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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 5683

Network Working Group                           A. Brusilovsky
Internet-Draft                                  I. Faynberg
Expires: September 2009                         Z. Zeltsan
                                                Alcatel-Lucent

                                                S. Patel
                                                Google, Inc.

                                                April 2009

     Password-Authenticated Diffie-Hellman Exchange (PAK)

                   draft-brusilovsky-pak-10.txt



Status of this Memo

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

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

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

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


   This Internet-Draft will expire in September, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.



Brusilovsky                                                       [Page 1]


Internet Draft           draft-brusilovsky-pak-10.txt         April 2009


Abstract

   This document proposes to add mutual authentication, based on
   human-memorizable password, to the basic unauthenticated Diffie-Hellman
   key exchange. The proposed algorithm is called Password-authenticated
   Key exchange (PAK). PAK allows two parties to authenticate themselves
   while performing the Diffie-Hellman exchange.

   The protocol is secure against all passive and active attacks.
   In particular, it does not allow either type of attackers to obtain any
   information that would enable an off-line dictionary attack on the
   password. PAK provides Forward Secrecy.

Table of Contents


   1.  Introduction
   2.  Conventions
   3.  Password-Authenticated Key exchange
   4.  Selection of parameters
   4.1 General considerations
   4.2 OTASP and WLAN Diffie-Hellman parameters and key expansion functions
   5.  Security considerations
   6.  IANA considerations
   7.  Acknowledgments
   8.  References
   8.1 Normative references
   8.2 Informative references
   Authors' and contributors' addresses



1.  Introduction


    PAK has the following advantages:

    -  It provides a secure authenticated key exchange protocol.
    -  It is secure against offline dictionary attacks when passwords are used.
    -  It ensures Forward Secrecy.
    -  It is proved to be as secure as the Diffie-Hellman solution.

    The PAK protocol [BMP00], [MP05], [X.1035] has been proven to be as secure
    as the Diffie-Hellman [RFC2631], [DH76] in the random oracle model [BR93]. That is,
    PAK retains its security when used with low-entropy passwords. Therefore,
    it can be seamlessly integrated into existing applications, requiring
    secure authentication based on such low-entropy shared secrets.

2.  Conventions

    - A is an identity of Alice
    - B is an identity of Bob
    - Ra is a secret random exponent selected by A
    - Rb is a secret random exponent selected by B
    - Xab denotes a value (X presumably computed by A) as derived by B
    - Yba denotes a value (Y presumably computed by B) as derived by A
    - a mod b denotes the least non-negative remainder when a is divided by b;
    - Hi(u) denotes an agreed-on function (e.g., based on SHA-1, SHA-256,
      etc.) computed over a string u; The various H() act as independent random
      functions. H1(u) and H2(u) are the key derivation functions.
      H3(u), H4(u), and H5(u) are the hash functions.
    - s|t denotes concatenation of the strings s and t;
    - ^ denotes exponentiation;
    - multiplication, division, and exponentiation are performed over (Zp)*;
      in other words:

      1) a*b always means a*b (mod p)
      2) a/b always means a * x (mod p), where x is the multiplicative inverse
         of b modulo p
      3) a^b means a^b (mod p).

3.  Password Authenticated Key exchange

    Diffie-Hellman key agreement requires that both the sender and
    recipient of a message create their own secret random numbers and
    exchange the exponentiation of their respective numbers.

    PAK has two parties, Alice (A) and Bob (B), sharing a secret password PW
    that satisfies the following conditions:
    - H1(A|B|PW) != 0
    - H2(A|B|PW) != 0.
    The global Diffie-Hellman publicly-known constants, a prime p and a
    generator g, are carefully selected so that:

    Brusilovsky                                                       [Page 2]


    Internet Draft           draft-brusilovsky-pak-10.txt         April 2009


    1.  A safe prime p is large enough to make the computation of discrete
        logarithms infeasible and

    2.  Powers of g modulo p cover the entire range of p-1 integers from 1 to
        p-1. (References demonstrate working example of selections).

      Initially, Alice (A) selects a secret random exponent Ra and computes g^Ra;
      Bob (B) selects a secret random exponent Rb and computes g^Rb.
      For efficiency purposes, short exponents could be used for Ra and Rb
      provided they have a certain minimum size.  Then:

      - A --> B: {A, X = H1(A|B|PW)*(g^Ra)} (The above precondition on PW
                 ensures that X != 0);

            Bob
              receives Q (presumably Q = X), verifies that Q != 0 (if Q = 0,
              Bob aborts the procedure);
              divides Q by H1(A|B|PW) to get Xab, the recovered value of g^Ra;


      - B --> A:  {Y = H2(A|B|PW)*(g^Rb), S1 = H3(A|B|PW|Xab|g^Rb|(Xab)^Rb)}
                  (The above precondition on PW ensures that Y != 0)


            Alice
              verifies that Y != 0;
              divides Y by H2(A|B|PW) to get Yba, the recovered value of g^Rb
              and computes S1' = H3(A|B|PW|g^Ra|Yba|(Yba)^Ra);
              authenticates Bob by checking whether S1' equals the received S1;
              if authenticated, then sets key K = H5(A|B|PW|g^Ra|Yba|(Yba)^Ra)




