
   especially to implementing security protocols.  Endpoints SHOULD NOT
   support protocol versions earlier than version 1.10.

4.1.2.  Algorithm Negotiation

   A method is provided to allow the two parties to mutually and
   deterministically choose the same DH key size and algorithm before a
   Commit message is sent.

   Each Hello message lists the algorithms in the order of preference
   for that ZRTP endpoint.  Endpoints eliminate the non-intersecting
   choices from each of their own lists, resulting in each endpoint
   having a list of algorithms in common that might or might not be
   ordered the same as the other endpoint's list.  Each endpoint
   compares the first item on their own list with the first item on the
   other endpoint's list and SHOULD choose the faster of the two
   algorithms.  For example:

   o  Alice's full list: DH2k, DH3k, EC25

   o  Bob's full list: EC38, EC25, DH3k

   o  Alice's intersecting list: DH3k, EC25

   o  Bob's intersecting list: EC25, DH3k

   o  Alice's first choice is DH3k, and Bob's first choice is EC25.

   o  Thus, both parties choose EC25 (ECDH-256) because it's faster.

   To decide which DH algorithm is faster, the following ranking, from
   fastest to slowest is defined: DH-2048, ECDH-256, DH-3072, ECDH-384,
   ECDH-521.  These are all defined in Section 5.1.5.




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   If both endpoints follow this method, they may each start their DH
   calculations as soon as they receive the Hello message, and there
   will be no need for either endpoint to discard their DH calculation
   if the other endpoint becomes the initiator.

   This method is used only to negotiate DH key size.  For the rest of
   the algorithm choices, it's simply whatever the initiator selects
   from the algorithms in common.  Note that the DH key size influences
   the Hash Type and the size of the symmetric cipher key, as explained
   in Section 5.1.5.

   Unfavorable choices will never be made by this method, because each
   endpoint will omit from their respective lists choices that are too
   slow or not secure enough to meet their security policy.

4.2.  Commit Contention

   After both parties have received compatible Hello messages, a Commit
   message (Section 5.4) can be sent to begin the ZRTP key exchange.
   The endpoint that sends the Commit is known as the initiator, while
   the receiver of the Commit is known as the responder.

   If both sides send Commit messages initiating a secure session at the
   same time, the following rules are used to break the tie:

   o  If one Commit is for a DH mode while the other is for Preshared
      mode, then the Preshared Commit MUST be discarded and the DH
      Commit proceeds.

   o  If the two Commits are both Preshared mode, and one party has set
      the MiTM (M) flag in the Hello message and the other has not, the
      Commit message from the party who set the (M) flag MUST be
      discarded, and the one who has not set the (M) flag becomes the
      initiator, regardless of the nonce values.  In other words, for
      Preshared mode, the phone is the initiator and the PBX is the
      responder.

   o  If the two Commits are either both DH modes or both non-DH modes,
      then the Commit message with the lowest hvi (hash value of
      initiator) value (for DH Commits), or lowest nonce value (for
      non-DH Commits), MUST be discarded and the other side is the
      initiator, and the protocol proceeds with the initiator's Commit.
      The two hvi or nonce values are compared as large unsigned
      integers in network byte order.

   If one Commit is for Multistream mode while the other is for non-
   Multistream (DH or Preshared) mode, a software error has occurred and
   the ZRTP negotiation should be terminated.  This should never occur



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 14]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   because of the constraints on Multistream mode described in
   Section 4.4.3.

   In the event that Commit messages are sent by both ZRTP endpoints at
   the same time, but are received in different media streams, the same
   resolution rules apply as if they were received on the same stream.
   The media stream in which the Commit was received or sent will
   proceed through the ZRTP exchange while the media stream with the
   discarded Commit must wait for the completion of the other ZRTP
   exchange.

   If a commit contention forces a DH Commit message to be discarded,
   the responder's DH public value should only be discarded if it does
   not match the initiator's DH key size.  This will not happen if both
   endpoints choose a common key size via the method described in
   Section 4.1.2.

4.3.  Matching Shared Secret Determination

   The following sections describe how ZRTP endpoints generate and/or
   use the set of shared secrets s1, auxsecret, and pbxsecret through
   the exchange of the DHPart1 and DHPart2 messages.  This doesn't cover
   the Diffie-Hellman calculations.  It only covers the method whereby
   the two parties determine if they already have shared secrets in
   common in their caches.

   Each ZRTP endpoint maintains a long-term cache of shared secrets that
   it has previously negotiated with the other party.  The ZID of the
   other party, received in the other party's Hello message, is used as
   an index into this cache to find the set of shared secrets, if any
   exist.  This cache entry may contain previously retained shared
   secrets, rs1 and rs2, which give ZRTP its key continuity features.
   If the other party is a PBX, the cache may also contain a trusted
   MiTM PBX shared secret, called pbxsecret, defined in Section 7.3.1.

   The DHPart1 and DHPart2 messages contain a list of hashes of these
   shared secrets to allow the two endpoints to compare the hashes with
   what they have in their caches to detect whether the two sides share
   any secrets that can be used in the calculation of the session key.
   The use of this shared secret cache is described in Section 4.9.

   If no secret of a given type is available, a random value is
   generated and used for that secret to ensure a mismatch in the hash
   comparisons in the DHPart1 and DHPart2 messages.  This prevents an
   eavesdropper from knowing which types of shared secrets are available
   between the endpoints.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 15]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Section 4.3.1 refers to the auxiliary shared secret auxsecret.  The
   auxsecret shared secret may be defined by the VoIP user agent out-of-
   band from the ZRTP protocol.  In some cases, it may be provided by
   the signaling layer as srtps, which is defined in Section 8.2.  If it
   is not provided by the signaling layer, the auxsecret shared secret
   may be manually provisioned in other application-specific ways that
   are out of band, such as computed from a hashed pass phrase by prior
   agreement between the two parties or supplied by a hardware token.
   Or, it may be a family key used by an institution to which the two
   parties both belong.  It is a generalized mechanism for providing a
   shared secret that is agreed to between the two parties out of scope
   of the ZRTP protocol.  It is expected that most typical ZRTP
   endpoints will rarely use auxsecret.

   For both the initiator and the responder, the shared secrets s1, s2,
   and s3 will be calculated so that they can all be used later to
   calculate s0 in Section 4.4.1.4.  Here is how s1, s2, and s3 are
   calculated by both parties.

   The shared secret s1 will be either the initiator's rs1 or the
   initiator's rs2, depending on which of them can be found in the
   responder's cache.  If the initiator's rs1 matches the responder's
   rs1 or rs2, then s1 MUST be set to the initiator's rs1.  If and only
   if that match fails, then if the initiator's rs2 matches the
   responder's rs1 or rs2, then s1 MUST be set to the initiator's rs2.
   If that match also fails, then s1 MUST be set to null.  The
   complexity of the s1 calculation is to recover from any loss of cache
   sync from an earlier aborted session, due to the Two Generals'
   Problem [Byzantine].

   The shared secret s2 MUST be set to the value of auxsecret if and
   only if both parties have matching values for auxsecret, as
   determined by comparing the hashes of auxsecret sent in the DH
   messages.  If they don't match, s2 MUST be set to null.

   The shared secret s3 MUST be set to the value of pbxsecret if and
   only if both parties have matching values for pbxsecret, as
   determined by comparing the hashes of pbxsecret sent in the DH
   messages.  If they don't match, s3 MUST be set to null.

   If s1, s2, or s3 have null values, they are assumed to have a zero
   length for the purposes of hashing them later during the s0
   calculation in Section 4.4.1.4.

   The comparison of hashes of rs1, rs2, auxsecret, and pbxsecret is
   described in Section 4.3.1.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 16]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


4.3.1.  Calculation and Comparison of Hashes of Shared Secrets

   Both parties calculate a set of non-invertible hashes (implemented
   via the MAC defined in Section 5.1.2.1) of shared secrets that may be
   present in each of their caches.  These hashes are truncated to the
   leftmost 64 bits:

      rs1IDr = MAC(rs1, "Responder")

      rs2IDr = MAC(rs2, "Responder")

      auxsecretIDr = MAC(auxsecret, Responder's H3)

      pbxsecretIDr = MAC(pbxsecret, "Responder")

      rs1IDi = MAC(rs1, "Initiator")

      rs2IDi = MAC(rs2, "Initiator")

      auxsecretIDi = MAC(auxsecret, Initiator's H3)

      pbxsecretIDi = MAC(pbxsecret, "Initiator")

   The responder sends rs1IDr, rs2IDr, auxsecretIDr, and pbxsecretIDr in
   the DHPart1 message.  The initiator sends rs1IDi, rs2IDi,
   auxsecretIDi, and pbxsecretIDi in the DHPart2 message.

   The responder uses the locally computed rs1IDi, rs2IDi, auxsecretIDi,
   and pbxsecretIDi to compare against the corresponding fields in the
   received DHPart2 message.  The initiator uses the locally computed
   rs1IDr, rs2IDr, auxsecretIDr, and pbxsecretIDr to compare against the
   corresponding fields in the received DHPart1 message.

   From these comparisons, s1, s2, and s3 are calculated per the methods
   described in Section 4.3.  The secrets corresponding to matching
   hashes are kept while the secrets corresponding to the non-matching
   ones are replaced with a null, which is assumed to have a zero length
   for the purposes of hashing them later.  The resulting s1, s2, and s3
   values are used later to calculate s0 in Section 4.4.1.4.

   For example, consider two ZRTP endpoints who share secrets rs1 and
   pbxsecret (defined in Section 7.3.1).  During the comparison, rs1ID
   and pbxsecretID will match but auxsecretID will not.  As a result,
   s1 = rs1, s2 will be null, and s3 = pbxsecret.







Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 17]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


4.3.2.  Handling a Shared Secret Cache Mismatch

   A shared secret cache mismatch is defined to mean that we expected a
   cache match because rs1 exists in our local cache, but we computed a
   null value for s1 (per the method described in Section 4.3).

   If one party has a cached shared secret and the other party does not,
   this indicates one of two possible situations.  Either there is a
   MiTM attack or one of the legitimate parties has lost their cached
   shared secret by some mishap.  Perhaps they inadvertently deleted
   their cache or their cache was lost or disrupted due to restoring
   their disk from an earlier backup copy.  The party that has the
   surviving cache entry can easily detect that a cache mismatch has
   occurred, because they expect their own cached secret to match the
   other party's cached secret, but it does not match.  It is possible
   for both parties to detect this condition if both parties have
   surviving cached secrets that have fallen out of sync, due perhaps to
   one party restoring from a disk backup.

   If either party discovers a cache mismatch, the user agent who makes
   this discovery must treat this as a possible security event and MUST
   alert their own user that there is a heightened risk of a MiTM
   attack, and that the user should verbally compare the SAS with the
   other party to ascertain that no MiTM attack has occurred.  If a
   cache mismatch is detected and it is not possible to compare the SAS,
   either because the user interface does not support it or because one
   or both endpoints are unmanned devices, and no other SAS comparison
   mechanism is available, the session MAY be terminated.

   The session need not be terminated on a cache mismatch event if:

   o  the mechanism described in Section 8.1.1 is available, which
      allows authentication of the DH exchange without human assistance,
      or

   o  any mechanism is available to determine if the SAS matches.  This
      would require either circumstances that allow human verbal
      comparisons of the SAS or by use of the OPTIONAL digital signature
      feature on the SAS hash, as described in Section 7.2.

   Even if the user interface does not permit an SAS comparison, the
   human user MUST be warned and may elect to proceed with the call at
   their own risk.

   If and only if a cache mismatch event occurs, the cache update
   mechanism in Section 4.6.1 is affected, requiring the user to verify
   the SAS before the cache is updated.  The user will thus be alerted
   of this security condition on every call until the SAS is verified.



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 18]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   This is described in Section 4.6.1.1.

   Here is a non-normative example of a cache-mismatch alert message
   from a ZRTP user agent (specifically, [Zfone]), designed for a
   desktop PC graphical user interface environment.  It is by no means
   required that the alert be this detailed:

      We expected the other party to have a shared secret cached from a
      previous call, but they don't have it.  This may mean your partner
      simply lost his cache of shared secrets, but it could also mean
      someone is trying to wiretap you.  To resolve this question you
      must check the authentication string with your partner.  If it
      doesn't match, it indicates the presence of a wiretapper.

   If the alert is rendered by a robot voice instead of a GUI, brevity
   may be more important:

      Something's wrong.  You must check the authentication string with
      your partner.  If it doesn't match, it indicates the presence of a
      wiretapper.

   A mismatch of auxsecret is handled differently than a mismatch of
   rs1.  An auxsecret mismatch is defined to mean that auxsecret exists
   locally, but we computed a null value for s2 (per the method
   described in Section 4.3).  This mismatch should be made visible to
   whichever user has auxsecret defined.  The mismatch should be made
   visible to both users if they both have auxsecret defined but they
   fail to match.  The severity of the user notification is
   implementation dependent.  Aborting the session is not required.  If
   auxsecret matches, it should not excuse a mismatch of rs1, which
   still requires a strong warning to the user.

4.4.  DH and Non-DH Key Agreements

   The next step is the generation of a secret for deriving SRTP keying
   material.  ZRTP uses Diffie-Hellman and two non-Diffie-Hellman modes,
   described in the following subsections.

4.4.1.  Diffie-Hellman Mode

   The purpose of the Diffie-Hellman (either Finite Field Diffie-Hellman
   or Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman) exchange is for the two ZRTP
   endpoints to generate a new shared secret, s0.  In addition, the
   endpoints discover if they have any cached or previously stored
   shared secrets in common, and it uses them as part of the calculation
   of the session keys.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 19]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Because the DH exchange affects the state of the retained shared
   secret cache, only one in-process ZRTP DH exchange may occur at a
   time between two ZRTP endpoints.  Otherwise, race conditions and
   cache integrity problems will result.  When multiple media streams
   are established in parallel between the same pair of ZRTP endpoints
   (determined by the ZIDs in the Hello messages), only one can be
   processed.  Once that exchange completes with Confirm2 and Conf2ACK
   messages, another ZRTP DH exchange can begin.  This constraint does
   not apply when Multistream mode key agreement is used since the
   cached shared secrets are not affected.

4.4.1.1.  Hash Commitment in Diffie-Hellman Mode

   From the intersection of the algorithms in the sent and received
   Hello messages, the initiator chooses a hash, cipher, auth tag, Key
   Agreement Type, and SAS Type to be used.

   A Diffie-Hellman mode is selected by setting the Key Agreement Type
   in the Commit to one of the DH or Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman
   (ECDH) values from the table in Section 5.1.5.  In this mode, the key
   agreement begins with the initiator choosing a fresh random Diffie-
   Hellman (DH) secret value (svi) based on the chosen Key Agreement
   Type value, and computing the public value.  (Note that to speed up
   processing, this computation can be done in advance.)  For guidance
   on generating random numbers, see Section 4.8.

   For Finite Field Diffie-Hellman, the value for the DH generator g,
   the DH prime p, and the length of the DH secret value, svi, are
   defined in Section 5.1.5.

      pvi = g^svi mod p

   where g and p are determined by the Key Agreement Type value.  The DH
   public value pvi value is formatted as a big-endian octet string and
   fixed to the bit-length of the DH prime; leading zeros MUST NOT be
   truncated.

   For Elliptic Curve DH, pvi is calculated and formatted according to
   the ECDH specification in Section 5.1.5, which refers in detail to
   certain sections of NIST SP 800-56A [NIST-SP800-56A].

   The hash commitment is performed by the initiator of the ZRTP
   exchange.  The hash value of the initiator, hvi, includes a hash of
   the entire DHPart2 message as shown in Figure 9 (which includes the
   Diffie-Hellman public value, pvi), and the responder's Hello message
   (where '||' means concatenation).  The hvi hash is truncated to 256
   bits:




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 20]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


       hvi = hash(initiator's DHPart2 message ||
                            responder's Hello message)

   Note that the Hello message includes the fields shown in Figure 3.

   The information from the responder's Hello message is included in the
   hash calculation to prevent a bid-down attack by modification of the
   responder's Hello message.

   The initiator sends the hvi in the Commit message.

   The use of hash commitment in the DH exchange constrains the attacker
   to only one guess to generate the correct Short Authentication String
   (SAS) (Section 7) in his attack, which means the SAS can be quite
   short.  A 16-bit SAS, for example, provides the attacker only one
   chance out of 65536 of not being detected.  Without this hash
   commitment feature, a MiTM attacker would acquire both the pvi and
   pvr public values from the two parties before having to choose his
   own two DH public values for his MiTM attack.  He could then use that
   information to quickly perform a bunch of trial DH calculations for
   both sides until he finds two with a matching SAS.  To raise the cost
   of this birthday attack, the SAS would have to be much longer.  The
   Short Authentication String would have to become a Long
   Authentication String, which would be unacceptable to the user.  A
   hash commitment precludes this attack by forcing the MiTM to choose
   his own two DH public values before learning the public values of
   either of the two parties.

4.4.1.2.  Responder Behavior in Diffie-Hellman Mode

   Upon receipt of the Commit message, the responder generates its own
   fresh random DH secret value, svr, and computes the public value.
   (Note that to speed up processing, this computation can be done in
   advance, with no need to discard this computation if both endpoints
   chose the same algorithm via Section 4.1.2.)  For guidance on random
   number generation, see Section 4.8.

   For Finite Field Diffie-Hellman, the value for the DH generator g,
   the DH prime p, and the length of the DH secret value, svr, are
   defined in Section 5.1.5.

      pvr = g^svr mod p

   The pvr value is formatted as a big-endian octet string, fixed to the
   bit-length of the DH prime; leading zeros MUST NOT be truncated.






Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 21]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   For Elliptic Curve DH, pvr is calculated and formatted according to
   the ECDH specification in Section 5.1.5, which refers in detail to
   certain sections of NIST SP 800-56A.

   Upon receipt of the DHPart2 message, the responder checks that the
   initiator's DH public value is not equal to 1 or p-1.  An attacker
   might inject a false DHPart2 message with a value of 1 or p-1 for
   g^svi mod p, which would cause a disastrously weak final DH result to
   be computed.  If pvi is 1 or p-1, the user SHOULD be alerted of the
   attack and the protocol exchange MUST be terminated.  Otherwise, the
   responder computes its own value for the hash commitment using the DH
   public value (pvi) received in the DHPart2 message and its own Hello
   message and compares the result with the hvi received in the Commit
   message.  If they are different, a MiTM attack is taking place and
   the user is alerted and the protocol exchange terminated.

   The responder then calculates the Diffie-Hellman result:

      DHResult = pvi^svr mod p

4.4.1.3.  Initiator Behavior in Diffie-Hellman Mode

   Upon receipt of the DHPart1 message, the initiator checks that the
   responder's DH public value is not equal to 1 or p-1.  An attacker
   might inject a false DHPart1 message with a value of 1 or p-1 for
   g^svr mod p, which would cause a disastrously weak final DH result to
   be computed.  If pvr is 1 or p-1, the user should be alerted of the
   attack and the protocol exchange MUST be terminated.

   The initiator then sends a DHPart2 message containing the initiator's
   DH public value and the set of calculated shared secret IDs as
   defined in Section 4.3.1.

   The initiator calculates the same Diffie-Hellman result using:

      DHResult = pvr^svi mod p

4.4.1.4.  Shared Secret Calculation for DH Mode

   A hash of the received and sent ZRTP messages in the current ZRTP
   exchange in the following order is calculated by both parties:

     total_hash = hash(Hello of responder || Commit || DHPart1 ||
                          DHPart2)

   Note that only the ZRTP messages (Figures 3, 5, 8, and 9), not the
   entire ZRTP packets, are included in the total_hash.




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 22]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   For both the initiator and responder, the DHResult is formatted as a
   big-endian octet string and fixed to the width of the DH prime;
   leading zeros MUST NOT be truncated.  For example, for a 3072-bit p,
   DHResult would be a 384 octet value, with the first octet the most
   significant.  DHResult may also be the result of an ECDH calculation,
   which is discussed in Section 5.1.5.

   Key        | Size of
   Agreement  | DHResult
   ------------------------
   DH-3072    | 384 octets
   ------------------------
   DH-2048    | 256 octets
   ------------------------
   ECDH P-256 |  32 octets
   ------------------------
   ECDH P-384 |  48 octets
   ------------------------

   The authors believe the calculation of the final shared secret, s0,
   is in compliance with the recommendations in Sections 5.8.1 and
   6.1.2.1 of NIST SP 800-56A [NIST-SP800-56A].  This is done by hashing
   a concatenation of a number of items, including the DHResult, the
   ZID's of the initiator (ZIDi) and the responder (ZIDr), the
   total_hash, and the set of non-null shared secrets as described in
   Section 4.3.

   In Section 5.8.1 of [NIST-SP800-56A], NIST requires certain
   parameters to be hashed together in a particular order, which NIST
   refers to as: Z, AlgorithmID, PartyUInfo, PartyVInfo, SuppPubInfo,
   and SuppPrivInfo.  In our implementation, our DHResult corresponds to
   Z, "ZRTP-HMAC-KDF" corresponds to AlgorithmID, our ZIDi and ZIDr
   correspond to PartyUInfo and PartyVInfo, our total_hash corresponds
   to SuppPubInfo, and the set of three shared secrets s1, s2, and s3
   corresponds to SuppPrivInfo.  NIST also requires a 32-bit big-endian
   integer counter to be included in the hash each time the hash is
   computed, which we have set to the fixed value of 1 because we only
   compute the hash once.  NIST refers to the final hash output as
   DerivedKeyingMaterial, which corresponds to our s0 in this
   calculation.

      s0 = hash(counter || DHResult || "ZRTP-HMAC-KDF" || ZIDi ||
                ZIDr || total_hash || len(s1) || s1 || len(s2) ||
                s2 || len(s3) || s3)







Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 23]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Note that temporary values s1, s2, and s3 were calculated per the
   methods described in Section 4.3.  DHResult, s1, s2, and s3 MUST all
   be erased from memory immediately after they are used to calculate
   s0.

   The length of the DHResult field was implicitly agreed to by the
   negotiated DH prime size.  The length of total_hash is implicitly
   determined by the negotiated hash algorithm.  All of the explicit
   length fields, len(), in the above hash are 32-bit big-endian
   integers, giving the length in octets of the field that follows.
   Some members of the set of shared secrets (s1, s2, and s3) may have
   lengths of zero if they are null (not shared) and are each preceded
   by a 4-octet length field.  For example, if s2 is null, len(s2) is
   0x00000000, and s2 itself would be absent from the hash calculation,
   which means len(s3) would immediately follow len(s2).  While
   inclusion of ZIDi and ZIDr may be redundant, because they are
   implicitly included in the total_hash, we explicitly include them
   here to follow NIST SP 800-56A.  The fixed-length string "ZRTP-HMAC-
   KDF" (not null-terminated) identifies for what purpose the resulting
   s0 will be used, which is to serve as the key derivation key for the
   ZRTP HMAC-based key derivation function (KDF) defined in
   Section 4.5.1 and used in Section 4.5.3.

   The authors believe ZRTP DH mode is in full compliance with two
   relevant NIST documents that cover key derivations.  First, Section
   5.8.1 of [NIST-SP800-56A] computes what NIST refers to as
   DerivedKeyingMaterial, which ZRTP refers to as s0.  This s0 then
   serves as the key derivation key, which NIST refers to as KI in the
   key derivation function described in Sections 5 and 5.1 of
   [NIST-SP800-108], to derive all the rest of the subkeys needed by
   ZRTP.  For ECDH mode, the authors believe the s0 calculation is also
   in compliance with Section 3.1 of the National Security Agency's
   (NSA's) Suite B Implementer's Guide to NIST SP 800-56A
   [NSA-Suite-B-Guide-56A].

   The ZRTP key derivation function (KDF) (Section 4.5.1) requires the
   use of a KDF Context field (per [NIST-SP800-108] guidelines), which
   should include the ZIDi, ZIDr, and a nonce value known to both
   parties.  The total_hash qualifies as a nonce value, because its
   computation included nonce material from the initiator's Commit
   message and the responder's Hello message.

