[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]
Versions: (draft-rescorla-tls-extractor) 00
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5705
Network Working Group E. Rescorla
Internet-Draft Network Resonance
Intended status: Standards Track September 07, 2009
Expires: March 11, 2010
Keying Material Exporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
draft-ietf-tls-extractor-07.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 11, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Rescorla Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TLS Exporters September 2009
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
A number of protocols wish to leverage Transport Layer Security (TLS)
to perform key establishment but then use some of the keying material
for their own purposes. This document describes a general mechanism
for allowing that.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Binding to Application Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Exporter Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Rescorla Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TLS Exporters September 2009
1. Introduction
Note: The mechanism described in this document was previously known
as "TLS Extractors" but was changed to avoid a name conflict with
the use of the term "Extractor" in the cryptographic community.
A number of protocols wish to leverage Transport Layer Security (TLS)
[RFC5246] or Datagram TLS (DTLS) [RFC4347] to perform key
establishment but then use some of the keying material for their own
purposes. A typical example is DTLS-SRTP [I-D.ietf-avt-dtls-srtp], a
key management scheme for SRTP which uses DTLS to perform a key
exchange and negotiate the SRTP [RFC3711] protection suite and then
uses the DTLS master_secret to generate the SRTP keys.
These applications imply a need to be able to export keying material
(later called Exported Keying Material or EKM) from TLS/DTLS to an
application or protocol residing at an upper-layer, and securely
agree on the upper-layer context where the keying material will be
used. The mechanism for exporting the keying material has the
following requirements:
o Both client and server need to be able to export the same EKM
value.
o EKM values should be indistinguishable from random data by
attackers who don't know the master_secret.
o It should be possible to export multiple EKM values from the same
TLS/DTLS association.
o Knowing one EKM value should not reveal any information about the
master_secret or about other EKM values.
The mechanism described in this document is intended to fulfill these
requirements. This mechanism is compatible with all versions of TLS.
2. 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 [RFC2119].
3. Binding to Application Contexts
In addition to using an exporter to obtain keying material, an
application using the keying material has to securely establish the
upper-layer context where the keying material will be used. The
details of this context depend on the application, but it could
include things such as algorithms and parameters that will be used
Rescorla Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TLS Exporters September 2009
with the keys, identifier(s) for the endpoint(s) who will use the
keys, identifier(s) for the session(s) where the keys will be used,
and the lifetime(s) for the context and/or keys. At a minimum, there
should be some mechanism for signalling that an exporter will be
used.
This specification does not mandate a single mechanism for agreeing
on such context; instead, there are several possibilities that can be
used (and can complement each other). For example:
o One important part of the context -- which application will use
the exported keys -- is given by the disambiguating label string
(see Section 4).
o Information about the upper-layer context can be included in the
optional data after the exporter label (see Section 4).
o Information about the upper-layer context can be exchanged in TLS
extensions included in the ClientHello and ServerHello messages.
This approach is used in [I-D.ietf-avt-dtls-srtp]. The handshake
messages are protected by the Finished messages, so once the
handshake completes, the peers will have the same view of the
information. Extensions also allow a limited form of negotiation:
for example, the TLS client could propose several alternatives for
some context parameters, and the TLS server could select one of
them.
o The upper-layer protocol can include its own handshake which can
be protected using the keys exported by TLS.
It is important to note that just embedding TLS messages in the
upper-layer protocol may not automatically secure all the important
context information, since the upper-layer messages are not covered
by TLS Finished messages.
4. Exporter Definition
The output of the exporter is intended to be used in a single scope,
which is associated with the TLS session, the label, and the context
value.
The exporter takes three input values
o a disambiguating label string,
o a per-association context value provided by the application using
the exporter, and
o a length value.
It then computes:
Rescorla Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TLS Exporters September 2009
PRF(SecurityParameters.master_secret, label,
SecurityParameters.client_random +
SecurityParameters.server_random +
context_value_length + context_value
)[length]
Where PRF is the TLS PRF in use for the session. The output is a
pseudorandom bit string of length bytes generated from the
master_secret.
Labels here have the same definition as in TLS, i.e., an ASCII string
with no terminating NULL. Label values beginning with "EXPERIMENTAL"
MAY be used for private use without registration. All other label
values MUST be registered via Specification Required as described by
RFC 5226 [RFC5226]. Note that exporter labels have the potential to
collide with existing PRF labels. In order to prevent this, labels
SHOULD begin with "EXPORTER". This is not a MUST because there are
existing uses which have labels which do not begin with this prefix.
