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

Versions: (draft-eronen-tls-psk) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 4279

TLS Working Group                                              P. Eronen
Internet-Draft                                                     Nokia
Expires: November 22, 2004                                 H. Tschofenig
                                                                 Siemens
                                                            May 24, 2004


     Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
                       draft-ietf-tls-psk-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   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 November 22, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document specifies new ciphersuites for the Transport Layer
   Security (TLS) protocol to support authentication based on pre-shared
   keys.  These pre-shared keys are symmetric keys, shared in advance
   among the communicating parties, and do not require any public key
   operations.






Eronen & Tschofenig    Expires November 22, 2004                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          PSK Ciphersuites for TLS                May 2004


1.  Introduction

   Usually TLS uses public key certificates [TLS] or Kerberos [TLS-KRB]
   for authentication.  This document describes how to use symmetric
   keys (later called pre-shared keys or PSKs), shared in advance among
   the communicating parties, to establish a TLS connection.

   There are basically two reasons why one might want to do this:

   o  First, TLS may be used in performance-constrained environments
      where the CPU power needed for public key operations is not
      available.

   o  Second, pre-shared keys may be more convenient from a key
      management point of view.  For instance, in closed environments
      where the connections are mostly configured manually in advance,
      it may be easier to configure a PSK than to use certificates.
      Another case is when the parties already have a mechanism for
      setting up a shared secret key, and that mechanism could be used
      to "bootstrap" a key for authenticating a TLS connection.

   This document specifies a number of new ciphersuites for TLS.  These
   ciphersuites use a new authentication and key exchange algorithm for
   PSKs, and re-use existing cipher and MAC algorithms from [TLS] and
   [TLS-AES].

1.1  Applicability statement

   The ciphersuites defined in this document are intended for a rather
   limited set of applications, usually involving only a very small
   number of clients and servers.  Even in such environments, other
   alternatives may be more appropriate.

   If the main goal is to avoid PKIs, another possibility worth
   considering is to use self-signed certificates with public key
   fingerprints.  Instead of manually configuring a shared secret in,
   for instance, some configuration file, a fingerprint (hash) of the
   other party's public key (or certificate) could be placed there
   instead.

   It is also possible to use the SRP (Secure Remote Password)
   ciphersuites for shared secret authentication [TLS-SRP].  While SRP
   protects against dictionary attacks, it requires more computational
   resources.

1.2  Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",



Eronen & Tschofenig    Expires November 22, 2004                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          PSK Ciphersuites for TLS                May 2004


   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].

2.  Protocol

   It is assumed that the reader is familiar with ordinary TLS
   handshake, shown below.  The elements in parenthesis are not included
   in PSK-based ciphersuites.

      Client                                               Server
      ------                                               ------

      ClientHello                  -------->
                                                      ServerHello
                                                    (Certificate)
                                                ServerKeyExchange
                                             (CertificateRequest)
                                   <--------      ServerHelloDone
      (Certificate)
      ClientKeyExchange
      (CertificateVerify)
      ChangeCipherSpec
      Finished                     -------->
                                                 ChangeCipherSpec
                                   <--------             Finished
      Application Data             <------->     Application Data


   The client indicates its willingness to use pre-shared key
   authentication by including one or more PSK-based ciphersuites in the
   ClientHello message.  The following ciphersuites are defined in this
   document:

      CipherSuite TLS_PSK_WITH_RC4_128_SHA        = { 0x00, 0xTBD };
      CipherSuite TLS_PSK_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA   = { 0x00, 0xTBD };
      CipherSuite TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA    = { 0x00, 0xTBD };
      CipherSuite TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA    = { 0x00, 0xTBD };

   Note that this document defines only a new authentication and key
   exchange algorithm; see [TLS] and [TLS-AES] for description of the
   cipher and MAC algorithms.

   If the TLS server also wants to use pre-shared keys, it selects one
   of the PSK ciphersuites, places the selected ciphersuite in the
   ServerHello message, and includes an appropriate ServerKeyExchange
   message (see below).  The Certificate and CertificateRequest payloads
   are omitted from the response.




