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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 8125

Network Working Group                                         J. Schmidt
Internet-Draft                                 secunet Security Networks
Intended status: Informational                              May 17, 2016
Expires: November 18, 2016


                     Requirements for PAKE schemes
                      draft-irtf-cfrg-pake-reqs-04

Abstract

   Password-Authenticated Key Agreement (PAKE) schemes are interactive
   protocols that allow the participants to authenticate each other and
   derive shared cryptographic keys using a (weaker) shared password.
   This document reviews different types of PAKE schemes and discusses
   their requirements.

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 November 18, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.



Schmidt                 Expires November 18, 2016               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Requirements for PAKE schemes             May 2016


Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  PAKE Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Storage of the Password . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Transmission of Public Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.3.  Two Party versus Multiparty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Security of PAKEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Implementation Aspects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Special case: Elliptic Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Protocol Considerations and Applications  . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Requirements notation

   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].

2.  Introduction

   Passwords are the predominant method of accessing the Internet today
   due largely to their intuitiveness and ease of use.  Since a user
   needs to enter her password repeatedly over the course of many
   connections to the Internet, these passwords tend to be easy to
   remember and able to be entered, repeatedly, with a low probability
   of error.  They tend to be low-grade and not-so-random secrets that
   are susceptible to brute-force guessing attacks.  In other words,
   they are horrible credentials to use for authentication.

   A Password-Authenticated Key Exchange (PAKE) attempts to address this
   issue by constructing a cryptographic key exchange that does not
   result in the password, or password-derived data, being transmitted
   across an unsecured channel.  Two parties to the exchange prove
   possession of the shared password without revealing it.  Such
   exchanges are therefore resistant to an off-line, brute-force
   dictionary attack.  PAKEs are especially interesting due to the fact
   that they can achieve mutual authentication without requiring any
   Public Key Infrastructure (PKI).



Schmidt                 Expires November 18, 2016               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Requirements for PAKE schemes             May 2016


   The problem was initially described by Bellovin and Merritt in [BM92]
   and has received considerable cryptographic attention since then.

3.  PAKE Taxonomy

   Broadly speaking, different PAKEs satisfy their goals in a number of
   common ways.  This leads to various design choices - how public keys
   are transmitted (encrypted or not), whether both parties possess the
   same representation of the password (balanced versus augmented), and
   the number of parties (two party versus multiparty).

3.1.  Storage of the Password

   When both sides of a PAKE store the same representation of the
   password, the PAKE is said to be "balanced".  In a balanced PAKE the
   password can be stored directly, in a salted state by hashing it with
   a random salt, or by representing the credential as an element in a
   finite field (by, for instance, multiplying a generator from a finite
   field and the password represented as a number to produce a "password
   element").  The benefits of such PAKEs are that it is applicable to
   situations where either party can initiate the exchange or both
   parties can initiate simultaneously (where they both believe
   themselves to be the "initiator").  This sort of PAKE can be useful
   for mesh networking (e.g.  [DOT11]) or Internet-of-Things
   applications.

   When one side maintains are uninvertable transform of the password
   and the other maintains the raw password, the PAKE is said to be
   "augmented".  Typically, a client will maintain the raw password and
   a server will maintain a transformed element generated with a one-way
   function.  The benefit of an augmented PAKE is that the server's
   password database is protected in a way that is not possible with a
   balanced PAKE.  Augmented PAKEs are resistant to Key Compromise
   Impersonation (KCI) where an adversary who has successfully attacked
   Bob can impersonate Bob to everyone, but it is not possible to
   impersonate everyone back to Bob. An adversary that has successfully
   obtained the server's PAKE credentials is still required to perform a
   dictionary attack in order to learn an individual password.  This
   sort of PAKE is useful for strict client-server protocols, such as
   [RFC5246].

3.2.  Transmission of Public Keys

   All known PAKEs use public key cryptography.  A fundamental
   difference in PAKEs is how the public key is communicated in the
   exchange.