The context value allows the application using the exporter to mix
its own data with the TLS PRF for the exporter output. One example
of where this might be useful is an authentication setting where the
client credentials are valid for more than one identity; the context
value could then be used to mix the expected identity into the keying
material, thus preventing substitution attacks. The context value
length is encoded as an unsigned 16-bit quantity (uint16)
representing the length of the context value. The context MAY be
zero length. Because the context value is mixed with the
master_secret via the PRF, it is safe to mix confidential information
into the extractor provided that the master_secret will not be known
to the attacker.
5. Security Considerations
The prime security requirement for exporter outputs is that they be
independent. More formally, after a particular TLS session, if an
adversary is allowed to choose multiple (label, context value) pairs
and is given the output of the PRF for those values, the attacker is
still unable to distinguish between the output of the PRF for a
(label, context value) pair (different from the ones that it
submitted) and a random value of the same length. In particular,
there may be settings, such as the one described in Section 4, where
the attacker can control the context value; such an attacker MUST NOT
be able to predict the output of the exporter. Similarly, an
attacker who does not know the master secret should not be able to
distinguish valid exporter outputs from random values. The current
set of TLS PRFs is believed to meet this objective, provided the
Rescorla Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TLS Exporters September 2009
master secret is randomly generated.
Because an exporter produces the same value if applied twice with the
same label to the same master_secret, it is critical that two EKM
values generated with the same label not be used for two different
purposes--hence the requirement for IANA registration. However,
because exporters depend on the TLS PRF, it is not a threat to the
use of an EKM value generated from one label to reveal an EKM value
generated from another label.
With certain TLS cipher suites, the TLS master secret is not
necessarily unique to a single TLS session. In particular, with RSA
key exchange, a malicious party acting as TLS server in one session
and TLS client in another session can cause those two sessions to
have the same TLS master secret (though the sessions must be
established simultaneously to get adequate control of the Random
values). Applications using the EKM need to consider this in how
they use the EKM; in some cases, requiring the use of other cipher
suites (such as those using Diffie-Hellman key exchange) may be
advisable.
Designing a secure mechanism that uses extractors is not necessarily
straightforward. This document only provides the extractor
mechanism, but the problem of agreeing on the surrounding context and
the meaning of the information passed to and from the extractor
remains. Any new uses of the extractor mechanism should be subject
to careful review.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create (has created) a TLS Exporter Label
registry for this purpose. The initial contents of the registry are
given below:
Value Reference Note
----------------------------- --------- ----
client finished [RFC5246] (1)
server finished [RFC5246] (1)
master secret [RFC5246] (1)
key expansion [RFC5246] (1)
client EAP encryption [RFC5216]
ttls keying material [RFC5281]
ttls challenge [RFC5281]
Note(1): These entries are reserved and MUST NOT be used for the
purpose described in RFC XXXX, in order to avoid confusion with
similar, but distinct use in RFC 5246.
Rescorla Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TLS Exporters September 2009
[ RFC Editor: Please replace 'XXXX' above by the RFC number assigned
to this document and delete this remark. ]
Future values are allocated via RFC 5226 Specification Required
policy. The label is a string consisting of printable ASCII
characters. IANA MUST also verify that one label is not a prefix of
any other label. For example, labels "key" or "master secretary" are
forbidden.
7. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Pasi Eronen for valuable comments and the contents of the
IANA section and Section 3. Thanks to David McGrew for helpful
discussion of the security considerations and to Vijay Gurbani and
Alfred Hoenes for editorial comments.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC5216] Simon, D., Aboba, B., and R. Hurst, "The EAP-TLS
Authentication Protocol", RFC 5216, March 2008.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004.
[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.
[I-D.ietf-avt-dtls-srtp]
McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
Rescorla Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TLS Exporters September 2009
draft-ietf-avt-dtls-srtp-07 (work in progress),
February 2009.
[RFC5281] Funk, P. and S. Blake-Wilson, "Extensible Authentication
Protocol Tunneled Transport Layer Security Authenticated
Protocol Version 0 (EAP-TTLSv0)", RFC 5281, August 2008.
Author's Address
Eric Rescorla
Network Resonance
2064 Edgewood Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
USA
Email: ekr@networkresonance.com
Rescorla Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 8]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/