      Brusilovsky                                                       [Page 3]


      Internet Draft           draft-brusilovsky-pak-10.txt         April 2009



      - A --> B:  S2 = H4(A|B|PW|g^Ra|Yba|(Yba)^Ra)


            Bob
              Computes S2' = H4(A|B|PW|Xab|g^Rb|(Xab)^Rb) and
              authenticates Alice by checking whether S2' equals the received S2;
              if authenticated then sets K = H5(A|B|PW|Xab|g^Rb|(Xab)^Rb)

    If any of the above verifications fails, the protocol halts; otherwise,
    both parties have authenticated each other and established the key.


4.  Selection of parameters

    This section provides guidance on selection of the PAK parameters. First, it
    addresses general considerations, then it reports on specific implementations.

4.1 General considerations

    In general implementations, the parameters must be selected to meet algorithm
    requirements of [BMP00].

4.2 OTASP and WLAN Diffie-Hellman parameters and key expansion functions

    [OTASP], [TIA 683], and [WLAN] pre-set public parameters p and g to their "published"
    values. This is necessary to protect against an attacker sending bogus p
    and g values tricking the legitimate user to engage in improper
    Diffie-Hellman exponentiation and leaking some information about the
    password.


    According to [OTASP], [TIA 683], and [WLAN], g shall be set to 00001101, and p to the
    following 1024-bit prime number (Most-significant-bit first):

    0xFFFFFFFF     0xFFFFFFFF      0xC90FDAA2      0x2168C234      0xC4C6628B
    0x80DC1CD1     0x29024E08      0x8A67CC74      0x020BBEA6      0x3B139B22
    0x514A0879     0x8E3404DD      0xEF9519B3      0xCD3A431B      0x302B0A6D
    0xF25F1437     0x4FE1356D      0x6D51C245      0xE485B576      0x625E7EC6
    0xF44C42E9     0xA637ED6B      0x0BFF5CB6      0xF406B7ED      0xEE386BFB
    0x5A899FA5     0xAE9F2411      0x7C4B1FE6      0x49286651      0xECE65381
    0xFFFFFFFF     0xFFFFFFFF


    In addition, if short exponents [MP05] are used for Diffie-Hellman
    parameters Ra and Rb, then they should have a minimum size of 384 bits. The independent
    random functions H1 and H2 should each output 1152 bits assuming prime p is 1024 bits
    long and session keys K are 128 bits long. H3, H4, and H5 each output 128 bits.
    More information on instantiating random functions using hash functions
    can be found in [BR93]. We use the FIPS 180 SHA-1 hashing function below
    to instantiate the random function as done in [WLAN], however, SHA-256
    can also be used:


    H1(z): SHA-1(1|1|z) mod 2^128 | SHA-1(1|2|z) mod 2^128 |. . .| SHA-1(1|9|z)
    mod 2^128

    H2(z): SHA-1(2|1|z) mod 2^128 | SHA-1(2|2|z) mod 2^128 |. . .| SHA-1(2|9|z)
    mod 2^128


Brusilovsky                                                       [Page 4]


Internet Draft           draft-brusilovsky-pak-10.txt         April 2009


    H3(z): SHA-1(3|len(z)|z|z) mod 2^128
    H4(z): SHA-1(4|len(z)|z|z) mod 2^128
    H5(z): SHA-1(5|len(z)|z|z) mod 2^128


    In order to create 1152 output bits for H1 and H2, nine calls to SHA-1
    are made and the 128 least-significant bits of each output are used. The input
    payload of each call to SHA-1 consists of:

    a) 32 bits of function type which for H1 is set to 1 and for H2 is set to 2;
    b) a 32 bit counter value, which is incremented from 1 to 9 for each call to
       SHA-1;
    c) the argument z [for (A|B|PW)].

    The functions H3, H4, and H5 require only one call to the SHA-1 hashing
    function and their respective payloads consist of:

    a) 32 bits of function type (e.g. 3 for H3);
    b) a 32 bit value for the bit length of the argument z;
    c) the actual argument repeated twice.

    Finally, the 128 least-significant bits of the output are used.


5.  Security considerations

    Those are as follows:

    - Identifiers
    Any protocol that uses PAK must specify a method for producing a single
    representation of identity strings.

    - Shared secret
    PAK involves the use of a shared secret. Protection of the shared
    values and managing (limiting) their exposure over time is essential, and
    it can be achieved using well-known security policies and measures.
    If a single secret is shared among more than two entities (e.g., Alice, Bob, and
    Mallory), then Mallory can represent himself as Alice to Bob without Bob being
    any the wiser.