      KDF_Context = (ZIDi || ZIDr || total_hash)

   At this point in DH mode, the two endpoints proceed to the key
   derivations of ZRTPSess and the rest of the keys in Section 4.5.2,
   now that there is a defined s0.




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 24]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


4.4.2.  Preshared Mode

   The Preshared key agreement mode can be used to generate SRTP keys
   and salts without a DH calculation, instead relying on a shared
   secret from previous DH calculations between the endpoints.

   This key agreement mode is useful to rapidly re-establish a secure
   session between two parties who have recently started and ended a
   secure session that has already performed a DH key agreement, without
   performing another lengthy DH calculation, which may be desirable on
   slow processors in resource-limited environments.  Preshared mode
   MUST NOT be used for adding additional media streams to an existing
   call.  Multistream mode MUST be used for this purpose.

   In the most severe resource-limited environments, Preshared mode may
   be useful with processors that cannot perform a DH calculation in an
   ergonomically acceptable time limit.  Shared key material may be
   manually provisioned between two such endpoints in advance and still
   allow a limited subset of functionality.  Such a "better than
   nothing" implementation would have to be regarded as non-compliant
   with the ZRTP specification, but it could interoperate in Preshared
   (and if applicable, Multistream) mode with a compliant ZRTP endpoint.

   Because Preshared mode affects the state of the retained shared
   secret cache, only one in-process ZRTP Preshared exchange may occur
   at a time between two ZRTP endpoints.  This rule is explained in more
   detail in Section 4.4.1, and applies for the same reasons as in DH
   mode.

   Preshared mode is only included in this specification to meet the
   R-REUSE requirement in the Media Security Requirements [RFC5479]
   document.  A series of preshared-keyed calls between two ZRTP
   endpoints should use a DH key exchange periodically.  Preshared mode
   is only used if a cached shared secret has been established in an
   earlier session by a DH exchange, as discussed in Section 4.9.

4.4.2.1.  Commitment in Preshared Mode

   Preshared mode is selected by setting the Key Agreement Type to
   Preshared in the Commit message.  This results in the same call flow
   as Multistream mode.  The principal difference between Multistream
   mode and Preshared mode is that Preshared mode uses a previously
   cached shared secret, rs1, instead of an active ZRTP Session key,
   ZRTPSess, as the initial keying material.

   Preshared mode depends on having a reliable shared secret in its
   cache.  Before Preshared mode is used, the initial DH exchange that
   gave rise to the shared secret SHOULD have used at least one of these



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 25]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   anti-MiTM mechanisms: 1) A verbal comparison of the SAS, evidenced by
   the SAS Verified flag, or 2) an end-to-end integrity-protected
   delivery of the a=zrtp-hash in the signaling (Section 8.1.1), or 3) a
   digital signature on the sashash (Section 7.2).

4.4.2.2.  Initiator Behavior in Preshared Mode

   The Commit message (Figure 7) is sent by the initiator of the ZRTP
   exchange.  From the intersection of the algorithms in the sent and
   received Hello messages, the initiator chooses a hash, cipher, auth
   tag, Key Agreement Type, and SAS Type to be used.

   To assemble a Preshared commit, we must first construct a temporary
   preshared_key, which is constructed from one of several possible
   combinations of cached key material, depending on what is available
   in the shared secret cache.  If rs1 is not available in the
   initiator's cache, then Preshared mode MUST NOT be used.

  preshared_key = hash(len(rs1) || rs1 || len(auxsecret) || auxsecret ||
                       len(pbxsecret) || pbxsecret)

   All of the explicit length fields, len(), in the above hash are 32-
   bit big-endian integers, giving the length in octets of the field
   that follows.  Some members of the set of shared secrets (rs1,
   auxsecret, and pbxsecret) may have lengths of zero if they are null
   (not available), and are each preceded by a 4-octet length field.
   For example, if auxsecret is null, len(auxsecret) is 0x00000000, and
   auxsecret itself would be absent from the hash calculation, which
   means len(pbxsecret) would immediately follow len(auxsecret).

   In place of hvi in the Commit message, two smaller fields are
   inserted by the initiator:

      - A random nonce of length 4 words (16 octets).

      - A keyID = MAC(preshared_key, "Prsh") truncated to 64 bits.

      Note: Since the nonce is used to calculate different SRTP key and
      salt pairs for each session, a duplication will result in the same
      key and salt being generated for the two sessions, which would
      have disastrous security consequences.

4.4.2.3.  Responder Behavior in Preshared Mode

   The responder uses the received keyID to search for matching key
   material in its cache.  It does this by computing a preshared_key
   value and keyID value using the same formula as the initiator,
   depending on what is available in the responder's local cache.  If



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 26]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   the locally computed keyID does not match the received keyID in the
   Commit, the responder recomputes a new preshared_key and keyID from a
   different subset of shared keys from the cache, dropping auxsecret,
   pbxsecret, or both from the hash calculation, until a matching
   preshared_key is found or it runs out of possibilities.  Note that
   rs2 is not included in the process.

   If it finds the appropriate matching shared key material, it is used
   to derive s0 and a new ZRTPSess key, as described in the next section
   on shared secret calculation, Section 4.4.2.4.

   If the responder determines that it does not have a cached shared
   secret from a previous DH exchange, or it fails to match the keyID
   hash from the initiator with any combination of its shared keys, it
   SHOULD respond with its own DH Commit message.  This would reverse
   the roles and the responder would become the initiator, because the
   DH Commit must always "trump" the Preshared Commit message as
   described in Section 4.2.  The key exchange would then proceed using
   DH mode.  However, if a severely resource-limited responder lacks the
   computing resources to respond in a reasonable time with a DH Commit,
   it MAY respond with a ZRTP Error message (Section 5.9) indicating
   that no shared secret is available.

   If both sides send Preshared Commit messages initiating a secure
   session at the same time, the contention is resolved and the
   initiator/responder roles are settled according to Section 4.2, and
   the protocol proceeds.

   In Preshared mode, both the DHPart1 and DHPart2 messages are skipped.
   After receiving the Commit message from the initiator, the responder
   sends the Confirm1 message after calculating this stream's SRTP keys,
   as described below.

4.4.2.4.  Shared Secret Calculation for Preshared Mode

   Preshared mode requires that the s0 and ZRTPSess keys be derived from
   the preshared_key, and this must be done in a way that guarantees
   uniqueness for each session.  This is done by using nonce material
   from both parties: the explicit nonce in the initiator's Preshared
   Commit message (Figure 7) and the H3 field in the responder's Hello
   message (Figure 3).  Thus, both parties force the resulting shared
   secret to be unique for each session.

   A hash of the received and sent ZRTP messages in the current ZRTP
   exchange for the current media stream is calculated:

      total_hash = hash(Hello of responder || Commit)




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 27]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Note that only the ZRTP messages (Figures 3 and 7), not the entire
   ZRTP packets, are included in the total_hash.

   The ZRTP key derivation function (KDF) (Section 4.5.1) requires the
   use of a KDF Context field (per [NIST-SP800-108] guidelines), which
   should include the ZIDi, ZIDr, and a nonce value known to both
   parties.  The total_hash qualifies as a nonce value, because its
   computation included nonce material from the initiator's Commit
   message and the responder's Hello message.

      KDF_Context = (ZIDi || ZIDr || total_hash)

   The s0 key is derived via the ZRTP key derivation function
   (Section 4.5.1) from preshared_key and the nonces implicitly included
   in the total_hash.  The nonces also ensure KDF_Context is unique for
   each session, which is critical for security.

    s0 = KDF(preshared_key, "ZRTP PSK", KDF_Context,
                 negotiated hash length)

   The preshared_key MUST be erased as soon as it has been used to
   calculate s0.

   At this point in Preshared mode, the two endpoints proceed to the key
   derivations of ZRTPSess and the rest of the keys in Section 4.5.2,
   now that there is a defined s0.

4.4.3.  Multistream Mode

   The Multistream key agreement mode can be used to generate SRTP keys
   and salts for additional media streams established between a pair of
   endpoints.  Multistream mode cannot be used unless there is an active
   SRTP session established between the endpoints, which means a ZRTP
   Session key is active.  This ZRTP Session key can be used to generate
   keys and salts without performing another DH calculation.  In this
   mode, the retained shared secret cache is not used or updated.  As a
   result, multiple ZRTP Multistream mode exchanges can be processed in
   parallel between two endpoints.

   Multistream mode is also used to resume a secure call that has gone
   clear using a GoClear message as described in Section 4.7.2.1.

   When adding additional media streams to an existing call, Multistream
   mode MUST be used.  The first media stream MUST use either DH mode or
   Preshared mode.  Only one DH exchange or Preshared exchange is
   performed, just for the first media stream.  The DH exchange or
   Preshared exchange MUST be completed for the first media stream
   before Multistream mode is used to add any other media streams.  In a



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 28]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Multistream session, a ZRTP endpoint MUST use the same ZID for all
   media streams, matching the ZID used in the first media stream.

4.4.3.1.  Commitment in Multistream Mode

   Multistream mode is selected by the initiator setting the Key
   Agreement Type to "Mult" in the Commit message (Figure 6).  The
   Cipher Type, Auth Tag Length, and Hash in Multistream mode SHOULD be
   set by the initiator to the same as the values as in the initial DH
   Mode Commit.  The SAS Type is ignored as there is no SAS
   authentication in this mode.

      Note: This requirement is needed since some endpoints cannot
      support different SRTP algorithms for different media streams.
      However, in the case of Multistream mode being used to go secure
      after a GoClear, the requirement to use the same SRTP algorithms
      is relaxed if there are no other active SRTP sessions.

   In place of hvi in the Commit, a random nonce of length 4 words (16
   octets) is chosen.  Its value MUST be unique for all nonce values
   chosen for active ZRTP sessions between a pair of endpoints.  If a
   Commit is received with a reused nonce value, the ZRTP exchange MUST
   be immediately terminated.

      Note: Since the nonce is used to calculate different SRTP key and
      salt pairs for each media stream, a duplication will result in the
      same key and salt being generated for the two media streams, which
      would have disastrous security consequences.

   If a Commit is received selecting Multistream mode, but the responder
   does not have a ZRTP Session Key available, the exchange MUST be
   terminated.  Otherwise, the responder proceeds to the next section on
   shared secret calculation, Section 4.4.3.2.

   If both sides send Multistream Commit messages at the same time, the
   contention is resolved and the initiator/responder roles are settled
   according to Section 4.2, and the protocol proceeds.

   In Multistream mode, both the DHPart1 and DHPart2 messages are
   skipped.  After receiving the Commit message from the initiator, the
   responder sends the Confirm1 message after calculating this stream's
   SRTP keys, as described below.

4.4.3.2.  Shared Secret Calculation for Multistream Mode

   In Multistream mode, each media stream requires that a set of keys be
   derived from the ZRTPSess key, and this must be done in a way that
   guarantees uniqueness for each media stream.  This is done by using



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 29]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   nonce material from both parties: the explicit nonce in the
   initiator's Multistream Commit message (Figure 6) and the H3 field in
   the responder's Hello message (Figure 3).  Thus, both parties force
   the resulting shared secret to be unique for each media stream.

   A hash of the received and sent ZRTP messages in the current ZRTP
   exchange for the current media stream is calculated:

      total_hash = hash(Hello of responder || Commit)

   This refers to the Hello and Commit messages for the current media
   stream, which is using Multistream mode, not the original media
   stream that included a full DH key agreement.  Note that only the
   ZRTP messages (Figures 3 and 6), not the entire ZRTP packets, are
   included in the hash.

   The ZRTP key derivation function (KDF) (Section 4.5.1) requires the
   use of a KDF Context field (per [NIST-SP800-108] guidelines), which
   should include the ZIDi, ZIDr, and a nonce value known to both
   parties.  The total_hash qualifies as a nonce value, because its
   computation included nonce material from the initiator's Commit
   message and the responder's Hello message.

      KDF_Context = (ZIDi || ZIDr || total_hash)

   The current stream's SRTP keys and salts for the initiator and
   responder are calculated using the ZRTP Session Key ZRTPSess and the
   nonces implicitly included in the total_hash.  The nonces also ensure
   that KDF_Context will be unique for each media stream, which is
   critical for security.  For each additional media stream, a separate
   s0 is derived from ZRTPSess via the ZRTP key derivation function
   (Section 4.5.1):

     s0 = KDF(ZRTPSess, "ZRTP MSK", KDF_Context,
                            negotiated hash length)

   Note that the ZRTPSess key was previously derived from material that
   also includes a different and more inclusive total_hash from the
   entire packet sequence that performed the original DH exchange for
   the first media stream in this ZRTP session.

   At this point in Multistream mode, the two endpoints begin key
   derivations in Section 4.5.3.








Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 30]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


4.5.  Key Derivations

4.5.1.  The ZRTP Key Derivation Function

   To derive keys from a shared secret, ZRTP uses an HMAC-based key
   derivation function, or KDF.  It is used throughout Section 4.5.3 and
   in other sections.  The HMAC function for the KDF is based on the
   negotiated hash algorithm defined in Section 5.1.2.

   The authors believe the ZRTP KDF is in full compliance with the
   recommendations in NIST SP 800-108 [NIST-SP800-108].  Section 7.5 of
   the NIST document describes "key separation", which is a security
   requirement for the cryptographic keys derived from the same key
   derivation key.  The keys shall be separate in the sense that the
   compromise of some derived keys will not degrade the security
   strength of any of the other derived keys or the security strength of
   the key derivation key.  Strong preimage resistance is provided.

   The ZRTP KDF runs the NIST pseudorandom function (PRF) in counter
   mode, with only a single iteration of the counter.  The NIST PRF is
   based on the HMAC function.  The ZRTP KDF never has to generate more
   than 256 bits (or 384 bits for Suite B applications) of output key
   material, so only a single invocation of the HMAC function is needed.

   The ZRTP KDF is defined in this manner, per Sections 5 and 5.1 of
   [NIST-SP800-108]:

      KDF(KI, Label, Context, L) = HMAC(KI, i || Label ||
            0x00 || Context || L)

   The HMAC in the KDF is keyed by KI, which is a secret key derivation
   key that is unknown to the wiretapper (for example, s0).  The HMAC is
   computed on a concatenated set of nonsecret fields that are defined
   as follows.  The first field is a 32-bit big-endian integer counter
   (i) required by NIST to be included in the HMAC each time the HMAC is
   computed, which we have set to the fixed value of 0x000001 because we
   only compute the HMAC once.  Label is a string of nonzero octets that
   identifies the purpose for the derived keying material.  The octet
   0x00 is a delimiter required by NIST.  The NIST KDF formula has a
   "Context" field that includes ZIDi, ZIDr, and some optional nonce
   material known to both parties.  L is a 32-bit big-endian positive
   integer, not to exceed the length in bits of the output of the HMAC.
   The output of the KDF is truncated to the leftmost L bits.  If SHA-
   384 is the negotiated hash algorithm, the HMAC would be HMAC-SHA-384;
   thus, the maximum value of L would be 384, the negotiated hash
   length.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 31]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   The ZRTP KDF is not to be confused with the SRTP KDF defined in
   [RFC3711].

4.5.2.  Deriving ZRTPSess Key and SAS in DH or Preshared Modes

   Both DH mode and Preshared mode (but not Multistream mode) come to
   this common point in the protocol to derive ZRTPSess and the SAS from
   s0, via the ZRTP Key Derivation Function (Section 4.5.1).  At this
   point, s0 has been calculated, as well as KDF_Context.  These
   calculations are done only for the first media stream, not for
   Multistream mode.

   The ZRTPSess key is used only for these two purposes: 1) to generate
   the additional s0 keys (Section 4.4.3.2) for adding additional media
   streams to this session in Multistream mode, and 2) to generate the
   pbxsecret (Section 7.3.1) that may be cached for use in future
   sessions.  The ZRTPSess key is kept for the duration of the call
   signaling session between the two ZRTP endpoints.  That is, if there
   are two separate calls between the endpoints (in SIP terms, separate
   SIP dialogs), then a ZRTP Session Key MUST NOT be used across the two
   call signaling sessions.  ZRTPSess MUST be destroyed no later than
   the end of the call signaling session.

      ZRTPSess = KDF(s0, "ZRTP Session Key", KDF_Context,
                       negotiated hash length)

   Note that KDF_Context is unique for each media stream, but only the
   first media stream is permitted to calculate ZRTPSess.

   There is only one Short Authentication String (SAS) (Section 7)
   computed per call, which is applicable to all media streams derived
   from a single DH key agreement in a ZRTP session.  KDF_Context is
   unique for each media stream, but only the first media stream is
   permitted to calculate sashash.

      sashash = KDF(s0, "SAS", KDF_Context, 256)

      sasvalue = sashash [truncated to leftmost 32 bits]

   Despite the exposure of the SAS to the two parties, the rest of the
   keying material is protected by the key separation properties of the
   KDF (Section 4.5.1).

   ZRTP-enabled VoIP clients may need to support additional forms of
   communication, such as text chat, instant messaging, or file
   transfers.  These other forms of communication may need to be
   encrypted, and would benefit from leveraging the ZRTP key exchange
   used for the VoIP part of the call.  In that case, more key material



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 32]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   MAY be derived and "exported" from the ZRTP protocol and provided as
   a shared secret to the VoIP client for these non-VoIP purposes.  The
   application can use this exported key in application-specific ways,
   outside the scope of the ZRTP protocol.

      ExportedKey = KDF(s0, "Exported key", KDF_Context,
                           negotiated hash length)

   Only one ExportedKey is computed per call.  KDF_Context is unique for
   each media stream, but only the first media stream is permitted to
   calculate ExportedKey.

   The application may use this exported key to derive other subkeys for
   various non-ZRTP purposes, via a KDF using separate KDF label strings
   defined by the application.  This key or its derived subkeys can be
   used for encryption, or used to authenticate other key exchanges
   carried out by the application, protected by ZRTP's MiTM defense
   umbrella.  The exported key and its descendants may be used for as
   long as needed by the application, maintained in a separate crypto
   context that may outlast the VoIP session.

   At this point in DH mode or Preshared mode, the two endpoints proceed
   on to the key derivations in Section 4.5.3, now that there is a
   defined s0 and ZRTPSess key.

4.5.3.  Deriving the Rest of the Keys from s0

   DH mode, Multistream mode, and Preshared mode all come to this common
   point in the protocol to derive a set of keys from s0.  It can be
   assumed that s0 has been calculated, as well the ZRTPSess key and
   KDF_Context.  A separate s0 key is associated with each media stream.

   Subkeys are not drawn directly from s0, as done in NIST SP 800-56A.
   To enhance key separation, ZRTP uses s0 to key a Key Derivation
   Function (Section 4.5.1) based on [NIST-SP800-108].  Since s0 already
   included total_hash in its derivation, it is redundant to use
   total_hash again in the KDF Context in all the invocations of the KDF
   keyed by s0.  Nonetheless, NIST SP 800-108 always requires KDF
   Context to be defined for the KDF, and nonce material is required in
   some KDF invocations (especially for Multistream mode and Preshared
   mode), so total_hash is included as a nonce in the KDF Context.

   Separate SRTP master keys and master salts are derived for use in
   each direction for each media stream.  Unless otherwise specified,
   ZRTP uses SRTP with no Master Key Identifier (MKI), 32-bit
   authentication using HMAC-SHA1, AES-CM 128 or 256-bit key length,
   112-bit session salt key length, 2^48 key derivation rate, and SRTP
   prefix length 0.  Secure RTCP (SRTCP) is also used, deriving the



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 33]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   SRTCP keys from the same master keys and salts as SRTP, using the
   mechanisms specified in [RFC3711], without requiring a separate ZRTP
   negotiation for RTCP.

   The ZRTP initiator encrypts and the ZRTP responder decrypts packets
   by using srtpkeyi and srtpsalti, while the ZRTP responder encrypts
   and the ZRTP initiator decrypts packets by using srtpkeyr and
   srtpsaltr.  The SRTP key and salt values are truncated (taking the
   leftmost bits) to the length determined by the chosen SRTP profile.
   These are generated by:

     srtpkeyi = KDF(s0, "Initiator SRTP master key", KDF_Context,
                     negotiated AES key length)

     srtpsalti = KDF(s0, "Initiator SRTP master salt", KDF_Context, 112)

     srtpkeyr = KDF(s0, "Responder SRTP master key", KDF_Context,
                     negotiated AES key length)

     srtpsaltr = KDF(s0, "Responder SRTP master salt", KDF_Context, 112)

   The MAC keys are the same length as the output of the underlying hash
   function in the KDF and are thus generated without truncation.  They
   are used only by ZRTP and not by SRTP.  Different MAC keys are needed
   for the initiator and the responder to ensure that GoClear messages
   in each direction are unique and can not be cached by an attacker and
   reflected back to the endpoint.

      mackeyi = KDF(s0, "Initiator HMAC key", KDF_Context,
                      negotiated hash length)

      mackeyr = KDF(s0, "Responder HMAC key", KDF_Context,
                      negotiated hash length)

   ZRTP keys are generated for the initiator and responder to use to
   encrypt the Confirm1 and Confirm2 messages.  They are truncated to
   the same size as the negotiated SRTP key size.

      zrtpkeyi = KDF(s0, "Initiator ZRTP key", KDF_Context,
                      negotiated AES key length)

      zrtpkeyr = KDF(s0, "Responder ZRTP key", KDF_Context,
                      negotiated AES key length)

   All key material is destroyed as soon as it is no longer needed, no
   later than the end of the call. s0 is erased in Section 4.6.1, and
   the rest of the session key material is erased in Sections 4.7.2.1
   and 4.7.3.



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 34]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


4.6.  Confirmation

   The Confirm1 and Confirm2 messages (Figure 10) contain the cache
   expiration interval (defined in Section 4.9) for the newly generated
   retained shared secret.  The flagoctet is an 8-bit unsigned integer
   made up of these flags: the PBX Enrollment flag (E) defined in
   Section 7.3.1, the SAS Verified flag (V) defined in Section 7.1, the
   Allow Clear flag (A) defined in Section 4.7.2, and the Disclosure
   flag (D) defined in Section 11.

      flagoctet =  (E * 2^3) + (V * 2^2) + (A * 2^1) + (D * 2^0)

   Part of the Confirm1 and Confirm2 messages are encrypted using full-
   block Cipher Feedback Mode and contain a 128-bit random Cipher
   FeedBack (CFB) Initialization Vector (IV).  The Confirm1 and Confirm2
   messages also contain a MAC covering the encrypted part of the
   Confirm1 or Confirm2 message that includes a string of zeros, the
   signature length, flag octet, cache expiration interval, signature
   type block (if present), and signature (Section 7.2) (if present).
   For the responder:

      confirm_mac = MAC(mackeyr, encrypted part of Confirm1)

   For the initiator:

      confirm_mac = MAC(mackeyi, encrypted part of Confirm2)

   The mackeyi and mackeyr keys are computed in Section 4.5.3.

   The exchange is completed when the responder sends either the
   Conf2ACK message or the responder's first SRTP media packet (with a
   valid SRTP auth tag).  The initiator MUST treat the first valid SRTP
   media from the responder as equivalent to receiving a Conf2ACK.  The
   responder may respond to Confirm2 with either SRTP media, Conf2ACK,
   or both, in whichever order the responder chooses (or whichever order
   the "cloud" chooses to deliver them).

4.6.1.  Updating the Cache of Shared Secrets

   After receiving the Confirm messages, both parties must now update
   their retained shared secret rs1 in their respective caches, provided
   the following conditions hold:

   (1)  This key exchange is either DH or Preshared mode, not
        Multistream mode, which does not update the cache.

   (2)  Depending on the values of the cache expiration intervals that
        are received in the two Confirm messages, there are some



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 35]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


        scenarios that do not update the cache, as explained in
        Section 4.9.

