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

Versions: (draft-holmberg-mmusic-4572-update) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 8122

Network Working Group                                        C. Holmberg
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Updates: 4572 (if approved)                                June 10, 2016
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: December 12, 2016


                          Updates to RFC 4572
                  draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-05.txt

Abstract

   This document updates RFC 4572 by clarifying the usage of multiple
   SDP 'fingerprint' attributes with a single TLS connection.  The
   document also updates the preferred cipher suite with a stronger
   cipher suite, and removes the requirement to use the same hash
   function for calculating a certificate fingerprint that is used to
   calculate the certificate signature.

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 December 12, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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



Holmberg                Expires December 12, 2016               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             Updates to RFC 4572                 June 2016


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Update to RFC 4572  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Update to the sixth paragraph of section 5  . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  New paragraphs to the end of section 5  . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   RFC 4572 [RFC4572] specifies how to establish Transport Layer
   Security (TLS) connections using the Session Description Protocol
   (SDP) [RFC4566].

   RFC 4572 defines the SDP 'fingerprint' attribute, which is used to
   carry a secure hash value (fingerprint) associated with a
   certificate.  However, RFC 4572 is currently unclear on whether
   multiple 'fingerprint' attributes can be associated with a single SDP
   media description ("m= line") [RFC4566], and the associated
   semantics.  Multiple fingerprints are needed if an endpoints wants to
   provide fingerprints associated with multiple certificates.  For
   example, with RTP-based media, an endpoint might use different
   certificates for RTP and RTCP.

   RFC 4572 also specifies a preferred cipher suite.  However, the
   currently preferred cipher suite is considered outdated, and the
   preference needs to be updated.

   RFC 4572 mandates that the hash function used to calculate the
   fingerprint is the same hash function used to calculate the
   certificate signature.  That requirement might prevent usage of
   newer, stronger and more collision-safe hash functions for
   calculating certificate fingerprints.  This change also requires that
   multiple 'fingerprint' attributes can be associated with a single
   "m=" line, so that implementations are able to provide fingerprints
   calculated using updated hash functions alongside those that are
   needed to interoperate with existing implementations.





Holmberg                Expires December 12, 2016               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             Updates to RFC 4572                 June 2016


   This document updates RFC 4572 [RFC4572] by clarifying the usage of
   multiple SDP 'fingerprint' attributes.  It is clarified that multiple
   'fingerprint' attributes can be used to carry fingerprints,
   calculated using different hash functions, associated with a given
   certificate, and to carry fingerprints associated with multiple
   certificates.  The fingerprint matching procedure, when multiple
   fingerprints are provided, are also clarified.  The document also
   updates the preferred cipher suite with a stronger cipher suite, and
   removes the requirement to use the same hash function for calculating
   a certificate fingerprint and certificate signature.

2.  Conventions

   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 [RFC2119].

3.  Update to RFC 4572

   This section updates section 5 of RFC 4572.

3.1.  Update to the sixth paragraph of section 5





























Holmberg                Expires December 12, 2016               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             Updates to RFC 4572                 June 2016


 OLD TEXT:

    A certificate fingerprint MUST be computed using the same one-way
    hash function as is used in the certificate's signature algorithm.
    (This ensures that the security properties required for the
    certificate also apply for the fingerprint.  It also guarantees that
    the fingerprint will be usable by the other endpoint, so long as the
    certificate itself is.)  Following RFC 3279 [7] as updated by RFC
    4055 [9], therefore, the defined hash functions are 'SHA-1' [11]
    [19], 'SHA-224' [11], 'SHA-256' [11], 'SHA-384' [11], 'SHA-512' [11]
    , 'MD5' [12], and 'MD2' [13], with 'SHA-1' preferred.  A new IANA
    registry of Hash Function Textual Names, specified in Section 8,
    allows for addition of future tokens, but they may only be added if
    they are included in RFCs that update or obsolete RFC 3279 [7].
    Self-signed certificates (for which legacy certificates are not a
    consideration) MUST use one of the FIPS 180 algorithms (SHA-1,
    SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, or SHA-512) as their signature algorithm,
    and thus also MUST use it to calculate certificate fingerprints.