Eronen & Tschofenig    Expires November 22, 2004                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          PSK Ciphersuites for TLS                May 2004


   Both clients and servers may have pre-shared keys with several
   different parties.  The client indicates which key to use by
   including a "PSK identity" in the ClientKeyExchange message (note
   that unlike in [TLS-SHAREDKEYS], the session_id field in ClientHello
   message keeps its usual meaning).  To help the client in selecting
   which identity to use, the server can provide a "PSK identity hint"
   in the ServerKeyExchange message (note that if no hint is provided, a
   ServerKeyExchange message is still sent).

   This document does not specify the format of the PSK identity or PSK
   identity hint; neither is specified how exactly the client uses the
   hint (if it uses it at all).  The parties have to agree on the
   identities when the shared secret is configured (however, see Section
   4 for related security considerations).  In situations where the
   identity is entered by a person, it is RECOMMENDED that the input is
   processed using an appropriate stringprep [STRINGPREP] profile and
   encoded in octets using UTF-8 encoding [UTF8].  One possible
   stringprep profile is described in [SASLPREP].

   The format of the ServerKeyExchange and ClientKeyExchange messages is
   shown below.

      struct {
          select (KeyExchangeAlgorithm) {
              case diffie_hellman:
                  ServerDHParams params;
                  Signature signed_params;
              case rsa:
                  ServerRSAParams params;
                  Signature signed_params;
              case psk:  /* NEW */
                  opaque psk_identity_hint<0..2^16-1>;
          };
      } ServerKeyExchange;

      struct {
          select (KeyExchangeAlgorithm) {
              case rsa: EncryptedPreMasterSecret;
              case diffie_hellman: ClientDiffieHellmanPublic;
              case psk: opaque psk_identity<0..2^16-1>;  /* NEW */
          } exchange_keys;
      } ClientKeyExchange;

   The premaster secret is formed as follows: concatenate 24 zero
   octets, followed by SHA-1 hash [FIPS180-2] of the PSK itself,
   followed by 4 zero octets.





Eronen & Tschofenig    Expires November 22, 2004                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          PSK Ciphersuites for TLS                May 2004


      Note: This effectively means that only the HMAC-SHA1 part of the
      TLS PRF is used, and the HMAC-MD5 part is not used.  See
      [Krawczyk20040113] for a more detailed rationale.  The PSK is
      first hashed so that PSKs longer than 24 octets can be used; this
      is similar to what is done in [HMAC] if the key length is longer
      than the hash block size.

   If the server does not recognize the PSK identity, it SHOULD respond
   with a decrypt_error alert message.  This alert is also sent if
   validating the Finished message fails.  The use of the same alert
   message makes it more difficult to find out which PSK identities are
   known to the server.

3.  IANA considerations

   This document does not define any new namespaces to be managed by
   IANA.  It does require assignment of several new ciphersuite numbers,
   but it is unclear how this is done, since the TLS spec does not say
   who is responsible for assigning them :-)

4.  Security Considerations

   As with all schemes involving shared keys, special care should be
   taken to protect the shared values and to limit their exposure over
   time.

   The ciphersuites defined in this document do not provide Perfect
   Forward Secrecy (PFS).  That is, if the shared secret key is somehow
   compromised, an attacker can decrypt old conversations.  (Note that
   the most popular TLS key exchange algorithm, RSA, does not provide
   PFS either.)

   Use of a fixed shared secret of limited entropy (such as a password)
   allows an attacker to perform a brute-force or dictionary attack to
   recover the secret.  This may be either an off-line attack (against a
   captured TLS conversation), or an on-line attack where the attacker
   attempts to connect to the server and tries different keys.  An
   attacker can also get the information required for an off-line attack
   if a valid client attempts to connect with the attacker.  It is
   RECOMMENDED that implementations that allow the administrator to
   manually configure the PSK also provide a functionality for
   generating a new random PSK, taking [RANDOMNESS] into account.