   (3)  The responder MUST receive the initiator's Confirm2 message
        before updating the responder's cache.

   (4)  The initiator MUST receive either the responder's Conf2ACK
        message or the responder's SRTP media (with a valid SRTP auth
        tag) before updating the initiator's cache.

   The cache update may also be affected by a cache mismatch, according
   to Section 4.6.1.1.

   For DH mode only, before updating the retained shared secret rs1 in
   the cache, each party first discards their old rs2 and copies their
   old rs1 to rs2.  The old rs1 is saved to rs2 because of the risk of
   session interruption after one party has updated his own rs1 but
   before the other party has enough information to update her own rs1.
   If that happens, they may regain cache sync in the next session by
   using rs2 (per Section 4.3).  This mitigates the well-known Two
   Generals' Problem [Byzantine].  The old rs1 value is not saved in
   Preshared mode.

   For DH mode and Preshared mode, both parties compute a new rs1 value
   from s0 via the ZRTP key derivation function (Section 4.5.1):

      rs1 = KDF(s0, "retained secret", KDF_Context, 256)

   Note that KDF_Context is unique for each media stream, but only the
   first media stream is permitted to update rs1.

   Each media stream has its own s0.  At this point in the protocol for
   each media stream, the corresponding s0 MUST be erased.

4.6.1.1.  Cache Update Following a Cache Mismatch

   If a shared secret cache mismatch (as defined in Section 4.3.2) is
   detected in the current session, it indicates a possible MiTM attack.
   However, there may be evidence to the contrary, if either one of the
   following conditions are met:

   o  Successful use of the mechanism described in Section 8.1.1, but
      only if fully supported by end-to-end integrity-protected delivery
      of the a=zrtp-hash in the signaling via SIP Identity [RFC4474] or
      better still, Dan Wing's SIP Identity using Media Path
      [SIP-IDENTITY].  This allows authentication of the DH exchange
      without human assistance.




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 36]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   o  A good signature is received and verified using the digital
      signature feature on the SAS hash, as described in Section 7.2, if
      this feature is supported.

   If there is a cache mismatch in the absence of the aforementioned
   mitigating evidence, the cache update MUST be delayed in the current
   session until the user verbally compares the SAS with his partner
   during the call and confirms a successful SAS verify via his user
   interface as described in Section 7.1.  If the session ends before
   that happens, the cache update is not performed, leaving the rs1/rs2
   values unmodified in the cache.  Regardless of whether a cache
   mismatch occurs, s0 must still be erased.

   If no cache entry exists, as is the case in the initial call, the
   cache update is handled in the normal fashion.

4.7.  Termination

   A ZRTP session is normally terminated at the end of a call, but it
   may be terminated early by either the Error message or the GoClear
   message.

4.7.1.  Termination via Error Message

   The Error message (Section 5.9) is used to terminate an in-progress
   ZRTP exchange due to an error.  The Error message contains an integer
   Error Code for debugging purposes.  The termination of a ZRTP key
   agreement exchange results in no updates to the cached shared secrets
   and deletion of all crypto context for that media stream.  The ZRTP
   Session key, ZRTPSess, is only deleted if all ZRTP media streams that
   are using it are terminated.

   Because no key agreement has been reached, the Error message cannot
   use the same MAC protection as the GoClear message.  A denial of
   service is possible by injecting fake Error messages.  (However, even
   if the Error message were somehow designed with integrity protection,
   it would raise other questions.  What would a badly formed Error
   message mean if it were sent to report a badly formed message?  A
   good message?)

4.7.2.  Termination via GoClear Message

   The GoClear message (Section 5.11) is used to switch from SRTP to
   RTP, usually because the user has chosen to do that by pressing a
   button.  The GoClear uses a MAC of the Message Type Block sent in the
   GoClear message computed with the mackey derived from the shared
   secret.  This MAC is truncated to the leftmost 64 bits.  When sent by
   the initiator:



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 37]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


      clear_mac = MAC(mackeyi, "GoClear ")

   When sent by the responder:

      clear_mac = MAC(mackeyr, "GoClear ")

   Both of these MACs are calculated across the 8-octet "GoClear "
   Message Type Block, including the trailing space.

   A GoClear message that does not receive a ClearACK response must be
   resent.  If a GoClear message is received with a bad MAC, ClearACK
   MUST NOT be sent and the GoClear MUST NOT be acted on by the
   recipient, but it MAY be processed as a security exception, perhaps
   by logging or alerting the user.

   A ZRTP endpoint MAY choose to accept GoClear messages after the
   session has switched to SRTP, allowing the session to revert to RTP.
   This is indicated in the Confirm1 or Confirm2 messages (Figure 10) by
   setting the Allow Clear flag (A).  If an endpoint sets the Allow
   Clear (A) flag in their Confirm message, it indicates that they
   support receiving GoClear messages.

   A ZRTP endpoint that receives a GoClear MUST authenticate the message
   by checking the clear_mac.  If the message authenticates, the
   endpoint stops sending SRTP packets, and generates a ClearACK in
   response.  It MUST also delete all the crypto key material for all
   the SRTP media streams, as defined in Section 4.7.2.1.

   Until confirmation from the user is received (e.g., clicking a
   button, pressing a dual-tone multi-frequency (DTMF) key, etc.), the
   ZRTP endpoint MUST NOT resume sending RTP packets.  The endpoint then
   renders to the user an indication that the media session has switched
   to clear mode and waits for confirmation from the user.  This blocks
   the flow of sensitive discourse until the user is forced to take
   notice that he's no longer protected by encryption.  To prevent
   pinholes from closing or NAT bindings from expiring, the ClearACK
   message MAY be resent at regular intervals (e.g., every 5 seconds)
   while waiting for confirmation from the user.  After confirmation of
   the notification is received from the user, the sending of RTP
   packets may begin.

   After sending a GoClear message, the ZRTP endpoint stops sending SRTP
   packets.  When a ClearACK is received, the ZRTP endpoint deletes the
   crypto context for the SRTP session, as defined in Section 4.7.2.1,
   and may then resume sending RTP packets.






Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 38]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   In the event a ClearACK is not received before the retransmissions of
   GoClear are exhausted, the key material is deleted, as defined in
   Section 4.7.2.1.

   After the users have transitioned from SRTP media back to RTP media
   (clear mode), they may decide later to return to secure mode by
   manual activation, usually by pressing a GO SECURE button.  In that
   case, a new secure session is initiated by the party that presses the
   button, by sending a new Commit message, leading to a new session key
   negotiation.  It is not necessary to send another Hello message, as
   the two parties have already done that at the start of the call and
   thus have already discovered each other's ZRTP capabilities.  It is
   possible for users to toggle back and forth between clear and secure
   modes multiple times in the same session, just as they could in the
   old days of secure PSTN phones.

4.7.2.1.  Key Destruction for GoClear Message

   All SRTP session key material MUST be erased by the receiver of the
   GoClear message upon receiving a properly authenticated GoClear.  The
   same key destruction MUST be done by the sender of GoClear message,
   upon receiving the ClearACK.  This must be done for the key material
   for all of the media streams.

   All key material that would have been erased at the end of the SIP
   session MUST be erased, as described in Section 4.7.3, with the
   single exception of ZRTPSess.  In this case, ZRTPSess is destroyed in
   a manner different from the other key material.  Both parties replace
   ZRTPSess with a KDF-derived non-invertible function of itself:

      ZRTPSess = KDF(ZRTPSess, "New ZRTP Session", (ZIDi || ZIDr),
                       negotiated hash length)

   ZRTPSess will be replaced twice if a session generates separate
   GoClear messages for both audio and video streams, and the two
   endpoints need not carry out the replacements in the same order.

   The destruction of key material meets the requirements of Perfect
   Forward Secrecy (PFS), but still preserves a new version of ZRTPSess,
   so that the user can later re-initiate secure mode during the same
   session without performing another Diffie-Hellman calculation using
   Multistream mode, which requires and assumes the existence of
   ZRTPSess with the same value at both ZRTP endpoints.  A new key
   negotiation after a GoClear SHOULD use a Multistream Commit message.

      Note: Multistream mode is preferred over a Diffie-Hellman mode
      since this does not require the generation of a new hash chain and
      a new signaling exchange to exchange new Hello Hash values.



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 39]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Later, at the end of the entire call, ZRTPSess is finally destroyed
   along with the other key material, as described in Section 4.7.3.

4.7.3.  Key Destruction at Termination

   All SRTP session key material MUST be erased by both parties at the
   end of the call.  In particular, the destroyed key material includes
   the SRTP session keys and salts, SRTP master keys and salts, and all
   material sufficient to reconstruct the SRTP keys and salts, including
   ZRTPSess and s0 (although s0 should have been destroyed earlier, in
   Section 4.6.1).  This must be done for the key material for all of
   the media streams.  The only exceptions are the cached shared secrets
   needed for future sessions, including rs1, rs2, and pbxsecret.

4.8.  Random Number Generation

   The ZRTP protocol uses random numbers for cryptographic key material,
   notably for the DH secret exponents and nonces, which must be freshly
   generated with each session.  Whenever a random number is needed, all
   of the following criteria must be satisfied:

   Random numbers MUST be freshly generated, meaning that they must not
   have been used in a previous calculation.

   When generating a random number k of L bits in length, k MUST be
   chosen with equal probability from the range of [1 < k < 2^L].

   It MUST be derived from a physical entropy source, such as radio
   frequency (RF) noise, acoustic noise, thermal noise, high-resolution
   timings of environmental events, or other unpredictable physical
   sources of entropy.  One possible source of entropy for a VoIP client
   would be microphone noise.  For a detailed explanation of
   cryptographic grade random numbers and guidance for collecting
   suitable entropy, see [RFC4086] and Chapter 10 of "Practical
   Cryptography" [Ferguson].  The raw entropy must be distilled and
   processed through a deterministic random-bit generator (DRBG).
   Examples of DRBGs may be found in [NIST-SP800-90], in [Ferguson], and
   in [RFC5869].  Failure to use true entropy from the physical
   environment as a basis for generating random cryptographic key
   material would lead to a disastrous loss of security.











Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 40]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


4.9.  ZID and Cache Operation

   Each instance of ZRTP has a unique 96-bit random ZRTP ID, or ZID,
   that is generated once at installation time.  It is used to look up
   retained shared secrets in a local cache.  A single global ZID for a
   single installation is the simplest way to implement ZIDs.  However,
   it is specifically not precluded for an implementation to use
   multiple ZIDs, up to the limit of a separate one per callee.  This
   then turns it into a long-lived "association ID" that does not apply
   to any other associations between a different pair of parties.  It is
   a goal of this protocol to permit both options to interoperate
   freely.  A PBX acting as a trusted man in the middle will also
   generate a single ZID and use that ZID for all endpoints behind it,
   as described in Section 10.

   There is no protocol mechanism to invalidate a previously used ZID.
   An endpoint wishing to change ZIDs would simply generate a new one
   and begin using it.

   The ZID should not be hard coded or hard defined in the firmware of a
   product.  It should be randomly generated by the software and stored
   at installation or initialization time.  It should be randomly
   generated rather than allocated from a preassigned range of ZID
   values, because 96 bits should be enough to avoid birthday collisions
   in realistic scenarios.

   Each time a new s0 is calculated, a new retained shared secret rs1 is
   generated and stored in the cache, indexed by the ZID of the other
   endpoint.  This cache updating is described in Section 4.6.1.  For
   the new retained shared secret, each endpoint chooses a cache
   expiration value that is an unsigned 32-bit integer of the number of
   seconds that this secret should be retained in the cache.  The time
   interval is relative to when the Confirm1 message is sent or
   received.

   The cache intervals are exchanged in the Confirm1 and Confirm2
   messages (Figure 10).  The actual cache interval used by both
   endpoints is the minimum of the values from the Confirm1 and Confirm2
   messages.  A value of 0 seconds means the newly computed shared
   secret SHOULD NOT be stored in the cache, and if a cache entry
   already exists from an earlier call, the stored cache interval should
   be set to 0.  This means if either Confirm message contains a null
   cache expiration interval, and there is no cache entry already
   defined, no new cache entry is created.  A value of 0xffffffff means
   the secret should be cached indefinitely and is the recommended
   value.  If the ZRTP exchange is Multistream mode, the field in the
   Confirm1 and Confirm2 is set to 0xffffffff and is ignored; the cache
   is not updated.



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 41]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   The expiration interval need not be used to force the deletion of a
   shared secret from the cache when the interval has expired.  It just
   means the shared secret MAY be deleted from that cache at any point
   after the interval has expired without causing the other party to
   note it as an unexpected security event when the next key negotiation
   occurs between the same two parties.  This means there need not be
   perfectly synchronized deletion of expired secrets from the two
   caches, and makes it easy to avoid a race condition that might
   otherwise be caused by clock skew.

   If the expiration interval is not properly agreed to by both
   endpoints, it may later result in false alarms of MiTM attacks, due
   to apparent cache mismatches (Section 4.3.2).

   The relationship between a ZID and a SIP AOR is explained in
   Section 12.

4.9.1.  Cacheless Implementations

   It is possible to implement a simplified but nonetheless useful (and
   still compliant) profile of the ZRTP protocol that does not support
   any caching of shared secrets.  In this case, the users would have to
   rely exclusively on the verbal SAS comparison for every call.  That
   is, unless MiTM protection is provided by the mechanisms in Section
   8.1.1 or 7.2, which introduce their own forms of complexity.

   If a ZRTP endpoint does not support the caching of shared secrets, it
   MUST set the cache expiration interval to zero, and MUST set the SAS
   Verified (V) flag (Section 7.1) to false.  In addition, because the
   ZID serves mainly as a cache index, the ZID would not be required to
   maintain the same value across separate SIP sessions, although there
   is no reason why it should not.

   Cacheless operation would sacrifice the key continuity (Section 15.1)
   features, as well as Preshared mode (Section 4.4.2).  Further, if the
   pbxsecret is also not cached, there would be no PBX trusted MiTM
   (Section 7.3) features, including the PBX security enrollment
   (Section 7.3.1) mechanism.

5.  ZRTP Messages

   All ZRTP messages use the message format defined in Figure 2.  All
   word lengths referenced in this specification are 32 bits, or 4
   octets.  All integer fields are carried in network byte order, that
   is, most-significant byte (octet) first, commonly known as big-
   endian.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 42]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


    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 1|Not Used (set to zero) |         Sequence Number       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Magic Cookie 'ZRTP' (0x5a525450)              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Source Identifier                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |           ZRTP Message (length depends on Message Type)       |
   |                            . . .                              |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          CRC (1 word)                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 2: ZRTP Packet Format

   The Sequence Number is a count that is incremented for each ZRTP
   packet sent.  The count is initialized to a random value.  This is
   useful in estimating ZRTP packet loss and also detecting when ZRTP
   packets arrive out of sequence.

   The ZRTP Magic Cookie is a 32-bit string that uniquely identifies a
   ZRTP packet and has the value 0x5a525450.

   Source Identifier is the SSRC number of the RTP stream to which this
   ZRTP packet relates.  For cases of forking or forwarding, RTP, and
   hence ZRTP, may arrive at the same port from several different
   sources -- each of these sources will have a different SSRC and may
   initiate an independent ZRTP protocol session.  SSRC collisions would
   be disruptive to ZRTP.  SSRC collision handling procedures are
   described in Section 4.1.

   This format is clearly identifiable as non-RTP due to the first two
   bits being zero, which looks like RTP version 0, which is not a valid
   RTP version number.  It is clearly distinguishable from STUN since
   the Magic Cookies are different.  The 12 unused bits are set to zero
   and MUST be ignored when received.  In early versions of this spec,
   ZRTP messages were encapsulated in RTP header extensions, which made
   ZRTP an eponymous variant of RTP.  In later versions, the packet
   format changed to make it syntactically distinguishable from RTP.

   The ZRTP messages are defined in Figures 3 to 17 and are of variable
   length.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 43]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   The ZRTP protocol uses a 32-bit Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) as
   defined in RFC 4960, Appendix B [RFC4960], in each ZRTP packet to
   detect transmission errors.  ZRTP packets are typically transported
   by UDP, which carries its own built-in 16-bit checksum for integrity,
   but ZRTP does not rely on it.  This is because of the effect of an
   undetected transmission error in a ZRTP message.  For example, an
   undetected error in the DH exchange could appear to be an active man-
   in-the-middle attack.  A false announcement of this by ZRTP clients
   can be psychologically distressing.  The probability of such a false
   alarm hinges on a mere 16-bit checksum that usually protects UDP
   packets, so more error detection is needed.  For these reasons, this
   belt-and-suspenders approach is used to minimize the chance of a
   transmission error affecting the ZRTP key agreement.

   The CRC is calculated across the entire ZRTP packet shown in
   Figure 2, including the ZRTP header and the ZRTP message, but not
   including the CRC field.  If a ZRTP message fails the CRC check, it
   is silently discarded.

5.1.  ZRTP Message Formats

   ZRTP messages are designed to simplify endpoint parsing requirements
   and to reduce the opportunities for buffer overflow attacks (a good
   goal of any security extension should be to not introduce new attack
   vectors).

   ZRTP uses a block of 8 octets (2 words) to encode the Message Type.
   4-octet (1 word) blocks are used to encode Hash Type, Cipher Type,
   Key Agreement Type, and Authentication Tag Type.  The values in the
   blocks are ASCII strings that are extended with spaces (0x20) to make
   them the desired length.  Currently defined block values are listed
   in Tables 1-6.

   Additional block values may be defined and used.

   ZRTP uses this ASCII encoding to simplify debugging and make it
   "Wireshark (Ethereal) friendly".

5.1.1.  Message Type Block

   Currently, 16 Message Type Blocks are defined -- they represent the
   set of ZRTP message primitives.  ZRTP endpoints MUST support the
   Hello, HelloACK, Commit, DHPart1, DHPart2, Confirm1, Confirm2,
   Conf2ACK, SASrelay, RelayACK, Error, ErrorACK, and PingACK message
   types.  ZRTP endpoints MAY support the GoClear, ClearACK, and Ping
   messages.  In order to generate a PingACK message, it is necessary to
   parse a Ping message.  Additional messages may be defined in
   extensions to ZRTP.



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 44]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Message Type Block   |  Meaning
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "Hello   "           |  Hello Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "HelloACK"           |  HelloACK Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "Commit  "           |  Commit Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "DHPart1 "           |  DHPart1 Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "DHPart2 "           |  DHPart2 Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "Confirm1"           |  Confirm1 Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "Confirm2"           |  Confirm2 Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "Conf2ACK"           |  Conf2ACK Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "Error   "           |  Error Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "ErrorACK"           |  ErrorACK Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "GoClear "           |  GoClear Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "ClearACK"           |  ClearACK Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "SASrelay"           |  SASrelay Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "RelayACK"           |  RelayACK Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "Ping    "           |  Ping Message
   ---------------------------------------------------
   "PingACK "           |  PingACK Message
   ---------------------------------------------------

   Table 1. Message Type Block Values

5.1.2.  Hash Type Block

   The hash algorithm and its related MAC algorithm are negotiated via
   the Hash Type Block found in the Hello message (Section 5.2) and the
   Commit message (Section 5.4).

   All ZRTP endpoints MUST support a Hash Type of SHA-256 [FIPS-180-3].
   SHA-384 SHOULD be supported and MUST be supported if ECDH-384 is
   used.  Additional Hash Types MAY be used, such as the NIST SHA-3 hash
   [SHA-3] when it becomes available.  Note that the Hash Type refers to




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 45]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   the hash algorithm that will be used throughout the ZRTP key
   exchange, not the hash algorithm to be used in the SRTP
   Authentication Tag.

   The choice of the negotiated Hash Type is coupled to the Key
   Agreement Type, as explained in Section 5.1.5.

   Hash Type Block | Meaning
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   "S256"          | SHA-256 Hash defined in FIPS 180-3
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   "S384"          | SHA-384 Hash defined in FIPS 180-3
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   "N256"          | NIST SHA-3 256-bit hash (when published)
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   "N384"          | NIST SHA-3 384-bit hash (when published)
   ----------------------------------------------------------

   Table 2. Hash Type Block Values

   At the time of this writing, the NIST SHA-3 hashes [SHA-3] are not
   yet available.  NIST is expected to publish SHA-3 in 2012, as a
   successor to the SHA-2 hashes in [FIPS-180-3].

5.1.2.1.  Negotiated Hash and MAC Algorithm

   ZRTP makes use of message authentication codes (MACs) that are keyed
   hashes based on the negotiated Hash Type.  For the SHA-2 and SHA-3
   hashes, the negotiated MAC is the HMAC based on the negotiated hash.
   This MAC function is also used in the ZRTP key derivation function
   (Section 4.5.1).

   The HMAC function is defined in [FIPS-198-1].  A discussion of the
   general security of the HMAC construction may be found in [RFC2104].
   Test vectors for HMAC-SHA-256 and HMAC-SHA-384 may be found in
   [RFC4231].

   The negotiated Hash Type does not apply to the hash used in the
   digital signature defined in Section 7.2.  For example, even if the
   negotiated Hash Type is SHA-256, the digital signature may use SHA-
   384 if an Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) P-384
   signature key is used.  Digital signatures are optional in ZRTP.

   Except for the aforementioned digital signatures, and the special
   cases noted in Section 5.1.2.2, all the other hashes and MACs used
   throughout the ZRTP protocol will use the negotiated Hash Type.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 46]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   A future hash may include its own built-in MAC, not based on the HMAC
   construct, for example, the Skein hash function [Skein].  If NIST
   chooses such a hash as the SHA-3 winner, Hash Types "N256", and
   "N384" will still use the related HMAC as the negotiated MAC.  If an
   implementer wishes to use Skein and its built-in MAC as the
   negotiated MAC, new Hash Types must be used.

5.1.2.2.  Implicit Hash and MAC Algorithm

   While most of the hash and MAC usage in ZRTP is defined by the
   negotiated Hash Type (Section 5.1.2), some hashes and MACs must be
   precomputed prior to negotiations, and thus cannot have their
   algorithms negotiated during the ZRTP exchange.  They are implicitly
   predetermined to use SHA-256 [FIPS-180-3] and HMAC-SHA-256.

   These are the hashes and MACs that MUST use the Implicit hash and MAC
   algorithm:

      The hash chain H0-H3 defined in Section 9.

      The MACs that are keyed by this hash chain, as defined in
      Section 8.1.1.

      The Hello Hash in the a=zrtp-hash attribute defined in
      Section 8.1.

   ZRTP defines a method for negotiating different ZRTP protocol
   versions (Section 4.1.1).  SHA-256 is the Implicit Hash and HMAC-SHA-
   256 is the Implicit MAC for ZRTP protocol version 1.10.  Future ZRTP
   protocol versions may, if appropriate, use another hash algorithm as
   the Implicit Hash, such as the NIST SHA-3 hash [SHA-3], when it
   becomes available.  For example, a future SIP packet may list two
   a=zrtp-hash SDP attributes, one based on SHA-256 for ZRTP version
   1.10, and another based on SHA-3 for ZRTP version 2.00.

5.1.3.  Cipher Type Block

   The block cipher algorithm is negotiated via the Cipher Type Block
   found in the Hello message (Section 5.2) and the Commit message
   (Section 5.4).

   All ZRTP endpoints MUST support AES-128 (AES1) and MAY support AES-
   192 (AES2), AES-256 (AES3), or other Cipher Types.  The Advanced
   Encryption Standard is defined in [FIPS-197].







Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 47]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   The use of AES-128 in SRTP is defined by [RFC3711].  The use of AES-
   192 and AES-256 in SRTP is defined by [RFC6188].  The choice of the
   AES key length is coupled to the Key Agreement Type, as explained in
   Section 5.1.5.

   Other block ciphers may be supported that have the same block size
   and key sizes as AES.  If implemented, they may be used anywhere in
   ZRTP or SRTP in place of the AES, in the same modes of operation and
   key size.  Notably, in counter mode to replace AES-CM in [RFC3711]
   and [RFC6188], as well as in CFB mode to encrypt a portion of the
   Confirm message (Figure 10) and SASrelay message (Figure 16).  ZRTP
   endpoints MAY support the TwoFish [TwoFish] block cipher.