 NEW TEXT:

    Following RFC 3279 [7] as updated by RFC 4055 [9], therefore, the
    defined hash functions are 'SHA-1' [11] [19], 'SHA-224' [11],
    'SHA-256' [11], 'SHA-384' [11], 'SHA-512' [11], 'MD5' [12], and
    'MD2' [13], with 'SHA-256' preferred. A new IANA registry of Hash
    Function Textual Names, specified in Section 8, allows for addition
    of future tokens, but they may only be added if they are included
    in RFCs that update or obsolete RFC 3279 [7].


3.2.  New paragraphs to the end of section 5



















Holmberg                Expires December 12, 2016               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             Updates to RFC 4572                 June 2016


 NEW TEXT:

     Multiple SDP fingerprint attributes can be associated with an m-
     line. This can occur if multiple fingerprints have been calculated
     for a certificate using different hash functions. It can also
     occur if one or more fingerprints associated with multiple
     certificates have been calculated. This might be needed if multiple
     certificates will be used for media associated with an m- line
     (e.g. if separate certificates are used for RTP and RTCP), or where
     it is not known which certificate will be used when the
     fingerprints are exchanged. In such cases, one or more fingerprints
     MUST be calculated for each possible certificate. An endpoint
     MUST, as a minimum, calculate a fingerprint using the 'SHA-256'
     hash function algorithm for each possible certificate, unless the
     endpoint knows that the peer supports a stronger algorithm, or
     unless the endpoint knows that the peer has not been upgraded to
     support the 'SHA-256' algorithm, or unless the endpoint is used for
     a service, or within an environment that mandates usage of a
     stronger algorithm.

     If fingerprints associated with multiple certificates are
     calculated, the same set of hash functions MUST be used to
     calculate fingerprints for each certificate associated with the
     m- line.

     For each used certificate, an endpoint MUST be able to match at
     least one fingerprint, calculated using the hash function that the
     endpoint supports and considers most secure, with the used
     certificate. If the checked fingerprint does not match the used
     certificate, the endpoint MUST NOT establish the TLS connection. In
     addition, the endpoint MAY also check fingerprints calculated using
     other hash functions that it has received for a match. For each
     hash function checked, one of the received fingerprints calculated
     using the hash function MUST match the used certificate.

     NOTE: The SDP fingerprint attribute does not contain a reference to
     a specific certificate. Endpoints need to compare the fingerprint
     with a certificate hash in order to look for a match.


4.  Security Considerations

   This document improves security.  It updates the preferred hash
   function cipher suite from SHA-1 to SHA-256.  By clarifying the usage
   and handling of multiple fingerprints, the document also enables hash
   agility, and incremental deployment of newer, and more secure, cipher
   suites.




Holmberg                Expires December 12, 2016               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             Updates to RFC 4572                 June 2016


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no requests from IANA.

6.  Acknowledgements

   Martin Thomson, Paul Kyzivat, Jonathan Lennox and Roman Shpount
   provided valuable comments and input on this document.

7.  Change Log

   [RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please remove this section when publishing]

   Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-04

   o  Removed prevously added requirement that endpoint must calcuate at
      least one fingerprint using a hash function that was also used by
      the peer.

   Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-03

   o  Mandatory (except in specific situations) to provide a fingerprint
      calculated using SHA-256.

   o  When an endpoint receives fingerprints from its peer, the endpoint
      must (except in specific situations) calculate at least one
      fingerpint using a hash function that was also used by the peer.

   Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-02

   o  Editorial fixes based on comments from Martin Thomson.

   o  Non-used references removed.

   Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-01

   o  Changes based on comments from Martin Thomson.

   o  - Editorial fixes

   o  Changes in handling of multiple fingerprints.

   o  - Sender must send same set of hash functions for each offered
      certificate.

   o  - Receiver must check the hash function it considers most secure
      for a match.  It may check other hash functions.




Holmberg                Expires December 12, 2016               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             Updates to RFC 4572                 June 2016


   Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-00

   o  Changes in handling of multiple fingerprints.

   o  - Number of fingerprints calculated for each certificate does not
      have to match.

   o  - Clarified that receiver shall check check fingerprints using
      hash algorithms it considers safe.

   o  - Additional text added to security considerations section.

   Changes from draft-holmberg-mmusic-4572-update-01

   o  Adopted WG document (draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-00) submitted.

   o  IANA considerations section added.

8.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
              July 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.

   [RFC4572]  Lennox, J., "Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the
              Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session
              Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4572,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4572, July 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4572>.

Author's Address

   Christer Holmberg
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com







Holmberg                Expires December 12, 2016               [Page 7]


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