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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

NTP Working Group                                              D. Sibold
Internet-Draft                                                       PTB
Intended status: Standards Track                             S. Roettger
Expires: April 26, 2015                                       Google Inc
                                                              K. Teichel
                                                                     PTB
                                                        October 23, 2014


                         Network Time Security
              draft-ietf-ntp-network-time-security-05.txt

Abstract

   This document describes the Network Time Security (NTS) protocol that
   enables secure time synchronization with time servers using Network
   Time Protocol (NTP) or Precision Time Protocol (PTP).  Its design
   considers the special requirements of precise timekeeping, which are
   described in Security Requirements of Time Protocols in Packet
   Switched Networks [RFC7384].

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].

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 April 26, 2015.








Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Security Threats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  NTS Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Symmetric and Client/Server Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Broadcast Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Protocol Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Association Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       6.1.1.  Message Type: "client_assoc"  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       6.1.2.  Message Type: "server_assoc"  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Cookie Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.2.1.  Message Type: "client_cook" . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.2.2.  Message Type: "server_cook" . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.3.  Unicast Time Synchronisation Messages . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.3.1.  Message Type: "time_request"  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.3.2.  Message Type: "time_response" . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.4.  Broadcast Parameter Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.4.1.  Message Type: "client_bpar" . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.4.2.  Message Type: "server_bpar" . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.5.  Broadcast Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       6.5.1.  Message Type: "server_broad"  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.6.  Broadcast Key Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       6.6.1.  Message Type: "client_keycheck" . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       6.6.2.  Message Type: "server_keycheck" . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Protocol Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.1.  The Client  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       7.1.1.  The Client in Unicast Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       7.1.2.  The Client in Broadcast Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.2.  The Server  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       7.2.1.  The Server in Unicast Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16



Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


       7.2.2.  The Server in Broadcast Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Server Seed Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.1.  Server Seed Refresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.2.  Server Seed Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.3.  Server Seed Lifetime  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  Hash Algorithms and MAC Generation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.1.  Hash Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.2.  MAC Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     11.1.  Initial Verification of the Server Certificates  . . . .  18
     11.2.  Revocation of Server Certificates  . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     11.3.  Usage of NTP Pools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     11.4.  Denial-of-Service in Broadcast Mode  . . . . . . . . . .  19
     11.5.  Delay Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   12. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Appendix A.  Flow Diagrams of Client Behaviour  . . . . . . . . .  22
   Appendix B.  TICTOC Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Appendix C.  Broadcast Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     C.1.  Server Preparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     C.2.  Client Preparation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     C.3.  Sending Authenticated Broadcast Packets . . . . . . . . .  27
     C.4.  Authentication of Received Packets  . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Appendix D.  Random Number Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29

1.  Introduction

   Time synchronization protocols are increasingly utilized to
   synchronize clocks in networked infrastructures.  The reliable
   performance of such infrastructures can be degraded seriously by
   successful attacks against the time synchronization protocol.
   Therefore, time synchronization protocols have to be secured if they
   are applied in environments that are prone to malicious attacks.
   This can be accomplished by utilization of external security
   protocols like IPsec or by intrinsic security measures of the time
   synchronization protocol.

   The two most popular time synchronization protocols, the Network Time
   Protocol (NTP) [RFC5905] and the Precision Time Protocol (PTP)
   [IEEE1588], currently do not provide adequate intrinsic security
   precautions.  This document specifies security measures for NTP and
   PTP which enable these protocols to verify authenticity of the time
   server and integrity of the time synchronization protocol packets.




Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


   The protocol is specified with the prerequisite in mind that precise
   timekeeping can only be accomplished with stateless time
   synchronization communication, which excludes the utilization of
   standard security protocols like IPsec or TLS for time
   synchronization messages.  This prerequisite corresponds with the
   requirement that a security mechanism for timekeeping must be
   designed in such a way that it does not degrade the quality of the
   time transfer [RFC7384].

   Note:

      The intent is to formulate the protocol to be applicable to NTP
      and also PTP.  In the current state the specification focuses on
      the application to NTP.

2.  Security Threats

   A profound analysis of security threats and requirements for NTP and
   PTP can be found in the "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in
   Packet Switched Networks" [RFC7384].

3.  Objectives

   The objectives of the NTS specification are as follows:

   o  Authenticity: NTS enables the client to authenticate its time
      servers.

   o  Integrity: NTS protects the integrity of time synchronization
      protocol packets via a message authentication code (MAC).

   o  Confidentiality: NTS does not provide confidentiality protection
      of the time synchronization packets.

   o  Modes of operation: All operational modes of NTP are supported.

   o  Operational modes of PTP should be supported as far as possible.

   o  Hybrid mode: Both secure and insecure communication modes are
      possible for NTP servers and clients, respectively.

   o  Compatibility:

      *  Unsecured NTP associations shall not be affected.

      *  An NTP server that does not support NTS shall not be affected
         by NTS authentication requests.




Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


4.  Terms and Abbreviations

   MITM   Man In The Middle

   NTP    Network Time Protocol [RFC5905]

   NTS    Network Time Security

   PTP    Precision Time Protocol [IEEE1588]

   TESLA  Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication

5.  NTS Overview

5.1.  Symmetric and Client/Server Mode

   NTS applies X.509 certificates to verify the authenticity of the time
   server and to exchange a symmetric key, the so-called cookie.  This
   cookie is then used to protect authenticity and integrity of the
   subsequent time synchronization packets by means of a Message
   Authentication Code (MAC), which is attached to each time
   synchronization packet.  The calculation of the MAC includes the
   whole time synchronization packet and the cookie which is shared
   between client and server.  The cookie is calculated according to:

      cookie = MSB_128 (HMAC(server seed, H(certificate of client))),

   with the server seed as key, where H is a hash function, and where
   the function MSB_128 cuts off the 128 most significant bits of the
   result of the HMAC function.  The server seed is a 128 bit random
   value of the server, which has to be kept secret.  The cookie never
   changes as long as the server seed stays the same, but the server
   seed has to be refreshed periodically in order to provide key
   freshness as required in [RFC7384].  See Section 8 for details on the
   seed refresh and Section 7.1.1 for the client's reaction to it.