    Cipher Type Block  |  Meaning
   -------------------------------------------------
   "AES1"              |  AES with 128-bit keys
   -------------------------------------------------
   "AES2"              |  AES with 192-bit keys
   -------------------------------------------------
   "AES3"              |  AES with 256-bit keys
   -------------------------------------------------
   "2FS1"              |  TwoFish with 128-bit keys
   -------------------------------------------------
   "2FS2"              |  TwoFish with 192-bit keys
   -------------------------------------------------
   "2FS3"              |  TwoFish with 256-bit keys
   -------------------------------------------------

   Table 3. Cipher Type Block Values

5.1.4.  Auth Tag Type Block

   All ZRTP endpoints MUST support HMAC-SHA1 authentication tags for
   SRTP, with both 32-bit and 80-bit length tags as defined in
   [RFC3711].

   ZRTP endpoints MAY support 32-bit and 64-bit SRTP authentication tags
   based on the Skein hash function [Skein].  The Skein-512-MAC key
   length is fixed at 256 bits for this application, and the output
   length is adjustable.  The Skein MAC is defined in Sections 2.6 and
   4.3 of [Skein] and is not based on the HMAC construct.  Reference
   implementations for Skein may be found at [Skein1].  A Skein-based
   MAC is significantly more efficient than HMAC-SHA1, especially for
   short SRTP payloads.

   The Skein MAC key is computed by the SRTP key derivation function,
   which is also referred to as the AES-CM PRF, or pseudorandom
   function.  This is defined either in [RFC3711] or in [RFC6188],



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 48]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   depending on the selected SRTP AES key length.  To compute a Skein
   MAC key, the SRTP PRF output for the authentication key is left
   untruncated at 256 bits, instead of the usual truncated length of 160
   bits (the key length used by HMAC-SHA1).

   Auth Tag Type Block  |  Meaning
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   "HS32"               |  32-bit authentication tag based on
                        |  HMAC-SHA1 as defined in RFC 3711.
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   "HS80"               |  80-bit authentication tag based on
                        |  HMAC-SHA1 as defined in RFC 3711.
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   "SK32"               |  32-bit authentication tag based on
                        |  Skein-512-MAC as defined in [Skein],
                        |  with 256-bit key, 32-bit MAC length.
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   "SK64"               |  64-bit authentication tag based on
                        |  Skein-512-MAC as defined in [Skein],
                        |  with 256-bit key, 64-bit MAC length.
   ----------------------------------------------------------

   Table 4. Auth Tag Type Values

   Implementers should be aware that AES-GCM and AES-CCM for SRTP are
   expected to become available when [SRTP-AES-GCM] is published as an
   RFC.  If an implementer wishes to use these modes when they become
   available, new Auth Tag Types must be added.

5.1.5.  Key Agreement Type Block

   All ZRTP endpoints MUST support DH3k, SHOULD support Preshared, and
   MAY support EC25, EC38, and DH2k.

   If a ZRTP endpoint supports multiple concurrent media streams, such
   as audio and video, it MUST support Multistream (Section 4.4.3) mode.
   Also, if a ZRTP endpoint supports the GoClear message
   (Section 4.7.2), it SHOULD support Multistream, to be used if the two
   parties choose to return to the secure state after going Clear (as
   explained in Section 4.7.2.1).

   For Finite Field Diffie-Hellman, ZRTP endpoints MUST use the DH
   parameters defined in [RFC3526], as follows.  DH3k uses the 3072-bit
   modular exponentiation group (MODP).  DH2k uses the 2048-bit MODP
   group.  The DH generator g is 2.  The random Diffie-Hellman secret
   exponent SHOULD be twice as long as the AES key length.  If AES-128
   is used, the DH secret value SHOULD be 256 bits long.  If AES-256 is
   used, the secret value SHOULD be 512 bits long.



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 49]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   If Elliptic Curve DH is used, the ECDH algorithm and key generation
   is from [NIST-SP800-56A].  The curves used are from [NSA-Suite-B],
   which uses the same curves as ECDSA defined by [FIPS-186-3], and can
   also be found in RFC 5114, Sections 2.6 through 2.8 [RFC5114].  ECDH
   test vectors may be found in RFC 5114, appendices A.6 through A.8
   [RFC5114].  The validation procedures are from [NIST-SP800-56A],
   Section 5.6.2.6, method 3, Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Partial
   Validation.  Both the X and Y coordinates of the point on the curve
   are sent, in the first and second half of the ECDH public value,
   respectively.  The ECDH result returns only the X coordinate, as
   specified in SP 800-56A.  Useful strategies for implementing ECC may
   be found in [RFC6090].

   The choice of the negotiated hash algorithm (Section 5.1.2) is
   coupled to the choice of Key Agreement Type.  If ECDH-384 (EC38) is
   chosen as the key agreement, the negotiated hash algorithm MUST be
   either SHA-384 or the corresponding SHA-3 successor.

   The choice of AES key length is coupled to the choice of Key
   Agreement Type.  If EC38 is chosen as the key agreement, AES-256
   (AES3) SHOULD be used but AES-192 MAY be used.  If DH3k or EC25 is
   chosen, any AES key size MAY be used.  Note that SRTP as defined in
   [RFC3711] only supports AES-128.

   DH2k is intended to provide acceptable security for low power
   applications, or for applications that require faster key
   negotiations.  NIST asserts in Table 4 of [NIST-SP800-131A] that DH-
   2048 is safe to use through 2013.  The security of DH2k can be
   augmented by implementing ZRTP's key continuity features
   (Section 15.1).  DH2k SHOULD use AES-128.  If an implementor must use
   slow hardware, DH2k should precede DH3k in the Hello message.

   ECDH-521 SHOULD NOT be used, due to disruptive computational delays.
   These delays may lead to exhaustion of the retransmission schedule,
   unless both endpoints have very fast hardware.  Note that ECDH-521 is
   not part of NSA Suite B.

   ZRTP also defines two non-DH modes, Multistream and Preshared, in
   which the SRTP key is derived from a shared secret and some nonce
   material.

   The table below lists the pv length in words and DHPart1 and DHPart2
   message length in words for each Key Agreement Type Block.








Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 50]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Key Agreement |  pv   | message | Meaning
   Type Block    | words |  words  |
   -----------------------------------------------------------
   "DH3k"        |   96  |   117   |  DH mode with p=3072 bit prime
                 |       |         |  per RFC 3526, Section 4.
   -----------------------------------------------------------
   "DH2k"        |   64  |    85   |  DH mode with p=2048 bit prime
                 |       |         |  per RFC 3526, Section 3.
   -----------------------------------------------------------
   "EC25"        |   16  |    37   |  Elliptic Curve DH, P-256
                 |       |         |  per RFC 5114, Section 2.6
   -----------------------------------------------------------
   "EC38"        |   24  |    45   |  Elliptic Curve DH, P-384
                 |       |         |  per RFC 5114, Section 2.7
   -----------------------------------------------------------
   "EC52"        |   33  |    54   |  Elliptic Curve DH, P-521
                 |       |         |  per RFC 5114, Section 2.8
                 |       |         |  (deprecated - do not use)
   -----------------------------------------------------------
   "Prsh"        |    -  |     -   |  Preshared Non-DH mode
   -----------------------------------------------------------
   "Mult"        |    -  |     -   |  Multistream Non-DH mode
   -----------------------------------------------------------

   Table 5. Key Agreement Type Block Values

5.1.6.  SAS Type Block

   The SAS Type determines how the SAS is rendered to the user so that
   the user may verbally compare it with his partner over the voice
   channel.  This allows detection of a MiTM attack.

   All ZRTP endpoints MUST support the base32 and MAY support the
   base256 rendering schemes for the Short Authentication String, and
   other SAS rendering schemes.  See Section 4.5.2 for how the sasvalue
   is computed and Section 7 for how the SAS is used.

    SAS Type Block   |  Meaning
   ---------------------------------------------------
    "B32 "           |  Short Authentication String using
                     |  base32 encoding
   ---------------------------------------------------
    "B256"           |  Short Authentication String using
                     |  base256 encoding (PGP Word List)
   ---------------------------------------------------

   Table 6. SAS Type Block Values




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 51]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   For the SAS Type of "B256", the most-significant (leftmost) 16 bits
   of the 32-bit sasvalue are rendered in network byte order using the
   PGP Word List [pgpwordlist] [Juola1][Juola2].

   For the SAS Type of "B32 ", the most-significant (leftmost) 20 bits
   of the 32-bit sasvalue are rendered as a form of base32 encoding.
   The leftmost 20 bits of the sasvalue results in four base32
   characters that are rendered, most-significant quintet first, to both
   ZRTP endpoints.  Here is a normative pseudocode implementation of the
   base32 function:

   char[4] base32(uint32 bits)
   {   int i, n, shift;
       char result[4];
       for (i=0,shift=27; i!=4; ++i,shift-=5)
       {   n = (bits>>shift) & 31;
           result[i] = "ybndrfg8ejkmcpqxot1uwisza345h769"[n];
       }
       return result;
   }

   This base32 encoding scheme differs from RFC 4648, and was designed
   (by Bryce Wilcox-O'Hearn) to represent bit sequences in a form that
   is convenient for human users to manipulate with minimal ambiguity.
   The unusually permuted character ordering was designed for other
   applications that use bit sequences that do not end on quintet
   boundaries.

5.1.7.  Signature Type Block

   The Signature Type Block specifies what signature algorithm is used
   to sign the SAS as discussed in Section 7.2.  The 4-octet Signature
   Type Block, along with the accompanying signature block, are OPTIONAL
   and may be present in the Confirm message (Figure 10) or the SASrelay
   message (Figure 16).  The signature types are given in the table
   below.

   Signature   | Meaning
   Type Block  |
   ------------------------------------------------
   "PGP "      | OpenPGP Signature, per RFC 4880
               |
   ------------------------------------------------
   "X509"      | ECDSA, with X.509v3 cert
               | per RFC 5759 and FIPS-186-3
   ------------------------------------------------

   Table 7. Signature Type Block Values



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 52]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Additional details on the signature and signing key format may be
   found in Section 7.2.  OpenPGP signatures (Signature Type "PGP ") are
   discussed in Section 7.2.1.  The ECDSA curves are over prime fields
   only, drawn from Appendix D.1.2 of [FIPS-186-3].  X.509v3 ECDSA
   Signatures (Signature Type "X509") are discussed in Section 7.2.2.

5.2.  Hello Message

   The Hello message has the format shown in Figure 3.

   All ZRTP messages begin with the preamble value 0x505a, then a 16-bit
   length in 32-bit words.  This length includes only the ZRTP message
   (including the preamble and the length) but not the ZRTP packet
   header or CRC.  The 8-octet Message Type follows the length field.

   Next, there is a 4-character string containing the version (ver) of
   the ZRTP protocol, which is "1.10" for this specification.  Next,
   there is the Client Identifier string (cid), which is 4 words long
   and identifies the vendor and release of the ZRTP software.  The 256-
   bit hash image H3 is defined in Section 9.  The next parameter is the
   ZID, the 96-bit-long unique identifier for the ZRTP endpoint, defined
   in Section 4.9.

   The next four bits include three flag bits:

   o  The Signature-capable flag (S) indicates this Hello message is
      sent from a ZRTP endpoint which is able to parse and verify
      digital signatures, as described in Section 7.2.  If signatures
      are not supported, the (S) flag MUST be set to zero.

   o  The MiTM flag (M) is a Boolean that is set to true if and only if
      this Hello message is sent from a device, usually a PBX, that has
      the capability to send an SASrelay message (Section 5.13).

   o  The Passive flag (P) is a Boolean normally set to false, and is
      set to true if and only if this Hello message is sent from a
      device that is configured to never send a Commit message
      (Section 5.4).  This would mean it cannot initiate secure
      sessions, but may act as a responder.

   The next 8 bits are unused and SHOULD be set to zero when sent and
   MUST be ignored on receipt.

   Next is a list of supported Hash algorithms, Cipher algorithms, SRTP
   Auth Tag Types, Key Agreement Types, and SAS Types.  The number of
   listed algorithms are listed for each type: hc=hash count, cc=cipher
   count, ac=auth tag count, kc=key agreement count, and sc=sas count.
   The values for these algorithms are defined in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, and



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 53]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   6.  A count of zero means that only the mandatory-to-implement
   algorithms are supported.  Mandatory algorithms MAY be included in
   the list.  The order of the list indicates the preferences of the
   endpoint.  If a mandatory algorithm is not included in the list, it
   is implicitly added to the end of the list for preference.

   The 64-bit MAC at the end of the message is computed across the whole
   message, not including the MAC, using the MAC algorithm defined in
   Section 5.1.2.2.  The MAC key is the sender's H2 (defined in
   Section 9), and thus the MAC cannot be checked by the receiving party
   until the sender's H2 value is known to the receiving party later in
   the protocol.







































Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 54]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


    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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|             length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Message Type Block="Hello   " (2 words)            |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   version="1.10" (1 word)                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                Client Identifier (4 words)                    |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                   Hash image H3 (8 words)                     |
   |                             . . .                             |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                         ZID  (3 words)                        |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|S|M|P| unused (zeros)|  hc   |  cc   |  ac   |  kc   |  sc   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 hash algorithms (0 to 7 values)               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               cipher algorithms (0 to 7 values)               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  auth tag types (0 to 7 values)               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Key Agreement Types (0 to 7 values)             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    SAS Types (0 to 7 values)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         MAC (2 words)                         |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 3: Hello Message Format










Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 55]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


5.3.  HelloACK Message

   The HelloACK message is used to stop retransmissions of a Hello
   message.  A HelloACK is sent regardless if the version number in the
   Hello is supported or the algorithm list supported.  The receipt of a
   HelloACK stops retransmission of the Hello message.  The format is
   shown in the figure below.  A Commit message may be sent in place of
   a HelloACK by an Initiator, if a Commit message is ready to be sent
   promptly.

    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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|         length=3 words        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              Message Type Block="HelloACK" (2 words)          |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 4: HelloACK Message Format

5.4.  Commit Message

   The Commit message is sent to initiate the key agreement process
   after both sides have received a Hello message, which means it can
   only be sent after receiving both a Hello message and a HelloACK
   message.  There are three subtypes of Commit messages, whose formats
   are shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7.

   The Commit message contains the Message Type Block, then the 256-bit
   hash image H2, which is defined in Section 9.  The next parameter is
   the initiator's ZID, the 96-bit-long unique identifier for the ZRTP
   endpoint, which MUST have the same value as was used in the Hello
   message.

   Next, there is a list of algorithms selected by the initiator (hash,
   cipher, auth tag type, key agreement, sas type).  For a DH Commit,
   the hash value hvi is a hash of the DHPart2 of the Initiator and the
   Responder's Hello message, as explained in Section 4.4.1.1.

   The 64-bit MAC at the end of the message is computed across the whole
   message, not including the MAC, using the MAC algorithm defined in
   Section 5.1.2.2.  The MAC key is the sender's H1 (defined in
   Section 9), and thus the MAC cannot be checked by the receiving party
   until the sender's H1 value is known to the receiving party later in
   the protocol.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 56]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|        length=29 words        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Message Type Block="Commit  " (2 words)          |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                   Hash image H2 (8 words)                     |
      |                             . . .                             |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                         ZID  (3 words)                        |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       hash algorithm                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      cipher algorithm                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       auth tag type                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Key Agreement Type                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         SAS Type                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                       hvi (8 words)                           |
      |                           . . .                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         MAC (2 words)                         |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 5: DH Commit Message Format














Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 57]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|        length=25 words        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Message Type Block="Commit  " (2 words)          |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                   Hash image H2 (8 words)                     |
      |                             . . .                             |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                         ZID  (3 words)                        |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       hash algorithm                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      cipher algorithm                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       auth tag type                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Key Agreement Type = "Mult"                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         SAS Type                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                       nonce (4 words)                         |
      |                           . . .                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         MAC (2 words)                         |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 6: Multistream Commit Message Format














Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 58]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|        length=27 words        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Message Type Block="Commit  " (2 words)          |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                   Hash image H2 (8 words)                     |
      |                             . . .                             |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                         ZID  (3 words)                        |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       hash algorithm                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      cipher algorithm                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       auth tag type                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Key Agreement Type = "Prsh"                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         SAS Type                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                       nonce (4 words)                         |
      |                           . . .                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        keyID (2 words)                        |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         MAC (2 words)                         |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 7: Preshared Commit Message Format











Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 59]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


5.5.  DHPart1 Message

   The DHPart1 message shown in Figure 8 begins the DH exchange.  It is
   sent by the Responder if a valid Commit message is received from the
   Initiator.  The length of the pvr value and the length of the DHPart1
   message depends on the Key Agreement Type chosen.  This information
   is contained in the table in Section 5.1.5.  Note that for both
   Multistream and Preshared modes, no DHPart1 or DHPart2 message will
   be sent.

   The 256-bit hash image H1 is defined in Section 9.

   The next four parameters are non-invertible hashes (computed in
   Section 4.3.1) of potential shared secrets used in generating the
   ZRTP secret s0.  The first two, rs1IDr and rs2IDr, are the hashes of
   the responder's two retained shared secrets, truncated to 64 bits.
   Next, there is auxsecretIDr, a hash of the responder's auxsecret
   (defined in Section 4.3), truncated to 64 bits.  The last parameter
   is a hash of the trusted MiTM PBX shared secret pbxsecret, defined in
   Section 7.3.1.

   The 64-bit MAC at the end of the message is computed across the whole
   message, not including the MAC, using the MAC algorithm defined in
   Section 5.1.2.2.  The MAC key is the sender's H0 (defined in
   Section 9), and thus the MAC cannot be checked by the receiving party
   until the sender's H0 value is known to the receiving party later in
   the protocol.
























Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 60]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|   length=depends on KA Type   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Message Type Block="DHPart1 " (2 words)          |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                   Hash image H1 (8 words)                     |
      |                             . . .                             |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        rs1IDr (2 words)                       |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        rs2IDr (2 words)                       |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     auxsecretIDr (2 words)                    |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     pbxsecretIDr (2 words)                    |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                  pvr (length depends on KA Type)              |
      |                               . . .                           |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         MAC (2 words)                         |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 8: DHPart1 Message Format
















Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 61]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


5.6.  DHPart2 Message

   The DHPart2 message, shown in Figure 9, completes the DH exchange.
   It is sent by the Initiator if a valid DHPart1 message is received
   from the Responder.  The length of the pvi value and the length of
   the DHPart2 message depends on the Key Agreement Type chosen.  This
   information is contained in the table in Section 5.1.5.  Note that
   for both Multistream and Preshared modes, no DHPart1 or DHPart2
   message will be sent.

   The 256-bit hash image H1 is defined in Section 9.

   The next four parameters are non-invertible hashes (computed in
   Section 4.3.1) of potential shared secrets used in generating the
   ZRTP secret s0.  The first two, rs1IDi and rs2IDi, are the hashes of
   the initiator's two retained shared secrets, truncated to 64 bits.
   Next, there is auxsecretIDi, a hash of the initiator's auxsecret
   (defined in Section 4.3), truncated to 64 bits.  The last parameter
   is a hash of the trusted MiTM PBX shared secret pbxsecret, defined in
   Section 7.3.1.

   The 64-bit MAC at the end of the message is computed across the whole
   message, not including the MAC, using the MAC algorithm defined in
   Section 5.1.2.2.  The MAC key is the sender's H0 (defined in
   Section 9), and thus the MAC cannot be checked by the receiving party
   until the sender's H0 value is known to the receiving party later in
   the protocol.
























Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 62]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|   length=depends on KA Type   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Message Type Block="DHPart2 " (2 words)          |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                   Hash image H1 (8 words)                     |
      |                             . . .                             |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        rs1IDi (2 words)                       |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        rs2IDi (2 words)                       |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     auxsecretIDi (2 words)                    |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     pbxsecretIDi (2 words)                    |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                  pvi (length depends on KA Type)              |
      |                               . . .                           |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         MAC (2 words)                         |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 9: DHPart2 Message Format

5.7.  Confirm1 and Confirm2 Messages

   The Confirm1 message is sent by the Responder in response to a valid
   DHPart2 message after the SRTP session key and parameters have been
   negotiated.  The Confirm2 message is sent by the Initiator in
   response to a Confirm1 message.  The format is shown in Figure 10.
   The message contains the Message Type Block "Confirm1" or "Confirm2".
   Next, there is the confirm_mac, a MAC computed over the encrypted
   part of the message (shown enclosed by "====" in Figure 10).  This
   confirm_mac is keyed and computed according to Section 4.6.  The next
   16 octets contain the CFB Initialization Vector.  The rest of the
   message is encrypted using CFB and protected by the confirm_mac.



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 63]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   The first field inside the encrypted region is the hash preimage H0,
   which is defined in detail in Section 9.

   The next 15 bits are not used and SHOULD be set to zero when sent and
   MUST be ignored when received in Confirm1 or Confirm2 messages.

   The next 9 bits contain the signature length.  If no SAS signature
   (described in Section 7.2) is present, all bits are set to zero.  The
   signature length is in words and includes the signature type block.
   If the calculated signature octet count is not a multiple of 4, zeros
   are added to pad it out to a word boundary.  If no signature is
   present, the overall length of the Confirm1 or Confirm2 message will
   be set to 19 words.

   The next 8 bits are used for flags.  Undefined flags are set to zero
   and ignored.  Four flags are currently defined.  The PBX Enrollment
   flag (E) is a Boolean bit defined in Section 7.3.1.  The SAS Verified
   flag (V) is a Boolean bit defined in Section 7.1.  The Allow Clear
   flag (A) is a Boolean bit defined in Section 4.7.2.  The Disclosure
   Flag (D) is a Boolean bit defined in Section 11.  The cache
   expiration interval is defined in Section 4.9.

   If the signature length (in words) is non-zero, a signature type
   block will be present along with a signature block.  Next, there is
   the signature block.  The signature block includes the signature and
   the key (or a link to the key) used to generate the signature
   (Section 7.2).

   CFB mode [NIST-SP800-38A] is applied with a feedback length of 128
   bits, a full cipher block, and the final block is truncated to match
   the exact length of the encrypted data.  The CFB Initialization
   Vector is a 128-bit random nonce.  The block cipher algorithm and the
   key size are the same as the negotiated block cipher (Section 5.1.3)
   for media encryption.  CFB is used to encrypt the part of the
   Confirm1 message beginning after the CFB IV to the end of the message
   (the encrypted region is enclosed by "====" in Figure 10).

   The responder uses the zrtpkeyr to encrypt the Confirm1 message.  The
   initiator uses the zrtpkeyi to encrypt the Confirm2 message.












Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 64]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|         length=variable       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Message Type Block="Confirm1" or "Confirm2" (2 words)    |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     confirm_mac (2 words)                     |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                CFB Initialization Vector (4 words)            |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +===============================================================+
      |                                                               |
      |                  Hash preimage H0 (8 words)                   |
      |                             . . .                             |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Unused (15 bits of zeros)   | sig len (9 bits)|0 0 0 0|E|V|A|D|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              cache expiration interval (1 word)               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      optional signature type block (1 word if present)        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |           optional signature block (variable length)          |
      |                            . . .                              |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +===============================================================+

              Figure 10: Confirm1 and Confirm2 Message Format
















Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 65]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


5.8.  Conf2ACK Message

   The Conf2ACK message is sent by the Responder in response to a valid
   Confirm2 message.  The message format for the Conf2ACK is shown in
   the figure below.  The receipt of a Conf2ACK stops retransmission of
   the Confirm2 message.  Note that the first SRTP media (with a valid
   SRTP auth tag) from the responder also stops retransmission of the
   Confirm2 message.

