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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2

Internet Engineering Task Force                               S. Fluhrer
Internet-Draft                                                 D. McGrew
Intended status: Informational                             P. Kampanakis
Expires: March 13, 2016                                    Cisco Systems
                                                      September 10, 2015


  An Extension for Postquantum Security using Preshared Keys for IKEv2
                       draft-fluhrer-qr-ikev2-00

Abstract

   This document describes an extension of IKEv2 to allow it to be
   resistant to a Quantum Computer, by using preshared keys

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 13, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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.





Fluhrer, et al.          Expires March 13, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       Postquantum Security for IKEv2       September 2015


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Computing SKEYSEED  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Verifying preshared key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Child SAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix A.  Discussion and Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   It is an open question whether or not it is feasible to build a
   quantum computer, but if it is, many of the cryptographic algorithms
   and protocols currently in use would be insecure.  A quantum computer
   would be able to solve DH and ECDH problems, and this would imply
   that the security of existing IKEv2 systems would be compromised.
   IKEv1 when used with preshared keys does not share this
   vulnerability, because those keys are one of the inputs to the key
   derivation function.  If the preshared key have sufficient entropy,
   then the resulting system is believed to be quantum resistant.

   This document describes a way to extend IKEv2 to have a similar
   property; assuming that the two end systems share a long secret key,
   then the resulting exchange is quantum resistant, that is, believed
   to be invulnerable to an attacker with a Quantum Computer.  By
   bringing postquantum security to IKEv2, this note removes the need to
   use an obsolete version of the Internet Key Exchange in order to
   achieve that security goal.

   The general idea is that we add an additional secret that is shared
   between the initiator and the responder; this secret is in addition
   to the authentication method that is already provided within IKEv2.
   We stir in this secret when generating the IKE keys (along with the
   parameters that IKEv2 normally uses); this secret adds quantum
   resistance to the exchange.

   It is important to minimize the changes to IKEv2.  The existing
   mechanisms to do authentication and key exchange remain in place
   (that is, we continue to do (EC)DH, and potentially a PKI
   authentication if configured).  This does not replace the
   authentication checks that the protocol does; instead, it is done as
   a parallel check.




Fluhrer, et al.          Expires March 13, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       Postquantum Security for IKEv2       September 2015


1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Assumptions

   We assume that each IKE peer (both the initiator and the responder)
   has an optional Postquantum Preshared Key (PPK) (potentially on a
   per-peer basis), and also has a configurable flag that determines
   whether this postquantum preshared key is mandatory.  This preshared
   key is independent of the preshared key (if any) that the IKEv2
   protocol uses to perform authentication.

   In addition, we assume that the initiator knows which PPK to use with
   the peer it is initiating to (for instance, if it knows the peer,
   then it can determine which PPK will be used).

3.  Exchanges

   If the initiator has a configured postquantum preshared key (whether
   or not it is optional), then it will include a vendor ID payload in
   its initial exchange as follows:

   Initiator                       Responder
   ------------------------------------------------------------------
   HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni, VID  --->

   The contents of this vendor ID payload MUST consist of:

   o  16 byte fixed vendor id

   o  16 random bytes

   o  16 bytes of AES256(HMAC_SHA256(ppk, "A"), random_bytes)

   The 16 byte fixed vendor id consists of:

              0x26, 0x9c, 0x82, 0x00, 0x36, 0x8a, 0xf5, 0x3b,
              0x85, 0xd9, 0xde, 0x63, 0x6b, 0x3b, 0x29, 0xa4

            this is the MD5 of "Quantum Resistant Secret Hash".

   That is, we use HMAC_SHA256(ppk, "A") as the 256 bit AES key to
   encrypt the 16 random bytes (in ECB mode), where "A" is a string
   consisting of a single 0x41 octet.




Fluhrer, et al.          Expires March 13, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       Postquantum Security for IKEv2       September 2015


   When the responder receives this vendor ID, it scans through its list
   of configured postquantum preshared keys, and determines which one it
   is (by computing AES256(HMAC(ppk, "A"), Nonce) and comparing that
   value to the 16 bytes within the payload.

   If the responder finds a value that matches the payload for a
   particular PPK, that indicates that the intiator and responder share
   a PPK and can make use of this extension.  Upon finding such a
   preshared key, the responder includes a vendor ID payload with the
   response:

   Initiator                       Responder
   ------------------------------------------------------------------
                             <--- HDR, SAr1, Ker, Nr, [CERTREQ], VID

   The contents of this vendor ID payload MUST consist of:

   o  16 byte fixed vendor id

   The 16 byte fixed vendor id consists of:

              0x26, 0x9c, 0x82, 0x00, 0x36, 0x8a, 0xf5, 0x3b,
              0x85, 0xd9, 0xde, 0x63, 0x6b, 0x3b, 0x29, 0xa4

            this is the MD5 of "Quantum Resistant Secret Hash".

   The random value and its encryption are not included in the VID this
   time.  This VID serves as a postquantum preshared key confirmation.

