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

Versions: 01 02 03 04 05 draft-ietf-tls-encrypt-then-mac

TLS Working Group                                             P. Gutmann
Internet-Draft                                    University of Auckland
Intended status: Standards Track                       December 17, 2013
Expires: June 20, 2014


                   Encrypt-then-MAC for TLS and DTLS
               draft-gutmann-tls-encrypt-then-mac-05.txt

Abstract

   This document describes a means of negotiating the use of the
   encrypt-then-MAC security mechanism in place of TLS'/DTLS' existing
   MAC-then-encrypt one, which has been the subject of a number of
   security vulnerabilities over a period of many years.

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 June 20, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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.




Gutmann                   Expires June 20, 2014                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Encrypt-then-MAC-for-TLS           December 2013


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Negotiating Encrypt-then-MAC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Applying Encrypt-then-MAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Rehandshake Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   [2] and [4] use a MAC-then-encrypt construction that was regarded as
   secure at the time the original SSL protocol was specified in the
   mid-1990s, but that is no longer regarded as secure [5] [6].  This
   construction, as used in TLS and later DTLS, has been the subject of
   numerous security vulnerabilities and attacks stretching over a
   period of many years.  This document specifies a means of switching
   to the more secure encrypt-then-MAC construction as part of the TLS/
   DTLS handshake, replacing the current MAC-then-encrypt construction.

1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document

   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 [1].

2.  Negotiating Encrypt-then-MAC

   The use of encrypt-then-MAC is negotiated via TLS/DTLS extensions as
   defined in [2].  On connecting, the client includes the
   encrypt_then_MAC extension in its client_hello if it wishes to use
   encrypt-then-MAC rather than the default MAC-then-encrypt.  If the
   server is capable of meeting this requirement, it responds with an
   encrypt_then_MAC in its server_hello.  The "extension_type" value for
   this extension is [TBD] and the "extension_data" field of this
   extension SHALL be empty.

2.1.  Rationale

   The use of TLS/DTLS extensions to negotiate an overall switch is
   preferable to defining new ciphersuites because the latter would



Gutmann                   Expires June 20, 2014                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Encrypt-then-MAC-for-TLS           December 2013


   result in a Cartesian explosion of suites, potentially requiring
   duplicating every single existing suite with a new one that uses
   encrypt-then-MAC.  In contrast the approach presented here requires
   just a single new extension type with a corresponding minimal-length
   extension sent by client and server.

   Another possibility for introducing encrypt-then-MAC would be to make
   it part of TLS 1.3, however this would require the implementation and
   deployment of all of TLS 1.2 just to support a trivial code change in
   the order of encryption and MAC'ing.  In contrast deploying encrypt-
   then-MAC via the TLS/DTLS extension mechanism required changing less
   than a dozen lines of code in one implementation (not including the
   handling for the new extension type, which was a further 50 or so
   lines of code).

   The use of extensions precludes use with SSL 3.0, but then it's
   likely that anything still using this nearly two decades-old protocol
   will be vulnerable to any number of other attacks anyway, so there
   seems little point in bending over backwards to accomodate SSL 3.0.

3.  Applying Encrypt-then-MAC

   Once the use of encrypt-then-MAC has been negotiated, processing of
   TLS/DTLS packets switches from the standard:

   encrypt( data || MAC || pad )

   to the new:

   encrypt( data || pad ) || MAC

   with the MAC covering the entire packet up to the start of the MAC
   value.  In [2] notation the MAC calculation is:

   MAC(MAC_write_key, seq_num +
       TLSCipherText.type +
       TLSCipherText.version +
       TLSCipherText.length +
       ENC(content + padding + padding_length));

   for TLS 1.0 without the explicit IV and:

   MAC(MAC_write_key, seq_num +
       TLSCipherText.type +
       TLSCipherText.version +
       TLSCipherText.length +
       IV +
       ENC(content + padding + padding_length));



Gutmann                   Expires June 20, 2014                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Encrypt-then-MAC-for-TLS           December 2013


   for TLS 1.1 and greater with explicit IV.  The final MAC value is
   then appended to the encrypted data and padding.  This calculation is
   identical to the existing one with the exception that the MAC
   calculation is run over the payload ciphertext (the TLSCipherText
   PDU) rather than the plaintext (the TLSCompressed PDU).

   In [2] notation the overall packet is then:

   struct {
          ContentType type;
          ProtocolVersion version;
          uint16 length;
          GenericBlockCipher fragment;
          opaque MAC;
          } TLSCiphertext;

   This is identical to the existing TLS layout with the only difference
   being that the MAC value is moved outside the encrypted data.  The
   change for DTLS follows similarly, the only difference being that in
   place of the 64-bit implicit sequence number DTLS contains the two
   32-bit fields 'epoch' and 'sequence_number' between the version and
   length.