   The server does not keep a state of the client.  Therefore it has to
   recalculate the cookie each time it receives a request from the
   client.  To this end, the client has to attach the hash value of its
   certificate to each request (see Section 6.3).

5.2.  Broadcast Mode

   Just as in the case of the client server mode and symmetric mode,
   authenticity and integrity of the NTP packets are ensured by a MAC,
   which is attached to the NTP packet by the sender.  Verification of
   the packets' authenticity is based on the TESLA protocol, in
   particular on its "not re-using keys" scheme, see section 3.7.2 of



Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


   [RFC4082].  TESLA uses a one-way chain of keys, where each key is the
   output of a one-way function applied to the previous key in the
   chain.  The last element of the chain is shared securely with all
   clients.  The server splits time into intervals of uniform duration
   and assigns each key to an interval in reverse order, starting with
   the penultimate.  At each time interval, the server sends an NTP
   broadcast packet appended by a MAC, calculated using the
   corresponding key, and the key of the previous disclosure interval.
   The client verifies the MAC by buffering the packet until the
   disclosure of the key in its associated disclosure interval.  In
   order to be able to verify the validity of the key, the client has to
   be loosely time synchronized to the server.  This has to be
   accomplished during the initial client server exchange between
   broadcast client and server.  In addition, NTS uses another, more
   rigorous check to what is used in the TESLA protocol.  For a more
   detailed description of how NTS employs and customizes TESLA, see
   Appendix C.

6.  Protocol Messages

   This section describes the types of messages needed for secure time
   synchronization with NTS.

   For some guidance on how these message types can be realized in
   practice, for use with existing time synchronization protocols, see
   [I-D.ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-messages], a companion document for NTS.
   Said document describes ASN.1 encodings for those message parts that
   have to be added to a time synchronization protocol for security
   reasons as well as CMS (Cryptographic Message Syntax, see [RFC5652])
   conventions that can be used to get the cryptographic aspects right.

   Note that currently, the companion document describes realizations of
   NTS messages only for utilization with NTP, in which the NTS specific
   data are enclosed in extension fields on top of NTP packets.  A
   specification of NTS messages for PTP will have to be developed
   accordingly.

   The steps described in Section 6.1 - Section 6.3 belong to the
   unicast mode, while Section 6.4 and Section 6.5 explain the steps
   involved in the broadcast mode of NTS.

6.1.  Association Messages

   In this message exchange, the hash and encryption algorithms that are
   used throughout the protocol are negotiated.  Also, the client
   receives the certification chain up to a trusted anchor.  With the
   established certification chain the client is able to verify the




Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


   server's signatures and, hence, authenticity of future NTS messages
   from the server is ensured.

6.1.1.  Message Type: "client_assoc"

   The protocol sequence starts with the client sending an association
   message, called client_assoc.  This message contains

   o  the NTS message ID "client_assoc",

   o  the version number of NTS that the client wants to use (this
      SHOULD be the highest version number that it supports),

   o  the hostname of the client,

   o  a selection of accepted hash algorithms, and

   o  a selection of accepted encryption algorithms.

6.1.2.  Message Type: "server_assoc"

   This message is sent by the server upon receipt of client_assoc.  It
   contains

   o  the NTS message ID "server_assoc",

   o  the version number used for the rest of the protocol (which SHOULD
      be determined as the minimum over the client's suggestion in the
      client_assoc message and the highest supported by the server),

   o  the hostname of the server, and

   o  the server's choice of algorithm for encryption and for
      cryptographic hashing, all of which MUST be chosen from the
      client's proposals.

   o  a signature, calculated over the data listed above, with the
      server's private key and according to the signature algorithm
      which is also used for the certificates which are included (see
      below),

   o  a chain of certificates, which starts at the server and goes up to
      a trusted authority, and each certificate MUST be certified by the
      one directly following it.







Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


6.2.  Cookie Messages

   During this message exchange, the server transmits a secret cookie to
   the client securely.  The cookie will be used for integrity
   protection during unicast time synchronization.

6.2.1.  Message Type: "client_cook"

   This message is sent by the client, upon successful authentication of
   the server.  In this message, the client requests a cookie from the
   server.  The message contains

   o  the NTS message ID "client_cook",

   o  the negotiated version number,

   o  the negotiated signature algorithm,

   o  the negotiated encryption algorithm,

   o  a 128-bit nonce,

   o  the negotiated hash algorithm H,

   o  the client's certificate.

6.2.2.  Message Type: "server_cook"

   This message is sent by the server, upon receipt of a client_cook
   message.  The server generates the hash of the client's certificate,
   as conveyed during client_cook, in order to calculate the cookie
   according to Section 5.1.  This message contains

   o  the NTS message ID "server_cook"

   o  the version number as transmitted in client_cook,

   o  a concatenated datum, which is encrypted with the client's public
      key, according to the encryption algorithm transmitted in the
      client_cook message.  The concatenated datum contains

      *  the nonce transmitted in client_cook, and

      *  the cookie.

   o  a signature, created with the server's private key, calculated
      over all of the data listed above.  This signature MUST be




Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


      calculated according to the transmitted signature algorithm from
      the client_cook message.