       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|         length=3 words        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Message Type Block="Conf2ACK" (2 words)          |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                    Figure 11: Conf2ACK Message Format

5.9.  Error Message

   The Error message is sent to terminate an in-process ZRTP key
   agreement exchange due to an error.  The format is shown in the
   figure below.  The use of the Error message is described in
   Section 4.7.1.

       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|        length=4 words         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Message Type Block="Error   " (2 words)          |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |               Integer Error Code (1 word)                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 12: Error Message Format

   Defined hexadecimal values for the Error Code are listed in the table
   below.








Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 66]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Error Code |  Meaning
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x10      | Malformed packet (CRC OK, but wrong structure)
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x20      | Critical software error
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x30      | Unsupported ZRTP version
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x40      | Hello components mismatch
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x51      | Hash Type not supported
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x52      | Cipher Type not supported
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x53      | Public key exchange not supported
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x54      | SRTP auth tag not supported
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x55      | SAS rendering scheme not supported
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x56      | No shared secret available, DH mode required
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x61      | DH Error: bad pvi or pvr ( == 1, 0, or p-1)
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x62      | DH Error: hvi != hashed data
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x63      | Received relayed SAS from untrusted MiTM
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x70      | Auth Error: Bad Confirm pkt MAC
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x80      | Nonce reuse
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x90      | Equal ZIDs in Hello
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x91      | SSRC collision
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0xA0      | Service unavailable
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0xB0      | Protocol timeout error
   -----------------------------------------------------------
    0x100     | GoClear message received, but not allowed
   -----------------------------------------------------------

   Table 8. ZRTP Error Codes







Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 67]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


5.10.  ErrorACK Message

   The ErrorACK message is sent in response to an Error message.  The
   receipt of an ErrorACK stops retransmission of the Error message.
   The format is shown in the figure below.

       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|        length=3 words         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Message Type Block="ErrorACK" (2 words)          |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 13: ErrorACK Message Format

5.11.  GoClear Message

   Support for the GoClear message is OPTIONAL in the protocol, and it
   is sent to switch from SRTP to RTP.  The format is shown in the
   figure below.  The clear_mac is used to authenticate the GoClear
   message so that bogus GoClear messages introduced by an attacker can
   be detected and discarded.  The use of GoClear is described in
   Section 4.7.2.

       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|        length=5 words         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Message Type Block="GoClear " (2 words)          |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       clear_mac (2 words)                     |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 14: GoClear Message Format












Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 68]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


5.12.  ClearACK Message

   Support for the ClearACK message is OPTIONAL in the protocol, and it
   is sent to acknowledge receipt of a GoClear.  A ClearACK is only sent
   if the clear_mac from the GoClear message is authenticated.
   Otherwise, no response is returned.  The format is shown in the
   figure below.

       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|        length=3 words         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Message Type Block="ClearACK" (2 words)          |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 15: ClearACK Message Format

5.13.  SASrelay Message

   The SASrelay message is sent by a trusted MiTM, most often a PBX.  It
   is not sent as a response to a packet, but is sent as a self-
   initiated packet by the trusted MiTM (Section 7.3).  It can only be
   sent after the rest of the ZRTP key negotiations have completed,
   after the Confirm messages and their ACKs.  It can only be sent after
   the trusted MiTM has finished key negotiations with the other party,
   because it is the other party's SAS that is being relayed.  It is
   sent with retry logic until a RelayACK message (Section 5.14) is
   received or the retry schedule has been exhausted.

   If a device, usually a PBX, sends an SASrelay message, it MUST have
   previously declared itself as a MiTM device by setting the MiTM (M)
   flag in the Hello message (Section 5.2).  If the receiver of the
   SASrelay message did not previously receive a Hello message with the
   MiTM (M) flag set, the Relayed SAS SHOULD NOT be rendered.  A
   RelayACK is still sent, but no Error message is sent.

   The SASrelay message format is shown in Figure 16.  The message
   contains the Message Type Block "SASrelay".  Next, there is a MAC
   computed over the encrypted part of the message (shown enclosed by
   "====" in Figure 16).  This MAC is keyed the same way as the
   confirm_mac in the Confirm messages (see Section 4.6).  The next 16
   octets contain the CFB Initialization Vector.  The rest of the
   message is encrypted using CFB and protected by the MAC.

   The next 15 bits are not used and SHOULD be set to zero when sent,
   and they MUST be ignored when received in SASrelay messages.



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 69]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   The next 9 bits contain the signature length.  The trusted MiTM MAY
   compute a digital signature on the SAS hash, as described in
   Section 7.2, using a persistent signing key owned by the trusted
   MiTM.  If no SAS signature is present, all bits are set to zero.  The
   signature length is in words and includes the signature type block.
   If the calculated signature octet count is not a multiple of 4, zeros
   are added to pad it out to a word boundary.  If no signature block is
   present, the overall length of the SASrelay message will be set to 19
   words.

   The next 8 bits are used for flags.  Undefined flags are set to zero
   and ignored.  Three flags are currently defined.  The Disclosure Flag
   (D) is a Boolean bit defined in Section 11.  The Allow Clear flag (A)
   is a Boolean bit defined in Section 4.7.2.  The SAS Verified flag (V)
   is a Boolean bit defined in Section 7.1.  These flags are updated
   values to the same flags provided earlier in the Confirm message, but
   they are updated to reflect the new flag information relayed by the
   PBX from the other party.

   The next 32-bit word contains the SAS rendering scheme for the
   relayed sashash, which will be the same rendering scheme used by the
   other party on the other side of the trusted MiTM.  Section 7.3
   describes how the PBX determines whether the ZRTP client regards the
   PBX as a trusted MiTM.  If the PBX determines that the ZRTP client
   trusts the PBX, the next 8 words contain the sashash relayed from the
   other party.  The first 32-bit word of the sashash contains the
   sasvalue, which may be rendered to the user using the specified SAS
   rendering scheme.  If this SASrelay message is being sent to a ZRTP
   client that does not trust this MiTM, the sashash will be ignored by
   the recipient and should be set to zeros by the PBX.

   If the signature length (in words) is non-zero, a signature type
   block will be present along with a signature block.  Next, there is
   the signature block.  The signature block includes the signature and
   the key (or a link to the key) used to generate the signature
   (Section 7.2).

   CFB mode [NIST-SP800-38A] is applied with a feedback length of 128
   bits, a full cipher block, and the final block is truncated to match
   the exact length of the encrypted data.  The CFB Initialization
   Vector is a 128-bit random nonce.  The block cipher algorithm and the
   key size is same as the negotiated block cipher (Section 5.1.3) for
   media encryption.  CFB is used to encrypt the part of the SASrelay
   message beginning after the CFB IV to the end of the message (the
   encrypted region is enclosed by "====" in Figure 16).






Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 70]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Depending on whether the trusted MiTM had taken the role of the
   initiator or the responder during the ZRTP key negotiation, the
   SASrelay message is encrypted with zrtpkeyi or zrtpkeyr.

       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|         length=variable       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Message Type Block="SASrelay" (2 words)           |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         MAC (2 words)                         |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                CFB Initialization Vector (4 words)            |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +===============================================================+
      | Unused (15 bits of zeros)   | sig len (9 bits)|0 0 0 0|0|V|A|D|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           rendering scheme of relayed SAS (1 word)            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |            Trusted MiTM relayed sashash (8 words)             |
      |                             . . .                             |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      optional signature type block (1 word if present)        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |           optional signature block (variable length)          |
      |                            . . .                              |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +===============================================================+

                    Figure 16: SASrelay Message Format












Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 71]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


5.14.  RelayACK Message

   The RelayACK message is sent in response to a valid SASrelay message.
   The message format for the RelayACK is shown in the figure below.
   The receipt of a RelayACK stops retransmission of the SASrelay
   message.

       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|         length=3 words        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Message Type Block="RelayACK" (2 words)          |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 17: RelayACK Message Format

5.15.  Ping Message

   The Ping and PingACK messages are unrelated to the rest of the ZRTP
   protocol.  No ZRTP endpoint is required to generate a Ping message,
   but every ZRTP endpoint MUST respond to a Ping message with a PingACK
   message.

   Although Ping and PingACK messages have no effect on the rest of the
   ZRTP protocol, their inclusion in this specification simplifies the
   design of "bump-in-the-wire" ZRTP proxies (Section 10) (notably,
   [Zfone]).  It enables proxies to be designed that do not rely on
   assistance from the signaling layer to map out the associations
   between media streams and ZRTP endpoints.

   Before sending a ZRTP Hello message, a ZRTP proxy MAY send a Ping
   message as a means to sort out which RTP media streams are connected
   to particular ZRTP endpoints.  Ping messages are generated only by
   ZRTP proxies.  If neither party is a ZRTP proxy, no Ping messages
   will be encountered.  Ping retransmission behavior is discussed in
   Section 6.

   The Ping message (Figure 18) contains an "EndpointHash", defined in
   Section 5.16.

   The Ping message contains a version number that defines what version
   of PingACK is requested.  If that version number is supported by the
   Ping responder, a PingACK with a format that matches that version
   will be received.  Otherwise, a PingACK with a lower version number
   may be received.




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 72]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


       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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|        length=6 words         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Message Type Block="Ping    " (2 words)           |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   version="1.10" (1 word)                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                    EndpointHash (2 words)                     |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 18: Ping Message Format

5.16.  PingACK Message

   A PingACK message is sent only in response to a Ping.  A ZRTP
   endpoint MUST respond to a Ping with a PingACK message.  The version
   of PingACK requested is contained in the Ping message.  If that
   version number is supported, a PingACK with a format that matches
   that version MUST be sent.  Otherwise, if the version number of the
   Ping is not supported, a PingACK SHOULD be sent in the format of the
   highest supported version known to the Ping responder.  Only version
   "1.10" is supported in this specification.

   The PingACK message carries its own 64-bit EndpointHash, distinct
   from the EndpointHash of the other party's Ping message.  It is
   REQUIRED that it be highly improbable for two participants in a call
   to have the same EndpointHash and that an EndpointHash maintains a
   persistent value between calls.  For a normal ZRTP endpoint, such as
   a ZRTP-enabled VoIP client, the EndpointHash can be just the
   truncated ZID.  For a ZRTP endpoint such as a PBX that has multiple
   endpoints behind it, the EndpointHash must be a distinct value for
   each endpoint behind it.  It is recommended that the EndpointHash be
   a truncated hash of the ZID of the ZRTP endpoint concatenated with
   something unique about the actual endpoint or phone behind the PBX.
   This may be the SIP URI of the phone, the PBX extension number, or
   the local IP address of the phone, whichever is more readily
   available in the application environment:

     EndpointHash = hash(ZID || SIP URI of the endpoint)

     EndpointHash = hash(ZID || PBX extension number of the endpoint)

     EndpointHash = hash(ZID || local IP address of the endpoint)




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 73]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Any of these formulae confer uniqueness for the simple case of
   terminating the ZRTP connection at the VoIP client, or the more
   complex case of a PBX terminating the ZRTP connection for multiple
   VoIP phones in a conference call, all sharing the PBX's ZID, but with
   separate IP addresses behind the PBX.  There is no requirement for
   the same hash function to be used by both parties.

   The PingACK message contains the EndpointHash of the sender of the
   PingACK as well as the EndpointHash of the sender of the Ping.  The
   Source Identifier (SSRC) received in the ZRTP header from the Ping
   packet (Figure 2) is copied into the PingACK message body
   (Figure 19).  This SSRC is not the SSRC of the sender of the PingACK.

      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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0|        length=9 words         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Message Type Block="PingACK " (2 words)           |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                   version="1.10" (1 word)                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |           EndpointHash of PingACK Sender (2 words)            |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |            EndpointHash of Received Ping (2 words)            |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       Source Identifier (SSRC) of Received Ping (1 word)      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 19: PingACK Message Format

6.  Retransmissions

   ZRTP uses two retransmission timers T1 and T2.  T1 is used for
   retransmission of Hello messages, when the support of ZRTP by the
   other endpoint may not be known.  T2 is used in retransmissions of
   all the other ZRTP messages.

   All message retransmissions MUST be identical to the initial message
   including nonces, public values, etc; otherwise, hashes of the
   message sequences may not agree.

   Practical experience has shown that RTP packet loss at the start of
   an RTP session can be extremely high.  Since the entire ZRTP message
   exchange occurs during this period, the defined retransmission scheme



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 74]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   is defined to be aggressive.  Since ZRTP packets with the exception
   of the DHPart1 and DHPart2 messages are small, this should have
   minimal effect on overall bandwidth utilization of the media session.

   ZRTP endpoints MUST NOT exceed the bandwidth of the resulting media
   session as determined by the offer/answer exchange in the signaling
   layer.

   The Ping message (Section 5.15) may follow the same retransmission
   schedule as the Hello message, but this is not required in this
   specification.  Ping message retransmission is subject to
   application-specific ZRTP proxy heuristics.

   Hello ZRTP messages are retransmitted at an interval that starts at
   T1 seconds and doubles after every retransmission, capping at 200 ms.
   T1 has a recommended initial value of 50 ms.  A Hello message is
   retransmitted 20 times before giving up, which means the entire retry
   schedule for Hello messages is exhausted after 3.75 seconds (50 + 100
   + 18*200 ms).  Retransmission of a Hello ends upon receipt of a
   HelloACK or Commit message.

   The post-Hello ZRTP messages are retransmitted only by the session
   initiator -- that is, only Commit, DHPart2, and Confirm2 are
   retransmitted if the corresponding message from the responder,
   DHPart1, Confirm1, and Conf2ACK, are not received.  Note that the
   Confirm2 message retransmission can also be stopped by receiving the
   first SRTP media (with a valid SRTP auth tag) from the responder.

   The GoClear, Error, and SASrelay messages may be initiated and
   retransmitted by either party, and responded to by the other party,
   regardless of which party is the overall session initiator.  They are
   retransmitted if the corresponding response message ClearACK,
   ErrorACK, and RelayACK are not received.

   Non-Hello (and non-Ping) ZRTP messages are retransmitted at an
   interval that starts at T2 seconds and doubles after every
   retransmission, capping at 1200 ms.  T2 has a recommended initial
   value of 150 ms.  Each non-Hello message is retransmitted 10 times
   before giving up, which means the entire retry schedule is exhausted
   after 9.45 seconds (150 + 300 + 600 + 7*1200 ms).  Only the initiator
   performs retransmissions.  Each message has a response message that
   stops retransmissions, as shown in the table below.  The higher
   values of T2 means that retransmissions will likely occur only in the
   event of packet loss.







Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 75]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


      Message      Acknowledgement Message
      -------      -----------------------
      Hello        HelloACK or Commit
      Commit       DHPart1 or Confirm1
      DHPart2      Confirm1
      Confirm2     Conf2ACK or SRTP media
      GoClear      ClearACK
      Error        ErrorACK
      SASrelay     RelayACK
      Ping         PingACK

     Table 9. Retransmitted ZRTP Messages and Responses

   The retry schedule must handle not only packet loss, but also slow or
   heavily loaded peers that need additional time to perform their DH
   calculations.  The following mitigations are recommended:

   o  Slow or heavily loaded ZRTP endpoints that are at risk of taking
      too long to perform their DH calculation SHOULD use a HelloACK
      message instead of a Commit message to reply to a Hello from the
      other party.

   o  If a ZRTP endpoint has evidence that the other party is a ZRTP
      endpoint, by receiving a Hello message or Ping message, or by
      receiving a Hello Hash in the signaling layer, it SHOULD extend
      its own Hello retry schedule to span at least 12 seconds of
      retries.  If this extended Hello retry schedule is exhausted
      without receiving a HelloACK or Commit message, a late Commit
      message from the peer SHOULD still be accepted.

   These recommended retransmission intervals are designed for a typical
   broadband Internet connection.  In some high-latency communication
   channels, such as those provided by some mobile phone environments or
   geostationary satellites, a different retransmission schedule may be
   used.  The initial value for the T1 or T2 retransmission timer should
   be increased to be no less than the round-trip time provided by the
   communications channel.  It should take into account the time
   required to transmit the entire message and the entire reply, as well
   as a reasonable time estimate to perform the DH calculation.

   ZRTP has its own retransmission schedule because it is carried along
   with RTP, usually over UDP.  In unusual cases, RTP can run over a
   non-UDP transport, such as TCP or DCCP, which provides its own
   built-in retransmission mechanism.  It may be hard for the ZRTP
   endpoint to detect that TCP is being used if media relays are
   involved.  The ZRTP endpoint may be sending only UDP, but there may
   be a media relay along the media path that converts from UDP to TCP
   for part of the journey.  Or, if the ZRTP endpoint is sending TCP,



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 76]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   the media relay might be converting from TCP to UDP.  There have been
   empirical observations of this in the wild.  In cases where TCP is
   used, ZRTP and TCP might together generate some extra
   retransmissions.  It is tempting to avoid this effect by eliminating
   the ZRTP retransmission schedule when connected to a TCP channel, but
   that would risk failure of the protocol, because it may not be TCP
   all the way to the remote ZRTP endpoint.  It only takes a few packets
   to complete a ZRTP exchange, so trying to optimize out the extra
   retransmissions in that scenario is not worth the risk.

   After receiving a Commit message, but before receiving a Confirm2
   message, if a ZRTP responder receives no ZRTP messages for more than
   10 seconds, the responder MAY send a protocol timeout Error message
   and terminate the ZRTP protocol.

7.  Short Authentication String

   This section will discuss the implementation of the Short
   Authentication String, or SAS in ZRTP.  The SAS can be verbally
   compared by the human users reading the string aloud, or it can be
   compared by validating an OPTIONAL digital signature (described in
   Section 7.2) exchanged in the Confirm1 or Confirm2 messages.

   The use of hash commitment in the DH exchange (Section 4.4.1.1)
   constrains the attacker to only one guess to generate the correct SAS
   in his attack, which means the SAS can be quite short.  A 16-bit SAS,
   for example, provides the attacker only one chance out of 65536 of
   not being detected.  How the hash commitment enables the SAS to be so
   short is explained in Section 4.4.1.1.

   There is only one SAS value computed per call.  That is the SAS value
   for the first media stream established, which is calculated in
   Section 4.5.2.  This SAS applies to all media streams for the same
   session.

   The SAS SHOULD be rendered to the user for authentication.  The
   rendering of the SAS value through the user interface at both
   endpoints depends on the SAS Type agreed upon in the Commit message.
   See Section 5.1.6 for a description of how the SAS is rendered to the
   user.

   The SAS is not treated as a secret value, but it must be compared to
   see if it matches at both ends of the communications channel.  The
   two users verbally compare it using their human voices, human ears,
   and human judgement.  If it doesn't match, it indicates the presence
   of a MiTM attack.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 77]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   It is worse than useless and absolutely unsafe to rely on a robot
   voice from the remote endpoint to compare the SAS, because a robot
   voice can be trivially forged by a MiTM.  The SAS verbal comparison
   can only be done with a real live human at the remote endpoint.

7.1.  SAS Verified Flag

   The SAS Verified flag (V) is set based on the user indicating that
   SAS comparison has been successfully performed.  The SAS Verified
   flag is exchanged securely in the Confirm1 and Confirm2 messages
   (Figure 10) of the next session.  In other words, each party sends
   the SAS Verified flag from the previous session in the Confirm
   message of the current session.  It is perfectly reasonable to have a
   ZRTP endpoint that never sets the SAS Verified flag, because it would
   require adding complexity to the user interface to allow the user to
   set it.  The SAS Verified flag is not required to be set, but if it
   is available to the client software, it allows for the possibility
   that the client software could render to the user that the SAS verify
   procedure was carried out in a previous session.

   Regardless of whether there is a user interface element to allow the
   user to set the SAS Verified flag, it is worth caching a shared
   secret, because doing so reduces opportunities for an attacker in the
   next call.

   If at any time the users carry out the SAS comparison procedure, and
   it actually fails to match, then this means there is a very
   resourceful MiTM.  If this is the first call, the MiTM was there on
   the first call, which is impressive enough.  If it happens in a later
   call, it also means the MiTM must also know the cached shared secret,
   because you could not have carried out any voice traffic at all
   unless the session key was correctly computed and is also known to
   the attacker.  This implies the MiTM must have been present in all
   the previous sessions, since the initial establishment of the first
   shared secret.  This is indeed a resourceful attacker.  It also means
   that if at any time he ceases his participation as a MiTM on one of
   your calls, the protocol will detect that the cached shared secret is
   no longer valid -- because it was really two different shared secrets
   all along, one of them between Alice and the attacker, and the other
   between the attacker and Bob.  The continuity of the cached shared
   secrets makes it possible for us to detect the MiTM when he inserts
   himself into the ongoing relationship, as well as when he leaves.
   Also, if the attacker tries to stay with a long lineage of calls, but
   fails to execute a DH MiTM attack for even one missed call, he is
   permanently excluded.  He can no longer resynchronize with the chain
   of cached shared secrets.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 78]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   A user interface element (i.e., a checkbox or button) is needed to
   allow the user to tell the software the SAS verify was successful,
   causing the software to set the SAS Verified flag (V), which
   (together with our cached shared secret) obviates the need to perform
   the SAS procedure in the next call.  An additional user interface
   element can be provided to let the user tell the software he detected
   an actual SAS mismatch, which indicates a MiTM attack.  The software
   can then take appropriate action, clearing the SAS Verified flag, and
   erase the cached shared secret from this session.  It is up to the
   implementer to decide if this added user interface complexity is
   warranted.

   If the SAS matches, it means there is no MiTM, which also implies it
   is now safe to trust a cached shared secret for later calls.  If
   inattentive users don't bother to check the SAS, it means we don't
   know whether there is or is not a MiTM, so even if we do establish a
   new cached shared secret, there is a risk that our potential attacker
   may have a subsequent opportunity to continue inserting himself in
   the call, until we finally get around to checking the SAS.  If the
   SAS matches, it means no attacker was present for any previous
   session since we started propagating cached shared secrets, because
   this session and all the previous sessions were also authenticated
   with a continuous lineage of shared secrets.

7.2.  Signing the SAS

   In most applications, it is desirable to avoid the added complexity
   of a PKI-backed digital signature, which is why ZRTP is designed not
   to require it.  Nonetheless, in some applications, it may be hard to
   arrange for two human users to verbally compare the SAS.  Or, an
   application may already be using an existing PKI and wants to use it
   to augment ZRTP.

   To handle these cases, ZRTP allows for an OPTIONAL signature feature,
   which allows the SAS to be checked without human participation.  The
   SAS MAY be signed and the signature sent inside the Confirm1,
   Confirm2 (Figure 10), or SASrelay (Figure 16) messages.  The
   signature type (Section 5.1.7), length of the signature, and the key
   used to create the signature (or a link to it) are all sent along
   with the signature.  The signature is calculated across the entire
   SAS hash result (sashash), from which the sasvalue was derived.  The
   signatures exchanged in the encrypted Confirm1, Confirm2, or SASrelay
   messages MAY be used to authenticate the ZRTP exchange.  A signature
   may be sent only in the initial media stream in a DH or ECDH ZRTP
   exchange, not in Multistream mode.






Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 79]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Although the signature is sent, the material that is signed, the
   sashash, is not sent with it in the Confirm message, since both
   parties have already independently calculated the sashash.  That is
   not the case for the SASrelay message, which must relay the sashash.
   To avoid unnecessary signature calculations, a signature SHOULD NOT
   be sent if the other ZRTP endpoint did not set the (S) flag in the
   Hello message (Section 5.2).

   Note that the choice of hash algorithm used in the digital signature
   is independent of the hash used in the sashash.  The sashash is
   determined by the negotiated Hash Type (Section 5.1.2), while the
   hash used by the digital signature is separately defined by the
   digital signature algorithm.  For example, the sashash may be based
   on SHA-256, while the digital signature might use SHA-384, if an
   ECDSA P-384 key is used.

   If the sashash (which is always truncated to 256 bits) is shorter
   than the signature hash, the security is not weakened because the
   hash commitment precludes the attacker from searching for sashash
   collisions.