   If the responder does not find such a preshared key, then it MAY
   continue with the protocol without including a vendor ID (if it is
   configured to not have mandatory preshared keys), or it MAY abort the
   exchange (if it configured to make preshared keys mandatory).

   When the initiator receives the response, it KUST check for the
   presence of the vendor ID.  If it receives one, it marks the SA as
   using the configured preshared key; if it does not receive one, it
   MAY either abort the exchange (if the preshared key was configured as
   mandatory), or it MAY continue without using the preshared key (if
   the preshared key was configured as optional).

3.1.  Computing SKEYSEED

   When it comes time to generate the keying material during the initial
   Exchange, the implementation (both the initiator and the responder)
   checks to see if there was an agreed-upon preshared key.  If there
   was, then both sides use this alternative formula:




Fluhrer, et al.          Expires March 13, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       Postquantum Security for IKEv2       September 2015


    SKEYSEED = prf(HMAC_SHA256(ppk, Ni) | HMAC_SHA256(ppk, Nr), g^ir)
    (SK_d | SK_ai | SK_ar | SK_ei | SK_er | SK_pi | SK_pr) =
          prf+(SKEYSEED, HMAC_SHA256(ppk, Ni) | HMAC_SHA256(ppk, Nr) |
                            SPIi | SPIr)

   where ppk is the postquantum preshared key, Ni, Nr are the nonces
   exchanged in the IKEv2 exchange (and not the nonces used in the
   vendor id;apos;s), HMAC_SHA256(a, b) uses 'a' as the key, and 'b' as
   the text, and g^ir is the Diffie-Hellman shared secret.

3.2.  Verifying preshared key

   Once both the initiator and the responder have exchanged identities,
   they both double-check with their policy database to verify that they
   were configured to use those preshared keys when negotiating with the
   peer.  If they are not, they MUST abort the exchange.

3.3.  Child SAs

   When you create a child SA, the initiator and the responder will
   transform the nonces using the same ppk as they used during the
   original IKE SA negotiation.  That is, they will use one of the
   alternative derivations (depending on whether an optional Diffie-
   Hellman was included):

    KEYMAT = prf+(SK_d, HMAC_SHA256(ppk, Ni) | HMAC_SHA256(ppk, Nr))

   or

    KEYMAT = prf+(SK_d, g^ir (new) |
                          HMAC_SHA256(ppk, Ni) | HMAC_SHA256(ppk, Nr))

   When you rekey an IKE SA (generating a fresh SKEYSEED), the initiator
   and the responder will transform the nonces using the same ppk as
   they used during the original IKE SA negotiation.  That is, they will
   use the alternate derivation:

    SKEYSEED = prf( SK_d (old), g^ir (new) |
                          HMAC_SHA256(ppk, Ni) | HMAC_SHA256(ppk, Nr))
    (SK_d | SK_ai | SK_ar | SK_ei | SK_er | SK_pi | SK_pr) =
          prf+(SKEYSEED, HMAC_SHA256(ppk, Ni) | HMAC_SHA256(ppk, Nr) |
                            SPIi | SPIr)

4.  Security Considerations

   Quantum computers are able to perform Grover's algorithm; that
   effectively halves the size of a symmetric key.  Because of this, the
   user SHOULD ensure that the postquantum preshared key used has at



Fluhrer, et al.          Expires March 13, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       Postquantum Security for IKEv2       September 2015


   least 256 bits of entropy, in order to provide a 128 bit security
   level.

   In addition, the policy SHOULD be set to negotiate only quantum-
   resistant symmetric algorithms (AES-256, SHA-256 or better).

   The random values within the vendor ID are there to prevent anyone
   from deducing whether two different exchanges use the same ppk
   values.  To prevent such a leakage, every exchange SHOULD use a fresh
   16 byte random value.  Violating this places the anonymity at risk;
   however it has no other security implication.

5.  Normative References

   [AES]      National Institute of Technology, "Specification for the
              Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)", 2001, <FIPS 197>.

   [RFC2104]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
              Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7296]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
              Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
              (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.

Appendix A.  Discussion and Rationale

   The idea behind this is that while a Quantum Computer can easily
   reconstruct the shared secret of an (EC)DH exchange, they cannot as
   easily recover a secret from a symmetric exchange this makes the
   SKEYSEED depend on both the symmetric ppk, and also the Diffie-
   Hellman exchange.  If we assume that the attacker knows everything
   except the ppk during the key exchange, and there are 2**n plausible
   ppk's, then a Quantum Computer (using Grover's algorithm) would take
   O(2**(n/2)) time to recover the ppk.  So, even if the (EC)DH can be
   trivially solved, the attacker still can't recover any key material
   unless they can find the ppk, and that's too difficult if the ppk has
   enough entropy (say, 256 bits).