Schmidt                 Expires November 18, 2016               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Requirements for PAKE schemes             May 2016


   One class of PAKEs uses symmetric key cryptography, with a key
   derived from the password, to encrypt an ephemeral public key.  The
   ability of the peer to demonstrate it has successfully decrypted the
   public key proves knowledge of the shared password.  Examples of this
   exchange include the first PAKE presented by [BM92], the Encrypted
   Key Exchange (EKE).  A variant of this method, as it is e.g. used in
   international travel documents by PACE [BFK09], is to encrypt a nonce
   instead of a key, which is later used for the derivation of the
   shared key.

   The other class of PAKEs transmits unencrypted public keys.  These
   public keys may be blinded by some function of the shared password,
   but the public key that is transmitted across the unsecured medium is
   an element in a finite field, not a random blob.  The ability of the
   peer to successfully use that public key (for example, possibly
   unblinding it) proves knowledge of the shared password.  Examples of
   this exchange include [SPEKE].

3.3.  Two Party versus Multiparty

   The majority of PAKE protocols allow two parties to agree on a shared
   key based on a shared password.  Nevertheless, there exist proposals
   that allow key agreement for more than two parties.  Those protocols
   allow key establishment for a group of parties, hence are called
   Group PAKEs or GPAKEs.  Examples of such protocols include [ABCP06],
   while [ACGP11] and [HYCS15] propose a generic construction that
   allows transferring any two-party PAKE into a GPAKE protocol.
   Another possibility to define a multi-party PAKE protocol is to
   assume the existence of a trusted server each party shares a password
   with.  This server enables different parties to agree on a common
   secret key without the need to share a password among each other.
   Each party has only a shared secret with the trusted server.  For
   example Abdalla et al. designed such a protocol [AFP05].

4.  Security of PAKEs

   PAKE schemes are modelled on the scenario of two parties, typically
   Alice and Bob, who share a password (or perhaps Bob shares a function
   of the password) and would like to use it to establish a secure
   session key over an untrusted link.  There is a powerful adversary,
   typically Eve, who would like to subvert the exchange.  Eve has
   access to a dictionary that is likely to contain Alice and Bob's
   password and Eve is capable of enumerating through the dictionary in
   a brute-force manner to try and discover Alice and Bob's password.

   All PAKEs have a flaw: if Eve guesses the password she can subvert
   the exchange.  Therefore to consider security of a PAKE it is
   necessary to model the difficulty of that happening.  If the



Schmidt                 Expires November 18, 2016               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Requirements for PAKE schemes             May 2016


   probability of discovering the password is a function of interaction
   with the protocol participants, and not a function of computation,
   then the PAKE is secure.  That is, if Eve is unable to take
   information from a passive attack or a single active attack and
   enumerate through her dictionary then the only attack left is
   repeated guessing attacks.  Eve learns one thing from a single active
   attack: whether her single guess is correct or not.

   In other words, the security of a PAKE scheme is based on the idea
   that Eve, who is trying to impersonate Alice, cannot efficiently
   verify a password guess without interacting with Bob (or Alice) and
   hence is detected.  Thus, it is essential to keep a balance of
   allowed tries to reduce the probability of Eve to succeed on the one
   hand and to limit the risk of a denial of service vulnerability on
   the other hand.  In order to judge and compare the security of PAKE
   schemes, security proofs in commonly accepted models should be used.
   However, each proof and model is based on assumptions: Often, a
   security proof shows that in case an adversary is able to break the
   scheme, she is also able to solve a problem that is assumed to be
   hard, like computing a discrete logarithm.  By conversion, breaking
   the scheme is considered as a hard problem, too.  In addition, proofs
   sometimes rely on idealized versions of hash functions and/or block
   ciphers, called random oracles and ideal ciphers.

   A PAKE scheme should come with a security proof and also clearly
   state its assumptions and used models.  In particular, the proof must
   show that the probability of an active adversary to pass
   authentication, to learn anything about the password or to learn
   anything about the established key equals, up to a negligible term,
   the chance of randomly guessing the password, while each guess
   requires an interaction with a legitimate party.  Moreover, the
   authors may specify which underlying primitives to be used with their
   scheme.