6.3.  Unicast Time Synchronisation Messages

   In this message exchange, the usual time synchronization process is
   executed, with the addition of integrity protection for all messages
   that the server sends.  This message can be repeatedly exchanged as
   often as the client desires and as long as the integrity of the
   server's time responses is verified successfully.

6.3.1.  Message Type: "time_request"

   This message is sent by the client when it requests time exchange.
   It contains

   o  the NTS message ID "time_request",

   o  the negotiated version number,

   o  a 128-bit nonce,

   o  the negotiated hash algorithm H,

   o  the hash of the client's certificate under H.

6.3.2.  Message Type: "time_response"

   This message is sent by the server, after it received a time_request
   message.  Prior to this the server MUST recalculate the client's
   cookie by using the hash of the client's certificate and the
   transmitted hash algorithm.  The message contains

   o  the NTS message ID "time_response",

   o  the version number as transmitted in time_request,

   o  the server's time synchronization response data,

   o  the 128-bit nonce transmitted in time_request,

   o  a MAC (generated with the cookie as key) for verification of all
      of the above data.








Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


6.4.  Broadcast Parameter Messages

   In this message exchange, the client receives the necessary
   information to execute the TESLA protocol in a secured broadcast
   association.  The client can only initiate a secure broadcast
   association after a successful unicast run, see Section 7.1.2.

   See Appendix C for more details on TESLA.

6.4.1.  Message Type: "client_bpar"

   This message is sent by the client in order to establish a secured
   time broadcast association with the server.  It contains

   o  the NTS message ID "client_bpar",

   o  the version number negotiated during association in unicast mode,

   o  the client's hostname, and

   o  the signature algorithm negotiated during unicast.

6.4.2.  Message Type: "server_bpar"

   This message is sent by the server upon receipt of a client_bpar
   message during the broadcast loop of the server.  It contains

   o  the NTS message ID "server_bpar",

   o  the version number as transmitted in the client_bpar message,

   o  the one-way functions used for building the key chain, and

   o  the disclosure schedule of the keys.  This contains:

      *  the last key of the key chain,

      *  time interval duration,

      *  the disclosure delay (number of intervals between use and
         disclosure of a key),

      *  the time at which the next time interval will start, and

      *  the next interval's associated index.

   o  The message also contains a signature signed by the server with
      its private key, verifying all the data listed above.



Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


6.5.  Broadcast Messages

   Via this message, the server keeps sending broadcast time
   synchronization messages to all participating clients.

6.5.1.  Message Type: "server_broad"

   This message is sent by the server over the course of its broadcast
   schedule.  It is part of any broadcast association.  It contains

   o  the NTS message ID "server_broad",

   o  the version number that the server's broadcast mode is working
      under,

   o  time broadcast data,

   o  the index that belongs to the current interval (and therefore
      identifies the current, yet undisclosed key),

   o  the disclosed key of the previous disclosure interval (current
      time interval minus disclosure delay),

   o  a MAC, calculated with the key for the current time interval,
      verifying

      *  the message ID,

      *  the version number, and

      *  the time data.

6.6.  Broadcast Key Check

   This message exchange is performed for an additional check of packet
   timeliness in the course of the TESLA scheme, see Appendix C.

6.6.1.  Message Type: "client_keycheck"

   A message of this type is sent by the client in order to initiate an
   additional check of packet timeliness for the TESLA scheme.  It
   contains

   o  the NTS message ID "client_keycheck",

   o  the version number chosen for the broadcast,

   o  a 128-bit nonce,



Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


   o  an interval number from the TESLA disclosure schedule,

   o  the hash algorithm H negotiated in unicast mode, and

   o  the hash of the client's certificate under H.

6.6.2.  Message Type: "server_keycheck"

   A message of this type is sent by the server upon receipt of a
   client_keycheck message during the broadcast loop of the server.
   Prior to this the server MUST recalculate the client's cookie by
   using the hash of the client's certificate and the transmitted hash
   algorithm.  It contains

   o  the NTS message ID "server_keycheck"

   o  the version number that the server's broadcast mode is working
      under,

   o  the 128-bit nonce transmitted in the client_keycheck message,

   o  the interval number transmitted in the client_keycheck message,
      and

   o  a MAC (generated with the cookie as key) for verification of all
      of the above data.

7.  Protocol Sequence

7.1.  The Client

7.1.1.  The Client in Unicast Mode

   For a unicast run, the client performs the following steps:

   1.  It sends a client_assoc message to the server.  It MUST keep the
       transmitted values for version number and algorithms available
       for later checks.

   2.  It waits for a reply in the form of a server_assoc message.
       After receipt of the message it performs the following checks:

       *  The client checks that the message contains a conform version
          number.

       *  It also verifies that the server has chosen the encryption and
          hash algorithms from its proposal sent in the client_assoc
          message.



Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


       *  Furthermore, it performs authenticity checks on the
          certificate chain and the signature for the version number.

       If one of the checks fails, the client MUST abort the run.
       Discussion:

          Note that by performing the above message exchange and checks,
          the client validates the authenticity of its immediate NTP
          server only.  It does not recursively validate the
          authenticity of each NTP server on the time synchronization
          chain.  Recursive authentication (and authorization) as
          formulated in [RFC7384] depends on the chosen trust anchor.

   3.  Next, it sends a client_cook message to the server.  The client
       MUST save the included nonce until the reply has been processed.