   Another goal of this protocol is to minimize the number of changes
   within the IKEv2 protocol, and in particular, within the cryptography



Fluhrer, et al.          Expires March 13, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       Postquantum Security for IKEv2       September 2015


   of IKEv2.  By limiting our changes to vendor id's, and translating
   the nonces, it is hoped that this would be implementable, even on
   systems that perform much of the IKEv2 processing is in hardware.

   A third goal was to be friendly to incremental deployment in
   operational networks, for which we might not want to have a global
   shared key, and also if we're rolling this out incrementally.  This
   is why we specifically try to allow the ppk to be dependent on the
   peer, and why we allow the ppk to be configured as optional.

   A fourth goal was to avoid violating any of the security goals of
   IKEv2.  One such goal is anonymity; that someone listening into the
   exchanges cannot easily determine who is negotiating with whom.

   The third and fourth goals are in partial conflict.  In order to
   achieve postquantum security, we need to stir in the ppk when the
   keys are computed, however the keys are computed before we know who
   we're talking to (and so which ppk we should use).  And, we can't
   just tell the other side which ppk to use, as we might use different
   ppk's for different peers, and so that would violate the anonymity
   goal.  If we just (for example) included a hash of the ppk, someone
   listening in could easily tell when we're using the same ppk for
   different exchanges, and thus deduce that the systems are related.
   The compromise we selected was to include enough information that
   someone who knows the ppk can recognize it, however someone who
   doesn't know the ppk learns nothing.  However, one issue with this is
   that the responder needs to do a linear scan over all ppk's it has
   been configured with; this is not ideal, but it's the best compromise
   we can come up with.  And, the current protocol (of having the
   initiator send an R, Enc(R) pair in the vendor id) doesn't allow
   anyone who doesn't know the vendor id have no information whether two
   exchanges use the same ppk or not.

   An alternative approach to solve this problem without a linear scan
   would be to do a normal (non-QR) IKEv2 exchange, and when the two
   sides obtain identities, see if they need to be QR, and if so, create
   an immediate IKEv2 child SA (using the ppk).  One issue with this is
   that someone with a quantum computer could deduce the identities
   used.

   A slightly different approach to try to make this even more friendly
   to IKEv2-based cryptographic hardware might be to use invertible
   cryptography when we present the nonces to the kdf.  The idea here is
   in case we have IKEv2 hardware that insists on selecting its own
   nonces (and so we won't be able to give a difference nonce to the
   KDF); instead, we encrypt the nonce that we send (and decrypt the
   nonce that we get).  Of course, this means that the responder will
   need to figure out which ppk we're using up front (based on the



Fluhrer, et al.          Expires March 13, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       Postquantum Security for IKEv2       September 2015


   vendor id); we're not sure if this idea would be a net improvement
   (especially since the transform we're proposing now is
   cryptographically secure and simple).

   The reasoning behind the cryptography used: the values we use in the
   vendor id's are cryptographically independent of the values used
   during the SKEYSEED generation (because HMAC_SHA256(ppk, A) is
   independent of HMAC_SHA256(ppk, B) if A and B are different strings
   (and as any real nonce must be longer than a single byte, there is
   never a collision between that and \quot;A\quot;.  This independent
   stems from the assumption that SHA-256 is a secure MAC.  This was
   chosen over more ad hoc designs where the two uses of the ppk would
   appear to be independent (but that doesn't follow from any standard
   cryptographical assumption.  The method of encoding the ppk within
   the vendor id (using AES-256) was chosen as it met two goals:

   o  Anonymity; given A, AES256_K1(A), B, AES256_K2(B), it's fairly
      obvious that gives someone (even if they have a quantum computer)
      no clue about whether K1==K2 (unless either A==B or AES256_K1(A)==
      AES256_K2(B); both highly unlikely events if A and B are chosen
      randomly).

   o  Performance during the linear search; a server could preexpand the
      AES keys, and so comparing a potential ppk against an vendor id
      from the initiator would amount to performing a single AES block
      encryption and then doing a 16 byte comparison.

   The first goal is considered important; one of the goals of IKEv2 is
   to provide anonymity.  The second is considered important because the
   linear scan directly affects scalability.  While this draft requires
   a linear scan over all ppk's known by the responder (it is unknown
   how to avoid this without leaking when the same ppk is being
   negotiated by two different exchanges), this use of AES makes this
   linear scan as cheap as possible.  We don't know how to avoid the
   linear scan, so making the scan cheap (while not compromising on
   security) was considered important.

   One thing that this draft does not address is algorithm agility; it
   specifies that we'll use HMAC-SHA256 and AES256, and does not allow
   any alternatives.  This might change in a latter version of this
   draft.

Authors' Addresses

   Scott Fluhrer
   Cisco Systems

   Email: sfluhrer@cisco.com



Fluhrer, et al.          Expires March 13, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       Postquantum Security for IKEv2       September 2015


   David McGrew
   Cisco Systems

   Email: mcgrew@cisco.com


   Panos Kampanakis
   Cisco Systems

   Email: pkampana@cisco.com









































Fluhrer, et al.          Expires March 13, 2016                 [Page 9]


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