4.1.  Implementation Aspects

   Besides the theoretical security of a scheme, pitfalls when
   implementing it in practice have to be considered as well.  Even a
   scheme that is secure in a well-defined mathematical model can leak
   information via side-channels, if it is not carefully implemented.
   The design of the scheme may allow or prevent an easy protection
   against information leakage.  In a network scenario, an adversary may
   measure the time the computation of an answer takes and derive
   information about secret parameters of the scheme.  If a device
   operates in a potential hostile environment, e.g. in case it is
   implemented on a smart card, other side-channels like power
   consumption and electromagnetic emanations, or even active
   implementation attacks have to be taken into account as well.



Schmidt                 Expires November 18, 2016               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Requirements for PAKE schemes             May 2016


   The developers of a scheme should keep the implementation aspects in
   mind and show how to implement the protocol in constant time.
   Furthermore, adding a discussion how to protect implementations of
   their scheme in potential hostile environments is encouraged.

4.2.  Special case: Elliptic Curves

   Since Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) allows for a smaller key-
   length compared to traditional schemes based on the discrete
   logarithm problem in finite fields at similar security levels, using
   ECC for PAKE schemes is also of interest.  In contrast to schemes
   that can use the finite field element directly, an additional
   challenge has to be considered for some schemes based on ECC: The
   mapping of a random string to an element that can be computed with,
   i.e. a point on the curve.  In some cases, also the opposite is
   required, i.e. the mapping of a curve point to a string that is not
   distinguishable from a random one.  When choosing a mapping, it is
   crucial to consider the implementation aspects as well.

   In case the PAKE scheme is intended to be used with ECC, the authors
   should state whether there is a mapping function required and if so,
   discuss its requirements.  Alternatively, the authors may define a
   mapping to be used with their scheme.

5.  Protocol Considerations and Applications

   In most cases, the PAKE scheme is a building block in a more complex
   protocol like IPSEC or TLS.  This can influence the choice of a
   suited PAKE scheme.  For example, an augmented scheme can be
   beneficial for protocols that have a strict server-client
   relationship.  In case both parties may initiate a connection of a
   protocol, a balanced PAKE may be more appropriate.

   A special variation of the network password problem, called Password
   Authenticated Key Distribution, is defined in [P1363] as password
   authenticated key retrieval: "The retrieval of a key from a secure
   key repository or escrow requiring authentication derived in part
   from a password."

   In addition to retrieval of a key from escrow, there is the variant
   of two parties exchanging public keys using a PAKE in lieu of
   certificates-- public keys can be encrypted using a password and the
   ability of each side to both know the private key associated with its
   unencrypted public key and also decrypt the peer's public key
   performs authenticated key distribution.  This technique can be used
   to parlay a short one-time code, into a long-lived public key.





Schmidt                 Expires November 18, 2016               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Requirements for PAKE schemes             May 2016


   Another possible variant of a PAKE scheme allows combining
   authentication with certificates and the use of passwords.  In this
   variant, the private key of the certificate is used to blind the
   password key agreement.  For verification, the message is unblinded
   with the public key.  A correct key establishment therefore implies
   the possession of the private key belonging to the certificate.  This
   method enables authentication of one side as well as mutual
   authentication in addition to the authentication using the password.

   The authors of a PAKE scheme MAY discuss variations of their scheme
   and explain application scenarios, where these variations are
   beneficial.  In particular, techniques that allow agreeing on a long-
   term (public) key are encouraged.

6.  Privacy

   In order to establish a connection, each party of the PAKE protocol
   needs to know the identity of its communication partner to use the
   right password for the agreement.  In cases where a user wants to
   establish a secure channel with a server, the user first has to let
   the server know which password to use, i.e. send some kind of
   identifier to the server.  If this identifier is not protected,
   everyone who is able to eavesdrop on the connection can identify the
   user.  In order to prevent this, i.e. to protect the privacy of the
   user, the scheme might come with a way to protect the transmission of
   the user's identity.  A simple way to achieve privacy of a user that
   communicates with a server is to use a public key provided by the
   server to encrypt the user's identity.

   The PAKE scheme MAY discuss special ideas and solutions how to
   protect the privacy of the users of the scheme.