   ECDSA algorithms may be used with either OpenPGP-formatted keys, or
   X.509v3 certificates.  If the ZRTP key exchange is ECDH, and the SAS
   is signed, then the signature SHOULD be ECDSA, and SHOULD use the
   same size curve as the ECDH exchange if an ECDSA key of that size is
   available.

   If a ZRTP endpoint supports incoming signatures (evidenced by setting
   the (S) flag in the Hello message), it SHOULD be able to parse
   signatures from the other endpoint in OpenPGP format and MUST be able
   to parse them in X.509v3 format.  If the incoming signature is in an
   unsupported format, or the trust model does not lead to a trusted
   introducer or a trusted certificate authority (CA), another
   authentication method may be used if available, such as the SAS
   compare, or a cached shared secret from a previous session.  If none
   of these methods are available, it is up to the ZRTP user agent and
   the user to decide whether to proceed with the call, after the user
   is informed.

   Both ECDSA and DSA [FIPS-186-3] have a feature that allows most of
   the signature calculation to be done in advance of the session,
   reducing latency during call setup.  This is useful for low-power
   mobile handsets.

   ECDSA is preferred because it has compact keys as well as compact
   signatures.  If the signature along with its public key certificate
   are insufficiently compact, the Confirm message may become too long
   for the maximum transmission unit (MTU) size, and UDP fragmentation



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 80]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   may result.  Some firewalls and NATs may discard fragmented UDP
   packets, which would cause the ZRTP exchange to fail.  It is
   RECOMMENDED that a ZRTP endpoint avoid sending signatures if they
   would cause UDP fragmentation.  For a discussion on MTU size and PMTU
   discovery, see [RFC1191] and [RFC1981].

   From a packet-size perspective, ECDSA and DSA both produce equally
   compact signatures for a given signature strength.  DSA keys are much
   bigger than ECDSA keys, but in the case of OpenPGP signatures, the
   public key is not sent along with the signature.

   All signatures generated MUST use only NIST-approved hash algorithms,
   and MUST avoid using SHA1.  This applies to both OpenPGP and X.509v3
   signatures.  NIST-approved hash algorithms are found in [FIPS-180-3]
   or its SHA-3 successor.  All ECDSA curves used throughout this spec
   are over prime fields, drawn from Appendix D.1.2 of [FIPS-186-3].

7.2.1.  OpenPGP Signatures

   If the SAS Signature Type (Section 5.1.7) specifies an OpenPGP
   signature ("PGP "), the signature-related fields are arranged as
   follows.

   The first field after the 4-octet Signature Type Block is the OpenPGP
   signature.  The format of this signature and the algorithms that
   create it are specified by [RFC4880].  The signature is comprised of
   a complete OpenPGP version 4 signature in binary form (not Radix-64),
   as specified in RFC 4880, Section 5.2.3, enclosed in the full OpenPGP
   packet syntax.  The length of the OpenPGP signature is parseable from
   the signature, and depends on the type and length of the signing key.

   If OpenPGP signatures are supported, an implementation SHOULD NOT
   generate signatures using any other signature algorithm except DSA or
   ECDSA (ECDSA is a reserved algorithm type in RFC 4880), but MAY
   accept other signature types from the other party.  DSA signatures
   with keys shorter than 2048 bits or longer than 3072 bits MUST NOT be
   generated.

   Implementers should be aware that ECDSA signatures for OpenPGP are
   expected to become available when the work in progress [ECC-OpenPGP]
   becomes an RFC.  Any use of ECDSA signatures in ZRTP SHOULD NOT
   generate signatures using ECDSA key sizes other than P-224, P-256,
   and P-384, as defined in [FIPS-186-3].

   RFC 4880, Section 5.2.3.18, specifies a way to embed, in an OpenPGP
   signature, a URI of the preferred key server.  The URI should be
   fully specified to obtain the public key of the signing key that
   created the signature.  This URI MUST be present.  It is up to the



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 81]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   recipient of the signature to obtain the public key of the signing
   key and determine its validity status using the OpenPGP trust model
   discussed in [RFC4880].

   The contents of Figure 20 lie inside the encrypted region of the
   Confirm message (Figure 10) or the SASrelay message (Figure 16).

   The total length of all the material in Figure 20, including the key
   server URI, must not exceed 511 32-bit words (2044 octets).  This
   length, in words, is stored in the signature length field in the
   Confirm or SASrelay message containing the signature.  It is
   desirable to avoid UDP fragmentation, so the URI should be kept
   short.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Signature Type Block = "PGP " (1 word)            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                       OpenPGP signature                       |
      |                       (variable length)                       |
      |                             . . .                             |
      |                                                               |
      +===============================================================+

                    Figure 20: OpenPGP Signature Format

7.2.2.  ECDSA Signatures with X.509v3 Certs

   If the SAS Signature Type (Section 5.1.7) is "X509", the ECDSA
   signature-related fields are arranged as follows.

   The first field after the 4-octet Signature Type Block is the DER
   encoded X.509v3 certificate (the signed public key) of the ECDSA
   signing key that created the signature.  The format of this
   certificate is specified by the NSA's Suite B Certificate and CRL
   Profile [RFC5759].

   Following the X.509v3 certificate at the next word boundary is the
   ECDSA signature itself.  The size of this field depends on the size
   and type of the public key in the aforementioned certificate.  The
   format of this signature and the algorithms that create it are
   specified by [FIPS-186-3].  The signature is comprised of the ECDSA
   signature output parameters (r, s) in binary form, concatenated, in
   network byte order, with no truncation of leading zeros.  The first
   half of the signature is r and the second half is s.  If ECDSA P-256




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 82]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   is specified, the signature fills 16 words (64 octets), 32 octets
   each for r and s.  If ECDSA P-384 is specified, the signature fills
   24 words (96 octets), 48 octets each for r and s.

   It is up to the recipient of the signature to use information in the
   certificate and path discovery mechanisms to trace the chain back to
   the root CA.  It is recommended that end user certificates issued for
   secure telephony should contain appropriate path discovery links to
   facilitate this.

   Figure 21 shows a certificate and an ECDSA signature.  All this
   material lies inside the encrypted region of the Confirm message
   (Figure 10) or the SASrelay message (Figure 16).

   The total length of all the material in Figure 21, including the
   X.509v3 certificate, must not exceed 511 32-bit words (2044 octets).
   This length, in words, is stored in the signature length field in the
   Confirm or SASrelay message containing the signature.  It is
   desirable to avoid UDP fragmentation, so the certificate material
   should be kept to a much smaller size than this.  End user certs
   issued for this purpose should minimize the size of extraneous
   material such as legal notices.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Signature Type Block = "X509" (1 word)            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                Signing key's X.509v3 certificate              |
      |                        (variable length)                      |
      |                             . . .                             |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                ECDSA P-256 or P-384 signature                 |
      |                    (16 words or 24 words)                     |
      |                             . . .                             |
      |                                                               |
      +===============================================================+

                 Figure 21: X.509v3 ECDSA Signature Format

7.2.3.  Signing the SAS without a PKI

   It's not strictly necessary to use a PKI to back the public key that
   signs the SAS.  For example, it is possible to use a self-signed
   X.509v3 certificate or an OpenPGP key that is not signed by any other



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 83]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   key.  In this scenario, the same key continuity technique used by SSH
   [RFC4251] may be used.  The public key is cached locally the first
   time it is encountered, and when the same public key is encountered
   again in subsequent sessions, it's deemed not to be a MiTM attack.
   If there is no MiTM attack in the first session, there cannot be a
   MiTM attack in any subsequent session.  This is exactly how SSH does
   it.

   Of course, the security rests on the assumption that the MiTM did not
   attack in the first session.  That assumption seems to work most of
   the time in the SSH world.  The user would have to be warned the
   first time a public key is encountered, just as in SSH.  If possible,
   the SAS should be checked before the user consents to caching the new
   public key.  If the SAS matches in the first session, there is no
   MiTM, and it's safe to cache the public key.  If no SAS comparison is
   possible, it's up to the user, or up to the application, to decide
   whether to take a leap of faith and proceed.  That's how SSH works
   most of the time, because SSH users don't have the chance to verbally
   compare an SAS with anyone.

   For a phone that is SIP-registered to a PBX, it may be provisioned
   with the public key of the PBX, using a trusted automated
   provisioning process.  Even without a PKI, the phone knows that the
   public key is the correct one, since it was provisioned into the
   phone by a trusted provisioning mechanism.  This makes it easy for
   the phone to access several automated services commonly offered by a
   PBX, such as voice mail or a conference bridge, where there is no
   human at the PBX to do a verbal SAS compare.  The same provisioning
   may be used to preload the pbxsecret into the phone, which is
   discussed in Section 7.3.1.

7.3.  Relaying the SAS through a PBX

   ZRTP is designed to use end-to-end encryption.  The two parties'
   verbal comparison of the short authentication string (SAS) depends on
   this assumption.  But in some PBX environments, such as Asterisk,
   there are usage scenarios that have the PBX acting as a trusted MiTM,
   which means there are two back-to-back ZRTP connections with separate
   session keys and separate SASs.

   For example, imagine that Bob has a ZRTP-enabled VoIP phone that has
   been registered with his company's PBX, so that it is regarded as an
   extension of the PBX.  Alice, whose phone is not associated with the
   PBX, might dial the PBX from the outside, and a ZRTP connection is
   negotiated between her phone and the PBX.  She then selects Bob's
   extension from the company directory in the PBX.  The PBX makes a
   call to Bob's phone (which might be offsite, many miles away from the
   PBX through the Internet) and a separate ZRTP connection is



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 84]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   negotiated between the PBX and Bob's phone.  The two ZRTP sessions
   have different session keys and different SASs, which would render
   the SAS useless for verbal comparison between Alice and Bob.  They
   might even mistakenly believe that a wiretapper is present because of
   the SAS mismatch, causing undue alarm.

   ZRTP has a mechanism for solving this problem by having the PBX relay
   the Alice/PBX SAS to Bob, sending it through to Bob in a special
   SASrelay message as defined in Section 5.13, which is sent after the
   PBX/Bob ZRTP negotiation is complete, after the Confirm messages.
   Only the PBX, acting as a special trusted MiTM (trusted by the
   recipient of the SASrelay message), will relay the SAS.  The SASrelay
   message protects the relayed SAS from tampering via an included MAC,
   similar to how the Confirm message is protected.  Bob's ZRTP-enabled
   phone accepts the relayed SAS for rendering only because Bob's phone
   had previously been configured to trust the PBX.  This special
   trusted relationship with the PBX can be established through a
   special security enrollment procedure (Section 7.3.1).  After that
   enrollment procedure, the PBX is treated by Bob as a special trusted
   MiTM.  This results in Alice's SAS being rendered to Bob, so that
   Alice and Bob may verbally compare them and thus prevent a MiTM
   attack by any other untrusted MiTM.

   A real "bad-guy" MiTM cannot exploit this protocol feature to mount a
   MiTM attack and relay Alice's SAS to Bob, because Bob has not
   previously carried out a special registration ritual with the bad
   guy.  The relayed SAS would not be rendered by Bob's phone, because
   it did not come from a trusted PBX.  The recognition of the special
   trust relationship is achieved with the prior establishment of a
   special shared secret between Bob and his PBX, which is called
   pbxsecret (defined in Section 7.3.1), also known as the trusted MiTM
   key.

   The trusted MiTM key can be stored in a special cache at the time of
   the initial enrollment (which is carried out only once for Bob's
   phone), and Bob's phone associates this key with the ZID of the PBX,
   while the PBX associates it with the ZID of Bob's phone.  After the
   enrollment has established and stored this trusted MiTM key, it can
   be detected during subsequent ZRTP session negotiations between the
   PBX and Bob's phone, because the PBX and the phone MUST pass the hash
   of the trusted MiTM key in the DH message.  It is then used as part
   of the key agreement to calculate s0.

   The PBX can determine whether it is trusted by the ZRTP user agent of
   a phone.  The presence of a shared trusted MiTM key in the key
   negotiation sequence indicates that the phone has been enrolled with
   this PBX and therefore trusts it to act as a trusted MiTM.  During a
   key agreement with two other ZRTP endpoints, the PBX may have a



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 85]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   shared trusted MiTM key with both endpoints, only one endpoint, or
   neither endpoint.  If the PBX has a shared trusted MiTM key with
   neither endpoint, the PBX MUST NOT relay the SAS.  If the PBX has a
   shared trusted MiTM key with only one endpoint, the PBX MUST relay
   the SAS from one party to the other by sending an SASrelay message to
   the endpoint with which it shares a trusted MiTM key.  If the PBX has
   a (separate) shared trusted MiTM key with each of the endpoints, the
   PBX MUST relay the SAS to only one endpoint, not both endpoints.

      Note: In the case of a PBX sharing trusted MiTM keys with both
      endpoints, it does not matter which endpoint receives the relayed
      SAS as long as only one endpoint receives it.

   The relayed SAS fields contain the SAS rendering type and the
   complete sashash.  The receiver absolutely MUST NOT render the
   relayed SAS if it does not come from a specially trusted ZRTP
   endpoint.  The security of the ZRTP protocol depends on not rendering
   a relayed SAS from an untrusted MiTM, because it may be relayed by a
   MiTM attacker.  See the SASrelay message definition (Figure 16) for
   further details.

   To ensure that both Alice and Bob will use the same SAS rendering
   scheme after the keys are negotiated, the PBX also sends the SASrelay
   message to the unenrolled party (which does not regard this PBX as a
   trusted MiTM), conveying the SAS rendering scheme, but not the
   sashash, which it sets to zero.  The unenrolled party will ignore the
   relayed SAS field, but will use the specified SAS rendering scheme.

   It is possible to route a call through two ZRTP-enabled PBXs using
   this scheme.  Assume Alice is a ZRTP endpoint who trusts her local
   PBX in Atlanta, and Bob is a ZRTP endpoint who trusts his local PBX
   in Biloxi.  The call is routed from Alice to the Atlanta PBX to the
   Biloxi PBX to Bob.  Atlanta would relay the Atlanta-Biloxi SAS to
   Alice because Alice is enrolled with Atlanta, and Biloxi would relay
   the Atlanta-Biloxi SAS to Bob because Bob is enrolled with Biloxi.
   The two PBXs are not assumed to be enrolled with each other in this
   example.  Both Alice and Bob would view and verbally compare the same
   relayed SAS, the Atlanta-Biloxi SAS.  No more than two trusted MiTM
   nodes can be traversed with this relaying scheme.  This behavior is
   extended to two PBXs that are enrolled with each other, via this
   rule: In the case of a PBX sharing trusted MiTM keys with both
   endpoints (i.e., both enrolled with this PBX), one of which is
   another PBX (evidenced by the M-flag) and one of which is a non-PBX,
   the MiTM PBX must always relay the PBX-to-PBX SAS to the non-PBX
   endpoint.






Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 86]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   A ZRTP endpoint phone that trusts a PBX to act as a trusted MiTM is
   effectively delegating its own policy decisions of algorithm
   negotiation to the PBX.

   When a PBX is between two ZRTP endpoints and is terminating their
   media streams at the PBX, the PBX presents its own ZID to the two
   parties, eclipsing the ZIDs of the two parties from each other.  For
   example, if several different calls are routed through such a PBX to
   several different ZRTP-enabled phones behind the PBX, only a single
   ZID is presented to the calling party in every case -- the ZID of the
   PBX itself.

   The next section describes the initial enrollment procedure that
   establishes a special shared secret, a trusted MiTM key, between a
   PBX and a phone, so that the phone will learn to recognize the PBX as
   a trusted MiTM.

7.3.1.  PBX Enrollment and the PBX Enrollment Flag

   Both the PBX and the endpoint need to know when enrollment is taking
   place.  One way of doing this is to set up an enrollment extension on
   the PBX that a newly configured endpoint would call and establish a
   ZRTP session.  The PBX would then play audio media that offers the
   user an opportunity to configure his phone to trust this PBX as a
   trusted MiTM.  The PBX calculates and stores the trusted MiTM shared
   secret in its cache and associates it with this phone, indexed by the
   phone's ZID.  The trusted MiTM PBX shared secret is derived from
   ZRTPSess via the ZRTP key derivation function (Section 4.5.1) in this
   manner:

      pbxsecret = KDF(ZRTPSess, "Trusted MiTM key", (ZIDi || ZIDr), 256)

   The pbxsecret is calculated for the whole ZRTP session, not for each
   stream within a session, thus the KDF Context field in this case does
   not include any stream-specific nonce material.

   The PBX signals the enrollment process by setting the PBX Enrollment
   flag (E) in the Confirm message (Figure 10).  This flag is used to
   trigger the ZRTP endpoint's user interface to prompt the user to see
   if it wants to trust this PBX and calculate and store the pbxsecret
   in the cache.  If the user decides to respond by activating the
   appropriate user interface element (a menu item, checkbox, or
   button), his ZRTP user agent calculates pbxsecret using the same
   formula, and saves it in a special cache entry associated with this
   PBX.






Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 87]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   During a PBX enrollment, the GoClear features are disabled.  If the
   (E) flag is set by the PBX, the PBX MUST NOT set the Allow Clear (A)
   flag.  Thus, (E) implies not (A).  If a received Confirm message has
   the (E) flag set, the (A) flag MUST be disregarded and treated as
   false.

   If the user elects not to enroll, perhaps because he dialed a wrong
   number or does not yet feel comfortable with this PBX, he can simply
   hang up and not save the pbxsecret in his cache.  The PBX will have
   it saved in the PBX cache, but that will do no harm.  The SASrelay
   scheme does not depend on the PBX trusting the phone.  It only
   depends on the phone trusting the PBX.  It is the phone (the user)
   who is at risk if the PBX abuses its MiTM privileges.

   An endpoint MUST NOT store the pbxsecret in the cache without
   explicit user authorization.

   After this enrollment process, the PBX and the ZRTP-enabled phone
   both share a secret that enables the phone to recognize the PBX as a
   trusted MiTM in future calls.  This means that when a future call
   from an outside ZRTP-enabled caller is relayed through the PBX to
   this phone, the phone will render a relayed SAS from the PBX.  If the
   SASrelay message comes from a MiTM that does not know the pbxsecret,
   the phone treats it as a bad-guy MiTM, and refuses to render the
   relayed SAS.  Regardless of which party initiates any future phone
   calls through the PBX, the enrolled phone or the outside phone, the
   PBX will relay the SAS to the enrolled phone.

   This enrollment procedure is designed primarily for phones that are
   already associated with the PBX -- enterprise phones that are
   "behind" the PBX.  It is not intended for the countless outside
   phones that are not registered to this PBX's SIP server.  It should
   be regarded as part of the installation and provisioning process for
   a new phone in the organization.

   There are more streamlined methods to configure ZRTP user agents to
   trust a PBX.  In large scale deployments, the pbxsecret may be
   configured into the phone by an automated provisioning process, which
   may be less burdensome for the users and less error prone.  This
   specification does not require a manual enrollment process.  Any
   process that results in a pbxsecret to be computed and shared between
   the PBX and the phone will suffice, as long as the user is made aware
   that this puts the PBX in a position to wiretap the calls.

   It is recommended that a ZRTP client not proceed with the PBX
   enrollment procedure without evidence that a MiTM attack is not
   taking place during the enrollment session.  It would be especially
   damaging if a MiTM tricks the client into enrolling with the wrong



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 88]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   PBX.  That would enable the malevolent MiTM to wiretap all future
   calls without arousing suspicion, because he would appear to be
   trusted.

8.  Signaling Interactions

   This section discusses how ZRTP, SIP, and SDP work together.

   Note that ZRTP may be implemented without coupling with the SIP
   signaling.  For example, ZRTP can be implemented as a "bump in the
   wire" or as a "bump in the stack" in which RTP sent by the SIP User
   Agent (UA) is converted to ZRTP.  In these cases, the SIP UA will
   have no knowledge of ZRTP.  As a result, the signaling path discovery
   mechanisms introduced in this section should not be definitive --
   they are a hint.  Despite the absence of an indication of ZRTP
   support in an offer or answer, a ZRTP endpoint SHOULD still send
   Hello messages.

   ZRTP endpoints that have control over the signaling path include a
   ZRTP SDP attributes in their SDP offers and answers.  The ZRTP
   attribute, a=zrtp-hash, is used to indicate support for ZRTP and to
   convey a hash of the Hello message.  The hash is computed according
   to Section 8.1.

   Aside from the advantages described in Section 8.1, there are a
   number of potential uses for this attribute.  It is useful when
   signaling elements would like to know when ZRTP may be utilized by
   endpoints.  It is also useful if endpoints support multiple methods
   of SRTP key management.  The ZRTP attribute can be used to ensure
   that these key management approaches work together instead of against
   each other.  For example, if only one endpoint supports ZRTP, but
   both support another method to key SRTP, then the other method will
   be used instead.  When used in parallel, an SRTP secret carried in an
   a=keymgt [RFC4567] or a=crypto [RFC4568] attribute can be used as a
   shared secret for the srtps computation defined in Section 8.2.  The
   ZRTP attribute is also used to signal to an intermediary ZRTP device
   not to act as a ZRTP endpoint, as discussed in Section 10.

   The a=zrtp-hash attribute can only be included in the SDP at the
   media level since Hello messages sent in different media streams will
   have unique hashes.










Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 89]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   The ABNF for the ZRTP attribute is as follows:

       zrtp-attribute   = "a=zrtp-hash:" zrtp-version zrtp-hash-value

       zrtp-version     = token

       zrtp-hash-value  = 1*(HEXDIG)

   Here's an example of the ZRTP attribute in an initial SDP offer or
   answer used at the media level, using the <allOneLine> convention
   defined in RFC 4475, Section 2.1 [RFC4475]:

     v=0
     o=bob 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com
     s=
     c=IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com
     t=0 0
     m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 97 33
     a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000
     a=rtpmap:33 no-op/8000
   <allOneLine>
     a=zrtp-hash:1.10 fe30efd02423cb054e50efd0248742ac7a52c8f91bc2
     df881ae642c371ba46df
   </allOneLine>

   A mechanism for carrying this same zrtp-hash information in the
   Jingle signaling protocol is defined in [XEP-0262].

   It should be safe to send ZRTP messages even when there is no
   evidence in the signaling that the other party supports it, because
   ZRTP has been designed to be clearly different from RTP, having a
   similar structure to STUN packets sent during an ICE exchange.

8.1.  Binding the Media Stream to the Signaling Layer via the Hello Hash

   Tying the media stream to the signaling channel can help prevent a
   third party from inserting false media packets.  If the signaling
   layer contains information that ties it to the media stream, false
   media streams can be rejected.

   To accomplish this, the entire Hello message (Figure 3) is hashed,
   using the hash algorithm defined in Section 5.1.2.2.  The ZRTP packet
   framing from Figure 2 is not included in the hash.  The resulting
   hash image is made available without truncation to the signaling
   layer, where it is transmitted as a hexadecimal value in the SIP
   channel using the SDP attribute a=zrtp-hash, defined in this
   specification.  Assuming Section 5.1.2.2 defines a 256-bit hash
   length, the a=zrtp-hash field in the SDP attribute carries 64



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 90]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   hexadecimal digits.  Each media stream (audio or video) will have a
   separate Hello message, and thus will require a separate a=zrtp-hash
   in an SDP attribute.  The recipient of the SIP/SDP message can then
   use this hash image to detect and reject false Hello messages in the
   media channel, as well as identify which media stream is associated
   with this SIP call.  Each Hello message hashes uniquely, because it
   contains the H3 field derived from a random nonce, defined in
   Section 9.

   The Hello Hash as an SDP attribute is not a REQUIRED feature, because
   some ZRTP endpoints do not have the ability to add SDP attributes to
   the signaling.  For example, if ZRTP is implemented in a hardware
   bump-in-the-wire device, it might only have the ability to modify the
   media packets, not the SIP packets, especially if the SIP packets are
   integrity protected and thus cannot be modified on the wire.  If the
   SDP has no hash image of the ZRTP Hello message, the recipient's ZRTP
   user agent cannot check it, and thus will not be able to reject Hello
   messages based on this hash.