   4.  It awaits a reply in the form of a server_cook message; upon
       receipt it executes the following actions:

       *  It verifies that the received version number matches the one
          negotiated before.

       *  It verifies the signature using the server's public key.  The
          signature has to authenticate the encrypted data.

       *  It decrypts the encrypted data with its own private key.

       *  It checks that the decrypted message is of the expected
          format: the concatenation of a 128 bit nonce and a 128 bit
          cookie.

       *  It verifies that the received nonce matches the nonce sent in
          the client_cook message.

       If one of those checks fails, the client MUST abort the run.

   5.  The client sends a time_request message to the server.  The
       client MUST save the included nonce and the transmit_timestamp
       (from the time synchronization data) as a correlated pair for
       later verification steps.

   6.  It awaits a reply in the form of a time_response message.  Upon
       receipt, it checks:

       *  that the transmitted version number matches the one negotiated
          before,





Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


       *  that the transmitted nonce belongs to a previous time_request
          message,

       *  that the transmit_timestamp in that time_request message
          matches the corresponding time stamp from the synchronization
          data received in the time_response, and

       *  that the appended MAC verifies the received synchronization
          data, version number and nonce.

       If at least one of the first three checks fails (i.e.  if the
       version number does not match, if the client has never used the
       nonce transmitted in the time_response message or if it has used
       the nonce with initial time synchronization data different from
       that in the response), then the client MUST ignore this
       time_response message.  If the MAC is invalid, the client MUST do
       one of the following: abort the run or go back to step 5 (because
       the cookie might have changed due to a server seed refresh).  If
       both checks are successful, the client SHOULD continue time
       synchronization by going back to step 7.

   The client's behavior in unicast mode is also expressed in Figure 1.

7.1.2.  The Client in Broadcast Mode

   To establish a secure broadcast association with a broadcast server,
   the client MUST initially authenticate the broadcast server and
   securely synchronize its time to it up to an upper bound for its time
   offset in unicast mode.  After that, the client performs the
   following steps:

   1.  It sends a client_bpar message to the server.  It MUST remember
       the transmitted values for version number and signature
       algorithm.

   2.  It waits for a reply in the form of a server_bpar message after
       which it performs the following checks:

       *  The message must contain all the necessary information for the
          TESLA protocol, as listed in Section 6.4.2.

       *  Verification of the message's signature.

       If any information is missing or the server's signature cannot be
       verified, the client MUST abort the broadcast run.  If all checks
       are successful, the client MUST remember all the broadcast
       parameters received for later checks.




Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


   3.  The client awaits time synchronization data in the form of a
       server_broadcast message.  Upon receipt, it performs the
       following checks:

       1.  Proof that the MAC is based on a key that is not yet
           disclosed (packet timeliness).  This is achieved via a
           combination of checks.  First the disclosure schedule is
           used, which requires the loose time synchronization.  If this
           is successful, the client gets a stronger guarantee via a key
           check exchange: it sends a client_keycheck message and waits
           for the appropriate response.  Note that it needs to memorize
           the nonce and the time interval number that it sends as a
           correlated pair.  For more detail on both of the mentioned
           timeliness checks, see Appendix Appendix C.4.  If its
           timeliness is verified, the packet will be buffered for later
           authentication.  Otherwise, the client MUST discard it.  Note
           that the time information included in the packet will not be
           used for synchronization until its authenticity could also be
           verified.

       2.  The client checks that it does not already know the disclosed
           key.  Otherwise, the client SHOULD discard the packet to
           avoid a buffer overrun.  If verified, the client ensures that
           the disclosed key belongs to the one-way key chain by
           applying the one-way function until equality with a previous
           disclosed key is shown.  If falsified, the client MUST
           discard the packet.

       3.  If the disclosed key is legitimate, then the client verifies
           the authenticity of any packet that it received during the
           corresponding time interval.  If authenticity of a packet is
           verified it is released from the buffer and the packet's time
           information can be utilized.  If the verification fails, then
           authenticity is no longer given.  In this case the client
           MUST request authentic time from the server by means of a
           unicast time request message.

       See RFC 4082[RFC4082] for a detailed description of the packet
       verification process.

   The client MUST restart the broadcast sequence with a client_bpar
   message Section 6.4.1 if the one-way key chain expires.

   The client's behavior in broadcast mode can also be seen in Figure 2.







Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


7.2.  The Server

7.2.1.  The Server in Unicast Mode

   To support unicast mode, the server MUST be ready to perform the
   following actions:

   o  Upon receipt of a client_assoc message, the server constructs and
      sends a reply in the form of a server_assoc message as described
      in Section 6.1.2.

   o  Upon receipt of a client_cook message, the server checks whether
      it supports the given cryptographic algorithms.  It then
      calculates the cookie according to the formula given in
      Section 5.1.  With this, it MUST construct a server_cook message
      as described in Section 6.2.2.

   o  Upon receipt of a time_request message, the server re-calculates
      the cookie, then computes the necessary time synchronization data
      and constructs a time_response message as given in Section 6.3.2.

   The server MUST refresh its server seed periodically (see
   Section 8.1).

7.2.2.  The Server in Broadcast Mode

   A broadcast server MUST also support unicast mode, in order to
   provide the initial time synchronization which is a precondition for
   any broadcast association.  To support NTS broadcast, the server MUST
   additionally be ready to perform the following actions:

   o  Upon receipt of a client_bpar message, the server constructs and
      sends a server_bpar message as described in Section 6.4.2.

   o  Upon receipt of a client_keycheck message, the server looks up if
      it has already disclosed the key associated with the interval
      number transmitted in that message.  If it has not disclosed it,
      it constructs and sends the appropriate server_keycheck message as
      described in Section 6.6.2.  For more detail, see also Appendix C.

   o  The server follows the TESLA protocol in all other aspects, by
      regularly sending server_broad messages as described in
      Section 6.5.1, adhering to its own disclosure schedule.