   The PSK identity is sent in cleartext.  While using a user name or
   other similar string as the PSK identity is the most straightforward
   option, it may lead to problems in some environments since an
   eavesdropper is able to identify the communicating parties.  Even
   when the identity does not reveal any information itself, reusing the



Eronen & Tschofenig    Expires November 22, 2004                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          PSK Ciphersuites for TLS                May 2004


   same identity over time may eventually allow an attacker to perform
   traffic analysis to the identify parties.  It should be noted that
   this is no worse than client certificates, since they are also sent
   in cleartext.

5.  Acknowledgments

   The protocol defined in this document is heavily based on work by Tim
   Dierks and Peter Gutmann, and borrows some text from [TLS-SHAREDKEYS]
   and [TLS-AES].  Valuable feedback was also provided by Philip
   Ginzboorg, Peter Gutmann, David Jablon, Nikos Mavroyanopoulos, Bodo
   Moeller, and Mika Tervonen.

   When the first version of this draft was almost ready, the authors
   learned that something similar had been proposed already in 1996
   [TLS-PASSAUTH].  However, this draft is not intended for web password
   authentication, but rather for other uses of TLS.

6.  References

6.1  Normative References

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

   [TLS-AES]  Chown, P., "Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
              Ciphersuites  for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC
              3268, June 2002.

   [TLS]      Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
              RFC 2246, January 1999.

   [RANDOMNESS]
              Eastlake, D., Crocker, S. and J. Schiller, "Randomness
              Recommendations for Security", RFC 1750, December 1994.

   [FIPS180-2]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology,
              "Specifications for the Secure Hash Standard",  Federal
              Information Processing Standard (FIPS) Publication 180-2,
              August 2002.

6.2  Informative References

   [TLS-SHAREDKEYS]
              Gutmann, P., "Use of Shared Keys in the TLS Protocol",
              draft-ietf-tls-sharedkeys-02 (expired), October 2003.



Eronen & Tschofenig    Expires November 22, 2004                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          PSK Ciphersuites for TLS                May 2004


   [HMAC]     Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC:
              Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
              February 1997.

   [Krawczyk20040113]
              Krawczyk, H., "Re: TLS shared keys PRF",  message on
              ietf-tls@lists.certicom.com mailing list 2004-01-13,
              http://www.imc.org/ietf-tls/mail-archive/msg04098.html.

   [SASLPREP]
              Zeilenga, K., "SASLprep: Stringprep profile for user names
              and passwords", draft-ietf-sasl-saslprep-09 (work in
              progress), April 2004.

   [STRINGPREP]
              Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
              Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454,
              December 2002.

   [TLS-KRB]  Medvinsky, A. and M. Hur, "Addition of Kerberos Cipher
              Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 2712,
              October 1999.

   [TLS-PASSAUTH]
              Simon, D., "Addition of Shared Key Authentication to
              Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
              draft-ietf-tls-passauth-00 (expired), November 1996.

   [TLS-SRP]  Taylor, D., Wu, T., Mavroyanopoulos, N. and T. Perrin,
              "Using SRP for TLS Authentication", draft-ietf-tls-srp-06
              (work in progress), January 2004.

   [UTF8]     Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", RFC 3629, November 2003.


Authors' Addresses

   Pasi Eronen
   Nokia Research Center
   P.O. Box 407
   FIN-00045 Nokia Group
   Finland

   EMail: pasi.eronen@nokia.com






Eronen & Tschofenig    Expires November 22, 2004                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          PSK Ciphersuites for TLS                May 2004


   Hannes Tschofenig
   Siemens
   Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
   Munich, Bayern  81739
   Germany

   EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com

Appendix A.  Changelog

   (This section should be removed by the RFC Editor before
   publication.)

   Changes from draft-eronen-tls-psk-00 to draft-ietf-tls-psk-00:

   o  Updated dictionary attack considerations based on comments from
      David Jablon.

   o  Added a recommendation about using UTF-8 in the identity field.

   o  Removed Appendix A comparing this document with
      draft-ietf-tls-sharedkeys-02.

   o  Removed IPR comment about SPR.

   o  Minor editorial changes.

























Eronen & Tschofenig    Expires November 22, 2004                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          PSK Ciphersuites for TLS                May 2004


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Eronen & Tschofenig    Expires November 22, 2004                [Page 9]


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