   After the Hello Hash is used to properly identify the ZRTP Hello
   message as belonging to this particular SIP call, the rest of the
   ZRTP message sequence is protected from false packet injection by
   other protection mechanisms, such as the hash chaining mechanism
   defined in Section 9.

   An attacker who controls only the signaling layer, such as an
   uncooperative VoIP service provider, may be able to deny service by
   corrupting the hash of the Hello message in the SDP attribute, which
   would force ZRTP to reject perfectly good Hello messages.  If there
   is reason to believe this is happening, the ZRTP endpoint MAY allow
   Hello messages to be accepted that do not match the hash image in the
   SDP attribute.

   Even in the absence of SIP integrity protection, the inclusion of the
   a=zrtp-hash SDP attribute, when coupled with the hash chaining
   mechanism defined in Section 9, meets the R-ASSOC requirement in the
   Media Security Requirements [RFC5479], which requires:

      ...a mechanism for associating key management messages with both
      the signaling traffic that initiated the session and with
      protected media traffic.  It is useful to associate key management
      messages with call signaling messages, as this allows the SDP
      offerer to avoid performing CPU-consuming operations (e.g.,
      Diffie-Hellman or public key operations) with attackers that have
      not seen the signaling messages.






Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 91]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   The a=zrtp-hash SDP attribute becomes especially useful if the SDP is
   integrity-protected end-to-end by SIP Identity [RFC4474] or better
   still, Dan Wing's SIP Identity using Media Path [SIP-IDENTITY].  This
   leads to an ability to stop MiTM attacks independent of ZRTP's SAS
   mechanism, as explained in Section 8.1.1.

8.1.1.  Integrity-Protected Signaling Enables Integrity-Protected DH
        Exchange

   If and only if the signaling path and the SDP is protected by some
   form of end-to-end integrity protection, such as one of the
   abovementioned mechanisms, so that it can guarantee delivery of the
   a=zrtp-hash attribute without any tampering by a third party, and if
   there is good reason to trust the signaling layer to protect the
   interests of the end user, it is possible to authenticate the key
   exchange and prevent a MiTM attack.  This can be done without
   requiring the users to verbally compare the SAS, by using the hash
   chaining mechanism defined in Section 9 to provide a series of MAC
   keys that protect the entire ZRTP key exchange.  Thus, an end-to-end
   integrity-protected signaling layer automatically enables an
   integrity-protected Diffie-Hellman exchange in ZRTP, which in turn
   means immunity from a MiTM attack.  Here's how it works.

   The integrity-protected SIP SDP contains a hash commitment to the
   entire Hello message.  The Hello message contains H3, which provides
   a hash commitment for the rest of the hash chain H0-H2 (Section 9).
   The Hello message is protected by a 64-bit MAC, keyed by H2.  The
   Commit message is protected by a 64-bit MAC, keyed by H1.  The
   DHPart1 or DHPart2 messages are protected by a 64-bit MAC, keyed by
   H0.  The MAC protecting the Confirm messages is computed by a
   different MAC key derived from the resulting key agreement.  Each
   message's MAC is checked when the MAC key is received in the next
   message.  If a bad MAC is discovered, it MUST be treated as a
   security exception indicating a MiTM attack, perhaps by logging or
   alerting the user, and MUST NOT be treated as a random error.  Random
   errors are already discovered and quietly rejected by bad CRCs
   (Figure 2).

   The Hello message must be assembled before any hash algorithms are
   negotiated, so an implicit predetermined hash algorithm and MAC
   algorithm (both defined in Section 5.1.2.2) must be used.  All of the
   aforementioned MACs keyed by the hashes in the aforementioned hash
   chain MUST be computed with the MAC algorithm defined in
   Section 5.1.2.2, with the MAC truncated to 64 bits.

   The Media Security Requirements [RFC5479] R-EXISTING requirement can
   be fully met by leveraging a certificate-backed PKI in the signaling
   layer to integrity protect the delivery of the a=zrtp-hash SDP



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 92]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   attribute.  This would thereby protect ZRTP against a MiTM attack,
   without requiring the user to check the SAS, without adding any
   explicit signatures or signature keys to the ZRTP key exchange and
   without any extra public key operations or extra packets.

   Without an end-to-end integrity-protection mechanism in the signaling
   layer to guarantee delivery of the a=zrtp-hash SDP attribute without
   modification by a third party, these MACs alone will not prevent a
   MiTM attack.  In that case, ZRTP's built-in SAS mechanism will still
   have to be used to authenticate the key exchange.  At the time of
   this writing, very few deployed VoIP clients offer a fully
   implemented SIP stack that provides end-to-end integrity protection
   for the delivery of SDP attributes.  Also, end-to-end signaling
   integrity becomes more problematic if E.164 numbers [RFC3824] are
   used in SIP.  Thus, real-world implementations of ZRTP endpoints will
   continue to depend on SAS authentication for quite some time.  Even
   after there is widespread availability of SIP user agents that offer
   integrity protected delivery of SDP attributes, many users will still
   be faced with the fact that the signaling path may be controlled by
   institutions that do not have the best interests of the end user in
   mind.  In those cases, SAS authentication will remain the gold
   standard for the prudent user.

   Even without SIP integrity protection, the Media Security
   Requirements [RFC5479] R-ACT-ACT requirement can be met by ZRTP's SAS
   mechanism.  Although ZRTP may benefit from an integrity-protected SIP
   layer, it is fortunate that ZRTP's self-contained MiTM defenses do
   not actually require an integrity-protected SIP layer.  ZRTP can
   bypass the delays and problems that SIP integrity faces, such as
   E.164 number usage, and the complexity of building and maintaining a
   PKI.

   In contrast, DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764] appears to depend heavily on end-to-
   end integrity protection in the SIP layer.  Further, DTLS-SRTP must
   bear the additional cost of a signature calculation of its own, in
   addition to the signature calculation the SIP layer uses to achieve
   its integrity protection.  ZRTP needs no signature calculation of its
   own to leverage the signature calculation carried out in the SIP
   layer.

8.2.  Deriving the SRTP Secret (srtps) from the Signaling Layer

   The shared secret calculations defined in Section 4.3 make use of the
   SRTP secret (srtps), if it is provided by the signaling layer.

   It is desirable for only one SRTP key negotiation protocol to be
   used, and that protocol should be ZRTP.  But in the event the
   signaling layer negotiates its own SRTP master key and salt, using



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 93]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   the SDP Security Descriptions (SDES [RFC4568]) or [RFC4567], it can
   be passed from the signaling to the ZRTP layer and mixed into ZRTP's
   own shared secret calculations, without compromising security by
   creating a dependency on the signaling for media encryption.

   ZRTP computes srtps from the SRTP master key and salt parameters
   provided by the signaling layer in this manner, truncating the result
   to 256 bits:

      srtps = KDF(SRTP master key, "SRTP Secret", (ZIDi || ZIDr ||
                    SRTP master salt), 256)

   It is expected that the srtps parameter will be rarely computed or
   used in typical ZRTP endpoints, because it is likely and desirable
   that ZRTP will be the sole means of negotiating SRTP keys, needing no
   help from [RFC4568] or [RFC4567].  If srtps is computed, it will be
   stored in the auxiliary shared secret auxsecret, defined in
   Section 4.3 and used in Section 4.3.1.

8.3.  Codec Selection for Secure Media

   Codec selection is negotiated in the signaling layer.  If the
   signaling layer determines that ZRTP is supported by both endpoints,
   this should provide guidance in codec selection to avoid variable
   bitrate (VBR) codecs that leak information.

   When voice is compressed with a VBR codec, the packet lengths vary
   depending on the types of sounds being compressed.  This leaks a lot
   of information about the content even if the packets are encrypted,
   regardless of what encryption protocol is used [Wright1].  It is
   RECOMMENDED that VBR codecs be avoided in encrypted calls.  It is not
   a problem if the codec adapts the bitrate to the available channel
   bandwidth.  The vulnerable codecs are the ones that change their
   bitrate depending on the type of sound being compressed.

   It also appears that voice activity detection (VAD) leaks information
   about the content of the conversation, but to a lesser extent than
   VBR.  This effect can be mitigated by lengthening the VAD hangover
   time by a random amount between 1 and 2 seconds, if this is feasible
   in your application.  Only short bursts of speech would benefit from
   lengthening the VAD hangover time.

   The security problems of VBR and VAD are addressed in detail by the
   guidelines in [VBR-AUDIO].  It is RECOMMENDED that ZRTP endpoints
   follow these guidelines.






Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 94]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


9.  False ZRTP Packet Rejection

   An attacker who is not in the media path may attempt to inject false
   ZRTP protocol packets, possibly to effect a denial-of-service attack
   or to inject his own media stream into the call.  VoIP, by its
   nature, invites various forms of denial-of-service attacks and
   requires protocol features to reject such attacks.  While bogus SRTP
   packets may be easily rejected via the SRTP auth tag field, that can
   only be applied after a key agreement is completed.  During the ZRTP
   key negotiation phase, other false packet rejection mechanisms are
   needed.  One such mechanism is the use of the total_hash in the final
   shared secret calculation, but that can only detect false packets
   after performing the computationally expensive Diffie-Hellman
   calculation.

   A lot of work has been done on the analysis of denial-of-service
   attacks, especially from attackers who are not in the media path.
   Such an attacker might inject false ZRTP packets to force a ZRTP
   endpoint to engage in an endless series of pointless and expensive DH
   calculations.  To detect and reject false packets cheaply and rapidly
   as soon as they are received, ZRTP uses a one-way hash chain, which
   is a series of successive hash images.  Before each session, the
   following values are computed:

      H0 = 256-bit random nonce (different for each party)

      H1 = hash (H0)

      H2 = hash (H1)

      H3 = hash (H2)

   This one-way hash chain MUST use the hash algorithm defined in
   Section 5.1.2.2, truncated to 256 bits.  Each 256-bit hash image is
   the preimage of the next, and the sequence of images is sent in
   reverse order in the ZRTP packet sequence.  The hash image H3 is sent
   in the Hello message, H2 is sent in the Commit message, H1 is sent in
   the DHPart1 or DHPart2 messages, and H0 is sent in the Confirm1 or
   Confirm2 messages.  The initial random H0 nonces that each party
   generates MUST be unpredictable to an attacker and unique within a
   ZRTP session, which thereby forces the derived hash images H1-H3 to
   also be unique and unpredictable.

   The recipient checks if the packet has the correct hash preimage, by
   hashing it and comparing the result with the hash image for the
   preceding packet.  Packets that contain an incorrect hash preimage
   MUST NOT be used by the recipient, but they MAY be processed as
   security exceptions, perhaps by logging or alerting the user.  As



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 95]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   long as these bogus packets are not used, and correct packets are
   still being received, the protocol SHOULD be allowed to run to
   completion, thereby rendering ineffective this denial-of-service
   attack.

   Note that since H2 is sent in the Commit message, and the initiator
   does not receive a Commit message, the initiator computes the
   responder's missing H2 by hashing the responder's H1.  An analogous
   interpolation is performed by both parties to handle the skipped
   DHPart1 and DHPart2 messages in Preshared (Section 3.1.2) or
   Multistream (Section 3.1.3) modes.

   Because these hash images alone do not protect the rest of the
   contents of the packet they reside in, this scheme assumes the
   attacker cannot modify the packet contents from a legitimate party,
   which is a reasonable assumption for an attacker who is not in the
   media path.  This covers an important range of denial-of-service
   attacks.  For dealing with the remaining set of attacks that involve
   packet modification, other mechanisms are used, such as the
   total_hash in the final shared secret calculation, and the hash
   commitment in the Commit message.

   Hello messages injected by an attacker may be detected and rejected
   by the inclusion of a hash of the Hello message in the signaling, as
   described in Section 8.  This mechanism requires that each Hello
   message be unique, and the inclusion of the H3 hash image meets that
   requirement.

   If and only if an integrity-protected signaling channel is available,
   the MACs that are keyed by this hash chaining scheme can be used to
   authenticate the entire ZRTP key exchange, and thereby prevent a MiTM
   attack, without relying on the users verbally comparing the SAS.  See
   Section 8.1.1 for details.

   Some ZRTP user agents allow the user to manually switch to clear mode
   (via the GoClear message) in the middle of a secure call, and then
   later initiate secure mode again.  Many consumer client products will
   omit this feature, but those that allow it may return to secure mode
   again in the same media stream.  Although the same chain of hash
   images will be reused and thus rendered ineffective the second time,
   no real harm is done because the new SRTP session keys will be
   derived in part from a cached shared secret, which was safely
   protected from the MiTM in the previous DH exchange earlier in the
   same session.







Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 96]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


10.  Intermediary ZRTP Devices

   This section discusses the operation of a ZRTP endpoint that is
   actually an intermediary.  For example, consider a device that
   proxies both signaling and media between endpoints.  There are three
   possible ways in which such a device could support ZRTP.

   An intermediary device can act transparently to the ZRTP protocol.
   To do this, a device MUST pass non-RTP protocols multiplexed on the
   same port as RTP (to allow ZRTP and STUN).  This is the RECOMMENDED
   behavior for intermediaries as ZRTP and SRTP are best when done end-
   to-end.

   An intermediary device could implement the ZRTP protocol and act as a
   ZRTP endpoint on behalf of non-ZRTP endpoints behind the intermediary
   device.  The intermediary could determine on a call-by-call basis
   whether the endpoint behind it supports ZRTP based on the presence or
   absence of the ZRTP SDP attribute flag (a=zrtp-hash).  For non-ZRTP
   endpoints, the intermediary device could act as the ZRTP endpoint
   using its own ZID and cache.  This approach SHOULD only be used when
   there is some other security method protecting the confidentiality of
   the media between the intermediary and the inside endpoint, such as
   IPsec or physical security.

   The third mode, which is NOT RECOMMENDED, is for the intermediary
   device to attempt to back-to-back the ZRTP protocol.  The only
   exception to this case is where the intermediary device is a trusted
   element providing services to one of the endpoints -- e.g., a Private
   Branch Exchange or PBX.  In this mode, the intermediary would attempt
   to act as a ZRTP endpoint towards both endpoints of the media
   session.  This approach MUST NOT be used except as described in
   Section 7.3 as it will always result in a detected MiTM attack and
   will generate alarms on both endpoints and likely result in the
   immediate termination of the session.  The PBX MUST uses a single ZID
   for all endpoints behind it.

   In cases where centralized media mixing is taking place, the SAS will
   not match when compared by the humans.  This situation can sometimes
   be known in the SIP signaling by the presence of the isfocus feature
   tag [RFC4579].  As a result, when the isfocus feature tag is present,
   the DH exchange can be authenticated by the mechanism defined in
   Section 8.1.1 or by validating signatures (Section 7.2) in the
   Confirm or SASrelay messages.  For example, consider an audio
   conference call with three participants Alice, Bob, and Carol hosted
   on a conference bridge in Dallas.  There will be three ZRTP encrypted
   media streams, one encrypted stream between each participant and
   Dallas.  Each will have a different SAS.  Each participant will be
   able to validate their SAS with the conference bridge by using



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 97]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   signatures optionally present in the Confirm messages (described in
   Section 7.2).  Or, if the signaling path has end-to-end integrity
   protection, each DH exchange will have automatic MiTM protection by
   using the mechanism in Section 8.1.1.

   SIP feature tags can also be used to detect if a session is
   established with an automaton such as an Interactive Voice Response
   (IVR), voicemail system, or speech recognition system.  The display
   of SAS strings to users should be disabled in these cases.

   It is possible that an intermediary device acting as a ZRTP endpoint
   might still receive ZRTP Hello and other messages from the inside
   endpoint.  This could occur if there is another inline ZRTP device
   that does not include the ZRTP SDP attribute flag.  An intermediary
   acting as a ZRTP endpoint receiving ZRTP Hello and other messages
   from the inside endpoint MUST NOT pass these ZRTP messages.

11.  The ZRTP Disclosure Flag

   There are no back doors defined in the ZRTP protocol specification.
   The designers of ZRTP would like to discourage back doors in ZRTP-
   enabled products.  However, despite the lack of back doors in the
   actual ZRTP protocol, it must be recognized that a ZRTP implementer
   might still deliberately create a rogue ZRTP-enabled product that
   implements a back door outside the scope of the ZRTP protocol.  For
   example, they could create a product that discloses the SRTP session
   key generated using ZRTP out-of-band to a third party.  They may even
   have a legitimate business reason to do this for some customers.

   For example, some environments have a need to monitor or record
   calls, such as stock brokerage houses who want to discourage insider
   trading, or special high-security environments with special needs to
   monitor their own phone calls.  We've all experienced automated
   messages telling us that "This call may be monitored for quality
   assurance".  A ZRTP endpoint in such an environment might
   unilaterally disclose the session key to someone monitoring the call.
   ZRTP-enabled products that perform such out-of-band disclosures of
   the session key can undermine public confidence in the ZRTP protocol,
   unless we do everything we can in the protocol to alert the other
   user that this is happening.

   If one of the parties is using a product that is designed to disclose
   their session key, ZRTP requires them to confess this fact to the
   other party through a protocol message to the other party's ZRTP
   client, which can properly alert that user, perhaps by rendering it
   in a graphical user interface.  The disclosing party does this by
   sending a Disclosure flag (D) in Confirm1 and Confirm2 messages as
   described in Section 5.7.



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 98]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   Note that the intention here is to have the Disclosure flag identify
   products that are designed to disclose their session keys, not to
   identify which particular calls are compromised on a call-by-call
   basis.  This is an important legal distinction, because most
   government sanctioned wiretap regulations require a VoIP service
   provider to not reveal which particular calls are wiretapped.  But
   there is nothing illegal about revealing that a product is designed
   to be wiretap-friendly.  The ZRTP protocol mandates that such a
   product "out" itself.

   You might be using a ZRTP-enabled product with no back doors, but if
   your own graphical user interface tells you the call is (mostly)
   secure, except that the other party is using a product that is
   designed in such a way that it may have disclosed the session key for
   monitoring purposes, you might ask him what brand of secure telephone
   he is using, and make a mental note not to purchase that brand
   yourself.  If we create a protocol environment that requires such
   back-doored phones to confess their nature, word will spread quickly,
   and the "invisible hand" of the free market will act.  The free
   market has effectively dealt with this in the past.

   Of course, a ZRTP implementer can lie about his product having a back
   door, but the ZRTP standard mandates that ZRTP-compliant products
   MUST adhere to the requirement that a back door be confessed by
   sending the Disclosure flag to the other party.

   There will be inevitable comparisons to Steve Bellovin's 2003 April
   fool joke, when he submitted RFC 3514 [RFC3514], which defined the
   "Evil bit" in the IPv4 header, for packets with "evil intent".  But
   we submit that a similar idea can actually have some merit for
   securing VoIP.  Sure, one can always imagine that some implementer
   will not be fazed by the rules and will lie, but they would have lied
   anyway even without the Disclosure flag.  There are good reasons to
   believe that it will improve the overall percentage of
   implementations that at least tell us if they put a back door in
   their products, and may even get some of them to decide not to put in
   a back door at all.  From a civic hygiene perspective, we are better
   off with having the Disclosure flag in the protocol.

   If an endpoint stores or logs SRTP keys or information that can be
   used to reconstruct or recover SRTP keys after they are no longer in
   use (i.e., the session is active), or otherwise discloses or passes
   SRTP keys or information that can be used to reconstruct or recover
   SRTP keys to another application or device, the Disclosure flag D
   MUST be set in the Confirm1 or Confirm2 message.






Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                    [Page 99]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


11.1.  Guidelines on Proper Implementation of the Disclosure Flag

   Some implementers have asked for guidance on implementing the
   Disclosure flag.  Some people have incorrectly thought that a
   connection secured with ZRTP cannot be used in a call center, with
   voluntary voice recording, or even with a voicemail system.
   Similarly, some potential users of ZRTP have over considered the
   protection that ZRTP can give them.  These guidelines clarify both
   concerns.

   The ZRTP Disclosure flag only governs the ZRTP/SRTP stream itself.
   It does not govern the underlying RTP media stream, nor the actual
   media itself.  Consequently, a PBX that uses ZRTP may provide
   conference calls, call monitoring, call recording, voicemail, or
   other PBX features and still say that it does not disclose the ZRTP
   key material.  A video system may provide DVR features and still say
   that it does not disclose the ZRTP key material.  The ZRTP Disclosure
   flag, when not set, means only that the ZRTP cryptographic key
   material stays within the bounds of the ZRTP subsystem.

   If an application has a need to disclose the ZRTP cryptographic key
   material, the easiest way to comply with the protocol is to set the
   flag to the proper value.  The next easiest way is to overestimate
   disclosure.  For example, a call center that commonly records calls
   might choose to set the Disclosure flag even though all recording is
   an analog recording of a call (and thus outside the ZRTP scope)
   because it sets an expectation with clients that their calls might be
   recorded.

   Note also that the ZRTP Disclosure Flag does not require an
   implementation to preclude hacking or malware.  Malware that leaks
   ZRTP cryptographic key material does not create a liability for the
   implementer from non-compliance with the ZRTP specification.

   A user of ZRTP should note that ZRTP is not a panacea against
   unauthorized recording.  ZRTP does not and cannot protect against an
   untrustworthy partner who holds a microphone up to the speaker.  It
   does not protect against someone else being in the room.  It does not
   protect against analog wiretaps in the phone or in the room.  It does
   not mean your partner has not been hacked with spyware.  It does not
   mean that the software has no flaws.  It means that the ZRTP
   subsystem is not knowingly leaking ZRTP cryptographic key material.

12.  Mapping between ZID and AOR (SIP URI)

   The role of the ZID in the management of the local cache of shared
   secrets is explained in Section 4.9.  A particular ZID is associated
   with a particular ZRTP endpoint, typically a VoIP client.  A single



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 100]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   SIP URI (also known as an Address-of-Record, or AOR) may be hosted on
   several different soft VoIP clients, desktop phones, and mobile
   handsets, and each of them will have a different ZID.  Further, a
   single VoIP client may have several SIP URIs configured into its
   profiles, but only one ZID.  There is not a one-to-one mapping
   between a ZID and a SIP URI.  A single SIP URI may be associated with
   several ZIDs, and a single ZID may be associated with several SIP
   URIs on the same client.

   Not only that, but ZRTP is independent of which signaling protocol is
   used.  It works equally well with SIP, Jingle, H.323, or any
   proprietary signaling protocol.  Thus, a ZRTP ZID has little to do
   with SIP, per se, which means it has little to do with a SIP URI.

   Even though a ZID is associated with a device, not a human, it is
   often the case that a ZRTP endpoint is controlled mainly by a
   particular human.  For example, it may be a mobile phone.  To get the
   full benefit of the key continuity features, a local cache entry (and
   thus a ZID) should be associated with some sort of name of the remote
   party.  That name could be a human name, or it could be made more
   precise by specifying which ZRTP endpoint he's using.  For example
   "Jon Callas", or "Jon Callas on his iPhone", or "Jon on his iPad", or
   "Alice on her office phone".  These name strings can be stored in the
   local cache, indexed by ZID, and may have been initially provided by
   the local user by hand.  Or the local cache entry may contain a
   pointer to an entry in the local address book.  When a secure session
   is established, if a prior session has established a cache entry, and
   the new session has a matching cache entry indexed by the same ZID,
   and the SAS has been previously verified, the person's name stored in
   that cache entry should be displayed.

   If the remote ZID originates from a PBX, the displayed name would be
   the name of that PBX, which might be the name of the company who owns
   that PBX.

   If it is desirable to associate some key material with a particular
   AOR, digital signatures (Section 7.2) may be used, with public key
   certificates that associate the signature key with an AOR.  If more
   than one ZRTP endpoint shares the same AOR, they may all use the same
   signature key and provide the same public key certificate with their
   signatures.










Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 101]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


13.  IANA Considerations

   This specification defines a new SDP [RFC4566] attribute in
   Section 8.