   It is also the server's responsibility to watch for the expiration
   date of the one-way key chain and generate a new key chain
   accordingly.




Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


8.  Server Seed Considerations

   The server has to calculate a random seed which has to be kept
   secret.  The server MUST generate a seed for each supported hash
   algorithm, see Section 9.1.

8.1.  Server Seed Refresh

   According to the requirements in [RFC7384] the server MUST refresh
   each server seed periodically.  As a consequence, the cookie
   memorized by the client becomes obsolete.  In this case the client
   cannot verify the MAC attached to subsequent time response messages
   and has to respond accordingly by re-initiating the protocol with a
   cookie request (Section 6.2).

8.2.  Server Seed Algorithm

8.3.  Server Seed Lifetime

9.  Hash Algorithms and MAC Generation

9.1.  Hash Algorithms

   Hash algorithms are used at different points: calculation of the
   cookie and the MAC, and hashing of the client's certificate.  Client
   and server negotiate a hash algorithm H during the association
   message exchange (Section 6.1) at the beginning of a unicast run.
   The selected algorithm H is used for all hashing processes in that
   run.

   In broadcast mode, hash algorithms are used as pseudo random
   functions to construct the one-way key chain.  Here, the utilized
   hash algorithm is communicated by the server and non-negotiable.

   The list of the hash algorithms supported by the server has to
   fulfill the following requirements:

   o  it MUST NOT include SHA-1 or weaker algorithms,

   o  it MUST include SHA-256 or stronger algorithms.

   Note

      Any hash algorithm is prone to be compromised in the future.  A
      successful attack on a hash algorithm would enable any NTS client
      to derive the server seed from their own cookie.  Therefore, the
      server MUST have separate seed values for its different supported
      hash algorithms.  This way, knowledge gained from an attack on a



Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


      hash algorithm H can at least only be used to compromise such
      clients who use hash algorithm H as well.

9.2.  MAC Calculation

   For the calculation of the MAC, client and server are using a Keyed-
   Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC) approach [RFC2104].  The HMAC
   is generated with the hash algorithm specified by the client (see
   Section 9.1).

10.  IANA Considerations

11.  Security Considerations

11.1.  Initial Verification of the Server Certificates

   The client has to verify the validity of the certificates during the
   certification message exchange (Section 6.1.2).  Since it generally
   has no reliable time during this initial communication phase, it is
   impossible to verify the period of validity of the certificates.
   Therefore, the client MUST use one of the following approaches:

   o  The validity of the certificates is preconditioned.  Usually this
      will be the case in corporate networks.

   o  The client ensures that the certificates are not revoked.  To this
      end, the client uses the Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP)
      defined in [RFC6277].

   o  The client requests a different service to get an initial time
      stamp in order to be able to verify the certificates' periods of
      validity.  To this end, it can, e.g., use a secure shell
      connection to a reliable host.  Another alternative is to request
      a time stamp from a Time Stamping Authority (TSA) by means of the
      Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) defined in [RFC3161].

11.2.  Revocation of Server Certificates

   According to Section 8.1, it is the client's responsibility to
   initiate a new association with the server after the server's
   certificate expires.  To this end the client reads the expiration
   date of the certificate during the certificate message exchange
   (Section 6.1.2).  Besides, certificates may also be revoked prior to
   the normal expiration date.  To increase security the client MAY
   verify the state of the server's certificate via OCSP periodically.






Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


11.3.  Usage of NTP Pools

   The certification based authentication scheme described in Section 6
   is not applicable to the concept of NTP pools.  Therefore, NTS is not
   able to provide secure usage of NTP pools.

11.4.  Denial-of-Service in Broadcast Mode

   TESLA authentication buffers packets for delayed authentication.
   This makes the protocol vulnerable to flooding attacks, causing the
   client to buffer excessive numbers of packets.  To add stronger DoS
   protection to the protocol, client and server use the "not re-using
   keys" scheme of TESLA as pointed out in section 3.7.2 of RFC 4082
   [RFC4082].  In this scheme the server never uses a key for the MAC
   generation more than once.  Therefore the client can discard any
   packet that contains a disclosed key it knows already, thus
   preventing memory flooding attacks.

   Note that an alternative approach to enhance TESLA's resistance
   against DoS attacks involves the addition of a group MAC to each
   packet.  This requires the exchange of an additional shared key
   common to the whole group.  This adds additional complexity to the
   protocol and hence is currently not considered in this document.

11.5.  Delay Attack

   In a packet delay attack, an adversary with the ability to act as a
   MITM delays time synchronization packets between client and server
   asymmetrically [RFC7384].  This prevents the client to measure the
   network delay, and hence its time offset to the server, accurately
   [Mizrahi].  The delay attack does not modify the content of the
   exchanged synchronization packets.  Therefore cryptographic means do
   not provide a feasible way to mitigate this attack.  However, several
   non-cryptographic precautions can be taken in order to detect this
   attack.

   1.  Usage of multiple time servers: this enables the client to detect
       the attack provided that the adversary is unable to delay the
       synchronizations packets between the majority of servers.  This
       approach is commonly used in NTP to exclude incorrect time
       servers [RFC5905].