   Note from the GenericBlockCipher annotation that this only applies to
   standard block ciphers that have distinct encrypt and MAC operations.
   It does not apply to GenericStreamCiphers, or to GenericAEADCiphers
   that already include integrity protection with the cipher.  If a
   server receives an encrypt-then-MAC request extension from a client
   and then selects a stream or AEAD cipher suite, it MUST NOT send an
   encrypt-then-MAC response extension back to the client.

   Decryption reverses this processing.  The MAC SHALL be evaluated
   before any further processing such as decryption is performed, and if
   the MAC verification fails then processing SHALL terminate
   immediately.  This eliminates any timing channels that may be
   available through the use of manipulated packet data.

   Some implementations may prefer to use a truncated MAC rather than a
   full-length one.  In this case they MAY negotiate the use of a
   truncated MAC through the TLS truncated_hmac extension as defined in
   [3].










Gutmann                   Expires June 20, 2014                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Encrypt-then-MAC-for-TLS           December 2013


        [Implementation note: There is a test server available for interop
         testing at https://eid.vx4.net:443/. This uses the "extension_type"
         value 0x10, which was the first unassigned TLS extension value at the
         time the original specification was written, since this draft has
         been stalled by the TLS WG chairs for a considerable amount of time
         this value has now been assigned to another RFC but is currently
         still used for interop-testing purposes.  The server has been tested
         successfully with several different implementations].

3.1.  Rehandshake Issues

   The status of encrypt-then-MAC vs. MAC-then-encrypt can potentially
   change during a rehandshake.  Implementations SHOULD retain the
   current session state for the renegotiated session (in other words if
   the mechanism for the current session is X then the renegotiated
   session should also use X).  If implementations wish to be more
   flexible then the following rules apply:

   +------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
   | Current Session  |     Renegotiated    |      Action to take      |
   |                  |       Session       |                          |
   +------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
   | MAC-then-encrypt |   MAC-then-encrypt  |        No change         |
   |                  |                     |                          |
   | MAC-then-encrypt |   Encrypt-then-MAC  | Upgrade to Encrypt-then- |
   |                  |                     |           MAC            |
   |                  |                     |                          |
   | Encrypt-then-MAC |   MAC-then-encrypt  |          Error           |
   |                  |                     |                          |
   | Encrypt-then-MAC |   Encrypt-then-MAC  |        No change         |
   +------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+

               Table 1: Encrypt-then-MAC with Renegotiation

   Note that a client or server that doesn't wish to implement the
   mechanism-change-during-rehandshake ability can (as a client) not
   request a mechanism change and (as a server) deny the mechanism
   change.

   If an upgrade from MAC-then-encrypt to Encrypt-then-MAC is negotiated
   as per the second line in the table above then the change will take
   place in the first message that follows the Change Cipher Spec (CCS).
   In other words all messages up to and including the CCS will use MAC-
   then-encrypt, and then the message that follows will continue with
   Encrypt-then-MAC.

4.  Security Considerations




Gutmann                   Expires June 20, 2014                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          Encrypt-then-MAC-for-TLS           December 2013


   This document defines an improved security mechanism encrypt-then-MAC
   to replace the current MAC-then-encrypt one.  This is regarded as
   more secure than the current mechanism [5] [6], and should mitigate
   or eliminate a number of attacks on the current mechanism, provided
   that the instructions on MAC processing given in Section 3 are
   applied.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new extension for TLS/DTLS.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank Martin Rex, Dan Shumow, and the
   members of the TLS mailing list for their feedback on this document.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [3]        Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J.,
              and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Extensions", RFC 4366, April 2006.

   [4]        Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.

7.2.  Informative References

   [5]        Bellare, M. and C. Namprempre, "Authenticated Encryption:
              Relations among notions and analysis of the generic
              composition paradigm", Springer-Verlag LNCS 1976, December
              2000.

   [6]        Krawczyk, H., "The Order of Encryption and Authentication
              for Protecting Communications (or: How Secure Is SSL?)",
              Springer-Verlag LNCS 2139, August 2001.

Author's Address






Gutmann                   Expires June 20, 2014                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          Encrypt-then-MAC-for-TLS           December 2013


   Peter Gutmann
   University of Auckland
   Department of Computer Science
   University of Auckland
   New Zealand

   Email: pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz












































Gutmann                   Expires June 20, 2014                 [Page 7]


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