     Contact name:          Philip Zimmermann <prz@mit.edu>

     Attribute name:        "zrtp-hash"

     Type of attribute:     Media level

     Subject to charset:    Not

     Purpose of attribute:  The 'zrtp-hash' indicates that a UA supports
                            the ZRTP protocol and provides a hash of the
                            ZRTP Hello message.  The ZRTP protocol
                            version number is also specified.

     Allowed attribute values:  Hex

14.  Media Security Requirements

   This section discuses how ZRTP meets all RTP security requirements
   discussed in the Media Security Requirements [RFC5479] document
   without any dependencies on other protocols or extensions, unlike
   DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764] which requires additional protocols and
   mechanisms.

      R-FORK-RETARGET is met since ZRTP is a media path key agreement
      protocol.

      R-DISTINCT is met since ZRTP uses ZIDs and allows multiple
      independent ZRTP exchanges to proceed.

      R-HERFP is met since ZRTP is a media path key agreement protocol.

      R-REUSE is met using the Multistream and Preshared modes.

      R-AVOID-CLIPPING is met since ZRTP is a media path key agreement
      protocol.

      R-RTP-CHECK is met since the ZRTP packet format does not pass the
      RTP validity check.

      R-ASSOC is met using the a=zrtp-hash SDP attribute in INVITEs and
      responses (Section 8.1).

      R-NEGOTIATE is met using the Commit message.



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 102]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


      R-PSTN is met since ZRTP can be implemented in Gateways.

      R-PFS is met using ZRTP Diffie-Hellman key agreement methods.

      R-COMPUTE is met using the Hello/Commit ZRTP exchange.

      R-CERTS is met using the verbal comparison of the SAS.

      R-FIPS is met since ZRTP uses only FIPS-approved algorithms in all
      relevant categories.  The authors believe ZRTP is compliant with
      [NIST-SP800-56A], [NIST-SP800-108], [FIPS-198-1], [FIPS-180-3],
      [NIST-SP800-38A], [FIPS-197], and [NSA-Suite-B], which should meet
      the FIPS-140 validation requirements set by [FIPS-140-2-Annex-A]
      and [FIPS-140-2-Annex-D].

      R-DOS is met since ZRTP does not introduce any new denial-of-
      service attacks.

      R-EXISTING is met since ZRTP can support the use of certificates
      or keys.

      R-AGILITY is met since the set of hash, cipher, SRTP
      authentication tag type, key agreement method, SAS type, and
      signature type can all be extended and negotiated.

      R-DOWNGRADE is met since ZRTP has protection against downgrade
      attacks.

      R-PASS-MEDIA is met since ZRTP prevents a passive adversary with
      access to the media path from gaining access to keying material
      used to protect SRTP media packets.

      R-PASS-SIG is met since ZRTP prevents a passive adversary with
      access to the signaling path from gaining access to keying
      material used to protect SRTP media packets.

      R-SIG-MEDIA is met using the a=zrtp-hash SDP attribute in INVITEs
      and responses.

      R-ID-BINDING is met using the a=zrtp-hash SDP attribute
      (Section 8.1).

      R-ACT-ACT is met using the a=zrtp-hash SDP attribute in INVITEs
      and responses.

      R-BEST-SECURE is met since ZRTP utilizes the RTP/AVP profile and
      hence best effort SRTP in every case.




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 103]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


      R-OTHER-SIGNALING is met since ZRTP can utilize modes in which
      there is no dependency on the signaling path.

      R-RECORDING is met using the ZRTP Disclosure flag.

      R-TRANSCODER is met if the transcoder operates as a trusted MitM
      (i.e., a PBX).

      R-ALLOW-RTP is met due to ZRTP's best effort encryption.

15.  Security Considerations

   This document is all about securely keying SRTP sessions.  As such,
   security is discussed in every section.

   Most secure phones rely on a Diffie-Hellman exchange to agree on a
   common session key.  But since DH is susceptible to a MiTM attack, it
   is common practice to provide a way to authenticate the DH exchange.
   In some military systems, this is done by depending on digital
   signatures backed by a centrally managed PKI.  A decade of industry
   experience has shown that deploying centrally managed PKIs can be a
   painful and often futile experience.  PKIs are just too messy and
   require too much activation energy to get them started.  Setting up a
   PKI requires somebody to run it, which is not practical for an
   equipment provider.  A service provider, like a carrier, might
   venture down this path, but even then you have to deal with cross-
   carrier authentication, certificate revocation lists, and other
   complexities.  It is much simpler to avoid PKIs altogether,
   especially when developing secure commercial products.  It is
   therefore more common for commercial secure phones in the PSTN world
   to augment the DH exchange with a Short Authentication String (SAS)
   combined with a hash commitment at the start of the key exchange, to
   shorten the length of SAS material that must be read aloud.  No PKI
   is required for this approach to authenticating the DH exchange.  The
   AT&T TSD 3600, Eric Blossom's COMSEC secure phones [comsec],
   [PGPfone], and the GSMK CryptoPhone are all examples of products that
   took this simpler lightweight approach.  The main problem with this
   approach is inattentive users who may not execute the voice
   authentication procedure.

   Some questions have been raised about voice spoofing during the short
   authentication string (SAS) comparison.  But it is a mistake to think
   this is simply an exercise in voice impersonation (perhaps this could
   be called the "Rich Little" attack).  Although there are digital
   signal processing techniques for changing a person's voice, that does
   not mean a MiTM attacker can safely break into a phone conversation
   and inject his own SAS at just the right moment.  He doesn't know
   exactly when or in what manner the users will choose to read aloud



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 104]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   the SAS, or in what context they will bring it up or say it, or even
   which of the two speakers will say it, or if indeed they both will
   say it.  In addition, some methods of rendering the SAS involve using
   a list of words such as the PGP word list[Juola2], in a manner
   analogous to how pilots use the NATO phonetic alphabet to convey
   information.  This can make it even more complicated for the
   attacker, because these words can be worked into the conversation in
   unpredictable ways.  If the session also includes video (an
   increasingly common usage scenario), the MiTM may be further deterred
   by the difficulty of making the lips sync with the voice-spoofed SAS.
   The PGP word list is designed to make each word phonetically
   distinct, which also tends to create distinctive lip movements.
   Remember that the attacker places a very high value on not being
   detected, and if he makes a mistake, he doesn't get to do it over.

   A question has been raised regarding the safety of the SAS procedure
   for people who don't know each other's voices, because it may allow
   an attack from a MiTM even if he lacks voice impersonation
   capabilities.  This is not as much of a problem as it seems, because
   it isn't necessary that users recognize each other by their voice.
   It is only necessary that they detect that the voice used for the SAS
   procedure doesn't match the voice in the rest of the phone
   conversation.

   Special consideration must be given to secure phone calls with
   automated systems that cannot perform a verbal SAS comparison between
   two humans (e.g., a voice mail system).  If a well-functioning PKI is
   available to all parties, it is recommended that credentials be
   provisioned at the automated system sufficient to use one of the
   automatic MiTM detection mechanisms from Section 8.1.1 or
   Section 7.2.  Or rely on a previously established cached shared
   secret (pbxsecret or rs1 or both), backed by a human-executed SAS
   comparison during an initial call.  Note that it is worse than
   useless and absolutely unsafe to rely on a robot voice from the
   remote endpoint to compare the SAS, because a robot voice can be
   trivially forged by a MiTM.  However, a robot voice may be safe to
   use strictly locally for a different purpose.  A ZRTP user agent may
   render its locally computed SAS to the local user via a robot voice
   if no visual display is available, provided the user can readily
   determine that the robot voice is generated locally, not from the
   remote endpoint.

   A popular and field-proven approach to MiTM protection is used by SSH
   (Secure Shell) [RFC4251], which Peter Gutmann likes to call the "baby
   duck" security model.  SSH establishes a relationship by exchanging
   public keys in the initial session, when we assume no attacker is
   present, and this makes it possible to authenticate all subsequent
   sessions.  A successful MiTM attacker has to have been present in all



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 105]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   sessions all the way back to the first one, which is assumed to be
   difficult for the attacker.  ZRTP's key continuity features are
   actually better than SSH, at least for VoIP, for reasons described in
   Section 15.1.  All this is accomplished without resorting to a
   centrally managed PKI.

   We use an analogous baby duck security model to authenticate the DH
   exchange in ZRTP.  We don't need to exchange persistent public keys,
   we can simply cache a shared secret and re-use it to authenticate a
   long series of DH exchanges for secure phone calls over a long period
   of time.  If we verbally compare just one SAS, and then cache a
   shared secret for later calls to use for authentication, no new voice
   authentication rituals need to be executed.  We just have to remember
   we did one already.

   If one party ever loses this cached shared secret, it is no longer
   available for authentication of DH exchanges.  This cache mismatch
   situation is easy to detect by the party that still has a surviving
   shared secret cache entry.  If it fails to match, either there is a
   MiTM attack or one side has lost their shared secret cache entry.
   The user agent that discovers the cache mismatch must alert the user
   that a cache mismatch has been detected, and that he must do a verbal
   comparison of the SAS to distinguish if the mismatch is because of a
   MiTM attack or because of the other party losing her cache (normative
   language is in Section 4.3.2).  Voice confirmation is absolutely
   essential in this situation.  From that point on, the two parties
   start over with a new cached shared secret.  Then, they can go back
   to omitting the voice authentication on later calls.

   Precautions must be observed when using a trusted MiTM device such as
   a trusted PBX, as described in Section 7.3.  Make sure you really
   trust that this PBX will never be compromised before establishing it
   as a trusted MiTM, because it is in a position to wiretap calls for
   any phone that trusts it.  It is "licensed" to be in a position to
   wiretap.  You are safer to try to arrange the connection topology to
   route the media directly between the two ZRTP peers, not through a
   trusted PBX.  Real end-to-end encryption is preferred.

   The security of the SAS mechanism depends on the user verifying it
   verbally with his peer at the other endpoint.  There is some risk the
   user will not be so diligent and may ignore the SAS.  For a
   discussion on how users become habituated to security warnings in the
   PKI certificate world, see [Sunshine].  Part of the problems
   discussed in that paper are from the habituation syndrome common to
   most warning messages, and part of them are from the fact that users
   simply don't understand trust models.  Fortunately, ZRTP doesn't need
   a trust model to use the SAS mechanism, so it's easier for the user
   to grasp the idea of comparing the SAS verbally with the other party;



Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 106]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   it's easier than understanding a trust model, at least.  Also, the
   verbal comparison of the SAS gets both users involved, and they will
   notice a mismatch of the SAS.  Also, the ZRTP user agent will know
   when the SAS has been previously verified because of the SAS verified
   flag (V) (Section 7.1), and only ask the user to verify it when
   needed.  After it has been verified once, the key continuity features
   make it unnecessary to verify it again.

15.1.  Self-Healing Key Continuity Feature

   The key continuity features of ZRTP are analogous to those provided
   by SSH (Secure Shell) [RFC4251], but they differ in one respect.  SSH
   caches public signature keys that never change, and uses a permanent
   private signature key that must be guarded from disclosure.  If
   someone steals your SSH private signature key, they can impersonate
   you in all future sessions and can mount a successful MiTM attack any
   time they want.

   ZRTP caches symmetric key material used to compute secret session
   keys, and these values change with each session.  If someone steals
   your ZRTP shared secret cache, they only get one chance to mount a
   MiTM attack, in the very next session.  If they miss that chance, the
   retained shared secret is refreshed with a new value, and the window
   of vulnerability heals itself, which means they are locked out of any
   future opportunities to mount a MiTM attack.  This gives ZRTP a
   "self-healing" feature if any cached key material is compromised.

   A MiTM attacker must always be in the media path.  This presents a
   significant operational burden for the attacker in many VoIP usage
   scenarios, because being in the media path for every call is often
   harder than being in the signaling path.  This will likely create
   coverage gaps in the attacker's opportunities to mount a MiTM attack.
   ZRTP's self-healing key continuity features are better than SSH at
   exploiting any temporary gaps in MiTM attack opportunities.  Thus,
   ZRTP quickly recovers from any disclosure of cached key material.

   In systems that use a persistent private signature key, such as SSH,
   the stored signature key is usually protected from disclosure by
   encryption that requires a user-supplied high-entropy passphrase.
   This arrangement may be acceptable for a diligent user with a desktop
   computer sitting in an office with a full ASCII keyboard.  But it
   would be prohibitively inconvenient and unsafe to type a high-entropy
   passphrase on a mobile phone's numeric keypad while driving a car.
   Users will reject any scheme that requires the use of a passphrase on
   such a platform, which means mobile phones carry an elevated risk of
   compromise of stored key material, and thus would especially benefit
   from the self-healing aspects of ZRTP's key continuity features.




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 107]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   The infamous Debian OpenSSL weak key vulnerability [dsa-1571]
   (discovered and patched in May 2008) offers a real-world example of
   why ZRTP's self-healing scheme is a good way to do key continuity.
   The Debian bug resulted in the production of a lot of weak SSH (and
   TLS/SSL) keys, which continued to compromise security even after the
   bug had been patched.  In contrast, ZRTP's key continuity scheme adds
   new entropy to the cached key material with every call, so old
   deficiencies in entropy are washed away with each new session.

   It should be noted that the addition of shared secret entropy from
   previous sessions can extend the strength of the new session key to
   AES-256 levels, even if the new session uses Diffie-Hellman keys no
   larger than DH-3072 or ECDH-256, provided the cached shared secrets
   were initially established when the wiretapper was not present.  This
   is why AES-256 MAY be used with the smaller DH key sizes in
   Section 5.1.5, despite the key strength comparisons in Table 2 of
   [NIST-SP800-57-Part1].

   Caching shared symmetric key material is also less CPU intensive
   compared with using digital signatures, which may be important for
   low-power mobile platforms.

   Unlike the long-lived non-updated key material used by SSH, the
   dynamically updated shared secrets of ZRTP may lose sync if
   traditional backup/restore mechanisms are used.  This limitation is a
   consequence of the otherwise beneficial aspects of this approach to
   key continuity, and it is partially mitigated by ZRTP's built-in
   cache backup logic (Section 4.6.1).

16.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Bryce "Zooko" Wilcox-O'Hearn and
   Colin Plumb for their contributions to the design of this protocol.
   Also, thanks to Hal Finney, Viktor Krikun, Werner Dittmann, Dan Wing,
   Sagar Pai, David McGrew, Colin Perkins, Dan Harkins, David Black, Tim
   Polk, Richard Harris, Roni Even, Jon Peterson, and Robert Sparks for
   their helpful comments and suggestions.  Thanks to Lily Chen at NIST
   for her assistance in ensuring compliance with NIST SP800-56A and
   SP800-108.

   The use of one-way hash chains to key HMACs in ZRTP is similar to
   Adrian Perrig's TESLA protocol [TESLA].









Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 108]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


17.  References

17.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2104]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
              Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
              February 1997.

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

   [RFC3526]  Kivinen, T. and M. Kojo, "More Modular Exponential (MODP)
              Diffie-Hellman groups for Internet Key Exchange (IKE)",
              RFC 3526, May 2003.

   [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.

   [RFC4231]  Nystrom, M., "Identifiers and Test Vectors for HMAC-SHA-
              224, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384, and HMAC-SHA-512",
              RFC 4231, December 2005.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC4880]  Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., Shaw, D., and R.
              Thayer, "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 4880, November 2007.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, September 2007.

   [RFC5114]  Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "Additional Diffie-Hellman
              Groups for Use with IETF Standards", RFC 5114,
              January 2008.

   [RFC5479]  Wing, D., Fries, S., Tschofenig, H., and F. Audet,
              "Requirements and Analysis of Media Security Management
              Protocols", RFC 5479, April 2009.

   [RFC5759]  Solinas, J. and L. Zieglar, "Suite B Certificate and
              Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5759,
              January 2010.




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 109]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


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

   [FIPS-140-2-Annex-A]
              "Annex A: Approved Security Functions for FIPS PUB 140-2",
              NIST FIPS PUB 140-2 Annex A, January 2011.

   [FIPS-140-2-Annex-D]
              "Annex D: Approved Key Establishment Techniques for FIPS
              PUB 140-2", NIST FIPS PUB 140-2 Annex D, January 2011.

   [FIPS-180-3]
              "Secure Hash Standard (SHS)", NIST FIPS PUB 180-3, October
              2008.

   [FIPS-186-3]
              "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", NIST FIPS PUB 186-
              3, June 2009.

   [FIPS-197] "Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)", NIST FIPS PUB
              197, November 2001.

   [FIPS-198-1]
              "The Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC)", NIST
              FIPS PUB 198-1, July 2008.

   [NIST-SP800-38A]
              Dworkin, M., "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of
              Operation", NIST Special Publication 800-38A, 2001
              Edition.

   [NIST-SP800-56A]
              Barker, E., Johnson, D., and M. Smid, "Recommendation for
              Pair-Wise Key Establishment Schemes Using Discrete
              Logarithm Cryptography", NIST Special Publication 800-
              56A Revision 1, March 2007.

   [NIST-SP800-90]
              Barker, E. and J. Kelsey, "Recommendation for Random
              Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit
              Generators", NIST Special Publication 800-90 (Revised),
              March 2007.

   [NIST-SP800-108]
              Chen, L., "Recommendation for Key Derivation Using
              Pseudorandom Functions", NIST Special Publication 800-
              108, October 2009.




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 110]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   [NSA-Suite-B]
              "NSA Suite B Cryptography", NSA Information Assurance
              Directorate, NSA Suite B Cryptography.

   [NSA-Suite-B-Guide-56A]
              "Suite B Implementer's Guide to NIST SP 800-56A", Suite B
              Implementer's Guide to NIST SP 800-56A, 28 July 2009.

   [TwoFish]  Schneier, B., Kelsey, J., Whiting, D., Hall, C., and N.
              Ferguson, "Twofish: A 128-Bit Block Cipher", June 1998,
              <http://www.schneier.com/paper-twofish-paper.html>.

   [Skein]    Ferguson, N., Lucks, S., Schneier, B., Whiting, D.,
              Bellare, M., Kohno, T., Callas, J., and J. Walker, "The
              Skein Hash Function Family, Version 1.3 - 1 Oct 2010", <ht
              tp://www.skein-hash.info/sites/default/files/
              skein1.3.pdf>.

   [pgpwordlist]
              "PGP Word List", December 2010, <http://en.wikipedia.org/
              w/index.php?title=PGP_word_list&oldid=400752943>.

17.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
              November 1990.

   [RFC1981]  McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
              for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3514]  Bellovin, S., "The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header",
              RFC 3514, April 1 2003.

   [RFC3824]  Peterson, J., Liu, H., Yu, J., and B. Campbell, "Using
              E.164 numbers with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              RFC 3824, June 2004.

   [RFC4086]  Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
              Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.

   [RFC4251]  Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "The Secure Shell (SSH)
              Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, January 2006.




Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 111]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   [RFC4474]  Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for
              Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, August 2006.

   [RFC4475]  Sparks, R., Hawrylyshen, A., Johnston, A., Rosenberg, J.,
              and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
              Torture Test Messages", RFC 4475, May 2006.

   [RFC4567]  Arkko, J., Lindholm, F., Naslund, M., Norrman, K., and E.
              Carrara, "Key Management Extensions for Session
              Description Protocol (SDP) and Real Time Streaming
              Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 4567, July 2006.

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

   [RFC4579]  Johnston, A. and O. Levin, "Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP) Call Control - Conferencing for User Agents",
              BCP 119, RFC 4579, August 2006.

   [RFC5117]  Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", RFC 5117,
              January 2008.

   [RFC5245]  Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
              (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
              Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
              April 2010.

   [RFC5764]  McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
              Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, May 2010.

   [RFC5869]  Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand
              Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869, May 2010.

   [RFC6090]  McGrew, D., Igoe, K., and M. Salter, "Fundamental Elliptic
              Curve Cryptography Algorithms", RFC 6090, February 2011.

   [SRTP-AES-GCM]
              McGrew, D., "AES-GCM and AES-CCM Authenticated Encryption
              in Secure RTP (SRTP)", Work in Progress, January 2011.

   [ECC-OpenPGP]
              Jivsov, A., "ECC in OpenPGP", Work in Progress,
              March 2011.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 112]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   [VBR-AUDIO]
              Perkins, C. and J. Valin, "Guidelines for the use of
              Variable Bit Rate Audio with Secure RTP", Work
              in Progress, December 2010.

   [SIP-IDENTITY]
              Wing, D. and H. Kaplan, "SIP Identity using Media Path",
              Work in Progress, February 2008.

   [NIST-SP800-57-Part1]
              Barker, E., Barker, W., Burr, W., Polk, W., and M. Smid,
              "Recommendation for Key Management - Part 1: General
              (Revised)", NIST Special Publication 800-57 - Part
              1 Revised March 2007.

   [NIST-SP800-131A]
              Barker, E. and A. Roginsky, "Recommendation for the
              Transitioning of Cryptographic Algorithms and Key
              Lengths", NIST Special Publication 800-131A January 2011.

   [SHA-3]    "Cryptographic Hash Algorithm Competition", NIST Computer
              Security Resource Center Cryptographic Hash Project.

   [Skein1]   "The Skein Hash Function Family - Web site",
              <http://www.skein-hash.info/>.

   [XEP-0262] Saint-Andre, P., "Use of ZRTP in Jingle RTP Sessions", XSF
              XEP 0262, August 2010.

   [Ferguson] Ferguson, N. and B. Schneier, "Practical Cryptography",
              Wiley Publishing, 2003.

   [Juola1]   Juola, P. and P. Zimmermann, "Whole-Word Phonetic
              Distances and the PGPfone Alphabet", Proceedings of the
              International Conference of Spoken Language Processing
              (ICSLP-96), 1996.

   [Juola2]   Juola, P., "Isolated Word Confusion Metrics and the
              PGPfone Alphabet", Proceedings of New Methods in Language
              Processing, 1996.

   [PGPfone]  Zimmermann, P., "PGPfone", July 1996,
              <http://philzimmermann.com/docs/pgpfone10b7.pdf>.

   [Zfone]    Zimmermann, P., "Zfone Project", 2006,
              <http://www.philzimmermann.com/zfone>.





Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 113]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


   [Byzantine]
              "The Two Generals' Problem", March 2011, <http://
              en.wikipedia.org/w/
              index.php?title=Two_Generals%27_Problem&oldid=417855753>.

   [TESLA]    Perrig, A., Canetti, R., Tygar, J., and D. Song, "The
              TESLA Broadcast Authentication Protocol", October 2002, <h
              ttp://www.ece.cmu.edu/~adrian/projects/tesla-cryptobytes/
              tesla-cryptobytes.pdf>.

   [comsec]   Blossom, E., "The VP1 Protocol for Voice Privacy Devices
              Version 1.2", <http://www.comsec.com/vp1-protocol.pdf>.

   [Wright1]  Wright, C., Ballard, L., Coull, S., Monrose, F., and G.
              Masson, "Spot me if you can: Uncovering spoken phrases in
              encrypted VoIP conversations", Proceedings of the 2008
              IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2008,
              <http://cs.jhu.edu/~cwright/oakland08.pdf>.

   [Sunshine] Sunshine, J., Egelman, S., Almuhimedi, H., Atri, N., and
              L. Cranor, "Crying Wolf: An Empirical Study of SSL Warning
              Effectiveness", USENIX Security Symposium 2009,
              <http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/sslwarnings.pdf>.

   [dsa-1571] "Debian Security Advisory - OpenSSL predictable random
              number generator", May 2008,
              <http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571>.
























Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 114]

RFC 6189                          ZRTP                        April 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Philip Zimmermann
   Zfone Project
   Santa Cruz, California

   EMail: prz@mit.edu
   URI:   http://philzimmermann.com


   Alan Johnston (editor)
   Avaya
   St. Louis, MO  63124

   EMail: alan.b.johnston@gmail.com


   Jon Callas
   Apple, Inc.

   EMail: jon@callas.org






























Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                   [Page 115]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/