   2.  Multiple communication paths: The client and server are utilizing
       different paths for packet exchange as described in the I-D
       [I-D.shpiner-multi-path-synchronization].  The client can detect
       the attack provided that the adversary is unable to manipulate
       the majority of the available paths [Shpiner].  Note that this
       approach is not yet available, neither for NTP nor for PTP.



Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


   3.  Usage of an encrypted connection: the client exchanges all
       packets with the time server over an encrypted connection (e.g.
       IPsec).  This measure does not mitigate the delay attack but it
       makes it more difficult for the adversary to identify the time
       synchronization packets.

   4.  For the unicast mode: Introduction of a threshold value for the
       delay time of the synchronization packets.  The client can
       discard a time server if the packet delay time of this time
       server is larger than the threshold value.

   Additional provision against delay attacks has to be taken in the
   broadcast mode.  This mode relies on the TESLA scheme which is based
   on the requirement that a client and the broadcast server are loosely
   time synchronized.  Therefore, a broadcast client has to establish
   time synchronization with its broadcast server before it maintains
   time synchronization by utilization of the broadcast mode.  To this
   end it initially establishes a unicast association with its broadcast
   server until time synchronization and calibration of the packet delay
   time is achieved.  After that it establishes a broadcast association
   to the broadcast server and utilizes TESLA to verify integrity and
   authenticity of any received broadcast packets.

   An adversary who is able to delay broadcast packets can cause a time
   adjustment at the receiving broadcast clients.  If the adversary
   delays broadcast packets continuously, then the time adjustment will
   accumulate until the loose time synchronization requirement is
   violated, which breaks the TESLA scheme.  To mitigate this
   vulnerability the security condition in TESLA has to be supplemented
   by an additional check in which the client, upon receipt of a
   broadcast message, verifies the status of the corresponding key via a
   unicast message exchange with the broadcast server (see section
   Appendix C.4 for a detailed description of this check).  Note, that a
   broadcast client should also apply the above mentioned precautions as
   far as possible.

12.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Russ Housley, Steven Bellovin, David
   Mills and Kurt Roeckx for discussions and comments on the design of
   NTS.  Also, thanks to Harlan Stenn for his technical review and
   specific text contributions to this document.

13.  References







Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


13.1.  Normative References

   [IEEE1588]
              IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Society. TC-9 Sensor
              Technology, "IEEE standard for a precision clock
              synchronization protocol for networked measurement and
              control systems", 2008.

   [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.

   [RFC3161]  Adams, C., Cain, P., Pinkas, D., and R. Zuccherato,
              "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Time-Stamp
              Protocol (TSP)", RFC 3161, August 2001.

   [RFC4082]  Perrig, A., Song, D., Canetti, R., Tygar, J., and B.
              Briscoe, "Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant
              Authentication (TESLA): Multicast Source Authentication
              Transform Introduction", RFC 4082, June 2005.

   [RFC5652]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
              RFC 5652, September 2009.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
              Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.

   [RFC6277]  Santesson, S. and P. Hallam-Baker, "Online Certificate
              Status Protocol Algorithm Agility", RFC 6277, June 2011.

13.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.shpiner-multi-path-synchronization]
              Shpiner, A., Tse, R., Schelp, C., and T. Mizrahi, "Multi-
              Path Time Synchronization", draft-shpiner-multi-path-
              synchronization-03 (work in progress), February 2014.

   [Mizrahi]  Mizrahi, T., "A game theoretic analysis of delay attacks
              against time synchronization protocols", in Proceedings of
              Precision Clock Synchronization for Measurement Control
              and Communication, ISPCS 2012, pp. 1-6, September 2012.

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



Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


   [RFC7384]  Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in
              Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, October 2014.

   [Shpiner]  Shpiner, A., Revah, Y., and T. Mizrahi, "Multi-path Time
              Protocols", in Proceedings of Precision Clock
              Synchronization for Measurement Control and Communication,
              ISPCS 2013, pp. 1-6, September 2013.

Appendix A.  Flow Diagrams of Client Behaviour

                        +---------------------+
                        |Association Messages |
                        +----------+----------+
                                   |
   +------------------------------>o
   |                               |
   |                               v
   |                       +---------------+
   |                       |Cookie Messages|
   |                       +-------+-------+
   |                               |
   |                               o<------------------------------+
   |                               |                               |
   |                               v                               |
   |                     +-------------------+                     |
   |                     |Time Sync. Messages|                     |
   |                     +---------+---------+                     |
   |                               |                               |
   |                               v                               |
   |                            +-----+                            |
   |                            |Check|                            |
   |                            +--+--+                            |
   |                               |                               |
   |            /------------------+------------------\            |
   |           v                   v                   v           |
   |     .-----------.      .-------------.        .-------.       |
   |    ( MAC Failure )    ( Nonce Failure )      ( Success )      |
   |     '-----+-----'      '------+------'        '---+---'       |
   |           |                   |                   |           |
   |           v                   v                   v           |
   |    +-------------+     +-------------+     +--------------+   |
   |    |Discard Data |     |Discard Data |     |Sync. Process |   |
   |    +-------------+     +------+------+     +------+-------+   |
   |           |                   |                   |           |
   |           |                   |                   v           |
   +-----------+                   +------------------>o-----------+

           Figure 1: The client's behavior in NTS unicast mode.



Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


                            +-----------------------------+
                            |Broadcast Parameter Messages |
                            +--------------+--------------+
                                           |
                                           o<--------------------------+
                                           |                           |
                                           v                           |
                            +-----------------------------+            |
                            |Broadcast Time Sync. Message |            |
                            +--------------+--------------+            |
                                           |                           |
   +-------------------------------------->o                           |
   |                                       |                           |
   |                                       v                           |
   |                             +-------------------+                 |
   |                             |Key and Auth. Check|                 |
   |                             +---------+---------+                 |
   |                                       |                           |
   |                      /----------------*----------------\          |
   |                     v                                   v         |
   |                .---------.                         .---------.    |
   |               ( Verified  )                       ( Falsified )   |
   |                '----+----'                         '----+----'    |
   |                     |                                   |         |
   |                     v                                   v         |
   |              +-------------+                        +-------+     |
   |              |Store Message|                        |Discard|     |
   |              +------+------+                        +---+---+     |
   |                     |                                   |         |
   |                     v                                   +---------o
   |             +---------------+                                     |
   |             |Check Previous |                                     |
   |             +-------+-------+                                     |
   |                     |                                             |
   |            /--------*--------\                                    |
   |           v                   v                                   |
   |      .---------.         .---------.                              |
   |     ( Verified  )       ( Falsified )                             |
   |      '----+----'         '----+----'                              |
   |           |                   |                                   |
   |           v                   v                                   |
   |    +-------------+   +-----------------+                          |
   |    |Sync. Process|   |Discard Previous |                          |
   |    +------+------+   +--------+--------+                          |
   |           |                   |                                   |
   +-----------+                   +-----------------------------------+

          Figure 2: The client's behaviour in NTS broadcast mode.



Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


Appendix B.  TICTOC Security Requirements

   The following table compares the NTS specifications against the
   TICTOC security requirements [RFC7384].

   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   | Section | Requirement from I-D tictoc        | Requirement | NTS  |
   |         | security-requirements-05           | level       |      |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   | 5.1.1   | Authentication of Servers          | MUST        | OK   |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   | 5.1.1   | Authorization of Servers           | MUST        | OK   |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   | 5.1.2   | Recursive Authentication of        | MUST        | OK   |
   |         | Servers (Stratum 1)                |             |      |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   | 5.1.2   | Recursive Authorization of Servers | MUST        | OK   |
   |         | (Stratum 1)                        |             |      |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   | 5.1.3   | Authentication and Authorization   | MAY         | -    |
   |         | of Slaves                          |             |      |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   | 5.2     | Integrity protection.              | MUST        | OK   |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   | 5.4     | Protection against DoS attacks     | SHOULD      | OK   |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   | 5.5     | Replay protection                  | MUST        | OK   |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   | 5.6     | Key freshness.                     | MUST        | OK   |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   |         | Security association.              | SHOULD      | OK   |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   |         | Unicast and multicast              | SHOULD      | OK   |
   |         | associations.                      |             |      |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   | 5.7     | Performance: no degradation in     | MUST        | OK   |
   |         | quality of time transfer.          |             |      |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   |         | Performance: lightweight           | SHOULD      | OK   |
   |         | computation                        |             |      |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   |         | Performance: storage, bandwidth    | SHOULD      | OK   |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   | 5.7     | Confidentiality protection         | MAY         | NO   |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   | 5.9     | Protection against Packet Delay    | SHOULD      | NA*) |
   |         | and Interception Attacks           |             |      |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+



Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


   | 5.10    | Secure mode                        | MUST        | -    |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+
   |         | Hybrid mode                        | SHOULD      | -    |
   +---------+------------------------------------+-------------+------+

   *) See discussion in section Section 11.5.

         Comparison of NTS sepecification against TICTOC security
                               requirements.

Appendix C.  Broadcast Mode

   For the broadcast mode, NTS adopts the TESLA protocol with some
   customizations.  This appendix provides details on the generation and
   usage of the one-way key chain collected and assembled from
   [RFC4082].  Note that NTS is using the "not re-using keys" scheme of
   TESLA as described in section 3.7.2. of [RFC4082].

C.1.  Server Preparations

   Server setup:

   1.  The server determines a reasonable upper bound B on the network
       delay between itself and an arbitrary client, measured in
       milliseconds.

   2.  It determines the number n+1 of keys in the one-way key chain.
       This yields the number n of keys that are usable to authenticate
       broadcast packets.  This number n is therefore also the number of
       time intervals during which the server can send authenticated
       broadcast messages before it has to calculate a new key chain.

   3.  It divides time into n uniform intervals I_1, I_2, ..., I_n.
       Each of these time intervals has length L, measured in
       milliseconds.  In order to fulfill the requirement 3.7.2. of RFC
       4082 the time interval L has to be smaller than the time interval
       between the broadcast messages.

   4.  The server generates a random key K_n.

   5.  Using a one-way function F, the server generates a one-way chain
       of n+1 keys K_0, K_1, ..., K_{n} according to

          K_i = F(K_{i+1}).

   6.  Using another one-way function F', it generates a sequence of n+1
       MAC keys K'_0, K'_1, ..., K'_{n-1} according to




Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


          K'_i = F'(K_i).

   7.  Each MAC key K'_i is assigned to the time interval I_i.

   8.  The server determines the key disclosure delay d, which is the
       number of intervals between using a key and disclosing it.  Note
       that although security is provided for all choices d>0, the
       choice still makes a difference:

       *  If d is chosen too short, the client might discard packets
          because it fails to verify that the key used for their MAC has
          not been yet disclosed.

       *  If d is chosen too long, the received packets have to be
          buffered for a unnecessarily long time before they can be
          verified by the client and subsequently be utilized for time
          synchronization.

       The server SHOULD calculate d according to

          d = ceil( 2*B / L) + 1,

       where ceil gives the smallest integer greater than or equal to
       its argument.

   < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         Generation of Keys

             F              F               F                 F
    K_0  <-------- K_1  <--------  ...  <-------- K_{n-1} <------- K_n
     |              |                              |                |
     |              |                              |                |
     | F'           | F'                           | F'             | F'
     |              |                              |                |
     v              v                              v                v
    K'_0           K'_1            ...           K'_{n-1}         K'_n
             [______________|____       ____|_________________|_______]
                   I_1             ...            I_{n-1}          I_n

                     Course of Time/Usage of Keys
   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->

     A Schematic explanation on the TESLA protocol's one-way key chain








Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


C.2.  Client Preparation

   A client needs the following information in order to participate in a
   TESLA broadcast.

   o  One key K_i from the one-way key chain, which has to be
      authenticated as belonging to the server.  Typically, this will be
      K_0.

   o  The disclosure schedule of the keys.  This consists of:

      *  the length n of the one-way key chain,

      *  the length L of the time intervals I_1, I_2, ..., I_n,

      *  the starting time T_i of an interval I_i.  Typically this is
         the starting time T_1 of the first interval;

      *  the disclosure delay d.

   o  The one-way function F used to recursively derive the keys in the
      one-way key chain,

   o  The second one-way function F' used to derive the MAC keys K'_0,
      K'_1, ... , K'_n from the keys in the one-way chain.

   o  An upper bound D_t on how far its own clock is "behind" that of
      the server.

   Note that if D_t is greater than (d - 1) * L, then some authentic
   packets might be discarded.  If D_t is greater than d * L, then all
   authentic packets will be discarded.  In the latter case, the client
   should not participate in the broadcast, since there will be no
   benefit in doing so.

C.3.  Sending Authenticated Broadcast Packets

   During each time interval I_i, the server sends one authenticated
   broadcast packet P_i.  This packet consists of:

   o  a message M_i,

   o  the index i (in case a packet arrives late),

   o  a MAC authenticating the message M_i, with K'_i used as key,

   o  the key K_{i-d}, which is included for disclosure.




Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


C.4.  Authentication of Received Packets

   When a client receives a packet P_i as described above, it first
   checks that it has not received a packet with the same disclosed key
   before.  This is done to avoid replay/flooding attacks.  A packet
   that fails this test is discarded.

   Next, the client begins to check the packet's timeliness by ensuring
   that, according to the disclosure schedule and with respect to the
   upper bound D_t determined above, the server cannot have disclosed
   the key K_i yet.  Specifically, it needs to check that the server's
   clock cannot read a time that is in time interval I_{i+d} or later.
   Since it works under the assumption that the server's clock is not
   more than D_t "ahead" of the client's clock, the client can calculate
   an upper bound t_i for the server's clock at the time when P_i
   arrived.  This upper bound t_i is calculated according to

      t_i = R + D_t,

   where R is the client's clock at the arrival of P_i.  This implies
   that at the time of arrival of P_i, the server could have been in
   interval I_x at most, with

      x = floor((t_i - T_1) / L) + 1,

   where floor gives the greatest integer less than or equal to its
   argument.  The client now needs to verify that

      x < i+d

   is valid (see also section 3.5 of [RFC4082]).  If falsified, it is
   discarded.

   If the check above is successful, the client performs another more
   rigorous check: it sends a key check request to the server (in the
   form of a client_keycheck message), asking explicitly if K_i has
   already been disclosed.  It remembers the timestamp t_check of the
   sending time of that request as well as the nonce it used correlated
   with the interval number i.  If it receives an answer from the server
   stating that K_i has not yet been disclosed and it is able to verify
   the HMAC on that response, then it deduces that K_i was undisclosed
   at t_check and therefore also at R.  In this case, the clients
   accepts P_i as timely.

   Next the client verifies that a newly disclosed key K_{i-d} belongs
   to the one-way key chain.  To this end it applies the one-way
   function F to K_{i-d} until it can verify identity with an earlier
   disclosed key (see Clause 3.5 in RFC 4082, item 3).



Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


   Next the client verifies that the transmitted time value s_i belongs
   to the time interval I_i, by checking

      T_i =< s_i, and

      s_i < T_{i+1}.

   If falsified, the packet MUST be discarded and the client MUST
   reinitialize the broadcast mode with a unicast association (because a
   falsification of this check yields that the packet was not generated
   according to protocol, which suggests an attack).

   If a packet P_i passes all tests listed above, it is stored for later
   authentication.  Also, if at this time there is a package with index
   i-d already buffered, then the client uses the disclosed key K_{i-d}
   to derive K'_{i-d} and uses that to check the MAC included in package
   P_{i-d}. On success, it regards M_{i-d} as authenticated.

Appendix D.  Random Number Generation

   At various points of the protocol, the generation of random numbers
   is required.  The employed methods of generation need to be
   cryptographically secure.  See [RFC4086] for guidelines concerning
   this topic.

Authors' Addresses

   Dieter Sibold
   Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt
   Bundesallee 100
   Braunschweig  D-38116
   Germany

   Phone: +49-(0)531-592-8420
   Fax:   +49-531-592-698420
   Email: dieter.sibold@ptb.de


   Stephen Roettger
   Google Inc

   Email: stephen.roettger@googlemail.com









Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                     NTS                      October 2014


   Kristof Teichel
   Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt
   Bundesallee 100
   Braunschweig  D-38116
   Germany

   Phone: +49-(0)531-592-8421
   Email: kristof.teichel@ptb.de











































Sibold, et al.           Expires April 26, 2015                [Page 30]


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