    - Selection of Diffie-Hellman parameters
    The parameters, p and g, must be carefully selected in order not to
    compromise the shared secret. Only previously agreed upon values for
    parameters p and g should be used in the PAK protocol. This is necessary to
    protect against an attacker sending bogus p and g values and thus tricking
    the other communicating party in an improper Diffie-Hellman exponentiation.
    Both parties also need to randomly select a new exponent each time the key
    agreement protocol is executed. If both parties re-use the same values,
    then Forward Secrecy property is lost.
    In addition, if short exponents Ra and Rb are used then they should have a
    minimum size of 384 bits (assuming that 128-bit session keys are used).
    Historically, the developers, who strived for 128-bit security (and thus
    selected 256-bit exponents)  added 128 bits to the exponents to ensure the
    security reductions proofs. This should explain how an "odd" length of 384 has
    been arrived at.

    - Protection against attacks
    a) There is a potential attack, the so-called discrete logarithm attack on the
    multiplicative group of congruencies modulo p, in which an adversary can
    construct a table of discrete logarithms to be used as a "dictionary". A
    sufficiently large prime, p, must be selected to protect against such an
    attack. A proper 1024-bit value for p and an appropriate value for g are
    published in [WLAN] and [TIA 683]. For the moment, this is what has been
    implemented; however, a larger prime (i.e., one that is 2048-bit long
    or even larger) will definitely provide better  protection. It is important
    to note that once this is done, the generator must be changed, too, so this
    task must be approached with extreme care.
    b) An on-line password attack can be launched by an attacker by repeatedly
    guessing the password and  attempting to authenticate. The implementers of
    PAK should consider employing mechanisms (such as lockouts) for preventing
    such attacks.

    - Recommendations on H() functions
    The independent random functions H1 and H2 should output 1152 bits each,
    assuming prime p is 1024 bits long and session keys K are 128 bits long. The
    random functions H3, H4, and H5 should output 128 bits.


An example of secure implementation of PAK is provided in [Plan 9].


Brusilovsky                                                       [Page 5]


Internet Draft           draft-brusilovsky-pak-10.txt         April 2009

6.  IANA considerations

    No IANA considerations at this time

7.  Acknowledgments

    The authors are grateful for the thoughtful comments received from Shehryar
    Qutub, Yaron Sheffer, and Ray Perlner. Special thanks go to Alfred Hoenes,
    Tim Polk, and Jim Schaad for the careful reviews and invaluable help in
    preparing the final version of this document.


8.  References

8.1 Normative references

    [X.1035]    ITU-T Recommendation X.1035 (2007), Password-authenticated key exchange
                (PAK) protocol

    [TIA 683]   Over-the-Air Service Provisioning of Mobile Stations in
                Spread Spectrum Systems, TIA TIA-683-D

8.2 Informative references


    [Plan 9]    Plan 9 ? An open source operating system, which implements PAK
                http://netlib.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/

    [BMP00]     V. Boyko, P. MacKenzie, S. Patel, Provably secure password
                authentication and key exchange using Diffie-Hellman,
                Proc. of Eurocrypt 2000.

    [BR93]      M. Bellare and P. Rogaway, Random Oracles are Practical:
                A Paradigm for Designing Efficient Protocols, Proc. Of the
                fifth annual conference on computer and communications
                security, 1993.

    [DH76]      W. Diffie and M.E. Hellman, New directions in cryptography,
                IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 22 (1976), 644-654.

    [FIPS180]   NIST Federal Information Processing Standards, Publication
                FIPS 180-3, 2008

    [IEEE1363]  IEEE P1363.2, April 24, 2002, The PAK suite: Protocols for
                Password-Authentication Key Exchange, P. MacKenzie

    [MP05]      P. MacKenzie, S. Patel, Hard Bits of the Discrete Log with
                Applications to Password Authentication, CT-RSA 2005.

    [OTASP]     Over-the-Air Service Provisioning of Mobile Stations in Spread
                Spectrum Systems, 3GPP2 C.S0016-C v. 1.0 5, 3GPP2, 10/2004.

    [RFC2631]   IETF RFC 2631, E. Rescorla, Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement
                Method, Standards track,1999

    [WLAN]      Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) Interworking, 3GPP2 X.S0028-0,
                v.1.0, 3GPP2, 4/2005




Brusilovsky                                                       [Page 6]


Internet Draft           draft-brusilovsky-pak-10.txt         April 2009



Authors' and Contributors' Addresses

    Alec Brusilovsky
    Alcatel-Lucent
    Room 9B-226, 1960 Lucent Lane
    Naperville, IL  60566-7217  U S
    Tel: +1 630 979 5490
    Email: abrusilovsky@alcatel-lucent.com

    Igor Faynberg
    Alcatel-Lucent
    Room 2D-144, 600 Mountain Avenue
    Murray Hill, NJ 07974
    Tel: +1 908 582 2626
    Email: faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com

    Sarvar Patel
    Google, Inc.
    76 Ninth Avenue
    New York, NY 10011
    Tel: +1 212 565 5907
    Email: sarvar@google.com

    Zachary Zeltsan
    Alcatel-Lucent
    Room 2D-150,  600 Mountain Avenue
    Murray Hill, NJ 07974
    Tel: +1 908 582 2359
    Email: zeltsan@alcatel-lucent.com


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.






























Brusilovsky                                                       [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/