7.  Performance

   The performance of a scheme can be judged along different lines,
   depending on what is the scarcest resource in the application field.
   Potential metrics include latency, code-size/area, power consumption,
   or exchanged messages.  In addition, there might be application
   scenarios, in which a constrained client communicates with a powerful
   server, i.e., a scheme that requires minimal efforts on client side
   is most suited.  Note that for some clients the computations might
   even be carried out in a hardware implementation, asking for
   different optimizations compared to software.

   Furthermore, the design of the scheme may also influence the cost of
   protecting its implementation from adversaries exploiting its
   physical properties (see Section 4.1).




Schmidt                 Expires November 18, 2016               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Requirements for PAKE schemes             May 2016


   The authors of a PAKE scheme may discuss their design choices and the
   influence of these choices on the performance.  In particular, the
   optimization goals could be stated.

8.  Requirements

   This section formulates the requirements for PAKE schemes based on
   the previous discussed properties.

      R1: A PAKE scheme MUST clearly state its features regarding
      balanced/augmented versions.

      R2: A PAKE scheme SHOULD come with a security proof and clearly
      state its assumptions and models.

      R3: The authors SHOULD show how to protect an implementation of
      their PAKE scheme in hostile environments, particularly, how to
      implement their scheme in constant time to prevent timing attacks.

      R4: In case the PAKE scheme is intended to be used with ECC, the
      authors SHOULD discuss their requirements for a potential mapping
      or define a mapping to be used with the scheme.

      R5: A PAKE scheme MAY discuss its design choice with regard to
      performance, i.e., its optimization goals.

      R6: The authors of a scheme MAY discuss variations of their scheme
      that allows the use in special application scenarios.  In
      particular, techniques that allow agreeing on a long-term (public)
      key are encouraged.

      R7: A scheme MAY discuss special ideas and solutions on privacy
      protection of its users.

      R8: The authors MUST declare the status of their scheme with
      respect to patents.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

10.  Security Considerations

   This document analyses requirements for a cryptographic scheme.
   Security considerations are discussed throughout the document.






Schmidt                 Expires November 18, 2016               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Requirements for PAKE schemes             May 2016


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [ABCP06]   Abdalla, M., Bresson, E., Chevassut, O., and D.
              Pointcheval, "Password-Based Group Key Exchange in a
              Constant Number of Rounds", PKC 2006, LNCS 3958, 2006.

   [ACGP11]   Abdalla, M., Chevalier, C., Granboulan, L., and D.
              Pointcheval, "Contributory Password-Authenticated Group
              Key Exchange with Join Capability", CT-RSA 2011,
              LNCS 6558, 2011.

   [AFP05]    Abdalla, M., Fouque, P., and D. Pointcheval, "Password-
              based authenticated key exchange in the three-party
              setting", PKC 2005, LNCS 3386, 2005.

   [BFK09]    Bender, J., Fischlin, M., and D. Kuegler, "Security
              Analysis of the PACE Key-Agreement Protocol", ISC 2009,
              LNCS 5735, 2009.

   [BM92]     Bellovin, S. and M. Merritt, "Encrypted Key Exchange:
              Password-Based Protocols Secure Against Dictionary
              Attacks", Proc. of the Symposium on Security and
              Privacy Oakland, 1992.

   [DOT11]    IEEE Computer Society, "Telecommunications and information
              exchange between systems Local and metropolitan area
              networks", Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
              (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications IEEE Std
              802.11-2012, 2012.

   [HYCS15]   Hao, F., Yi, X., Chen, L., and S. Shahandashti, "The
              Fairy-Ring Dance: Password Authenticated Key Exchange in a
              Group", IoTPTS 2015, ACM , 2015.

   [P1363]    IEEE Microprocessor Standards Committee, "Draft Standard
              for Specifications for Password-based Public Key
              Cryptographic Techniques", IEEE P1363.2, 2006.





Schmidt                 Expires November 18, 2016               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Requirements for PAKE schemes             May 2016


   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [SPEKE]    Jablon, D., "Strong Password-Only Authenticated Key
              Exchange", ACM Computer Communications Review October
              1996, 1996.

Author's Address

   Joern-Marc Schmidt
   secunet Security Networks
   Mergenthaler Allee 77
   65760 Eschborn
   Germany

   Email: joern-marc.schmidt@secunet.com

































Schmidt                 Expires November 18, 2016              [Page 10]


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