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

Versions: (draft-reddy-opswg-mud-tls) 00 01 02 03 04 05

OPSWG WG                                                        T. Reddy
Internet-Draft                                                    McAfee
Intended status: Standards Track                                 D. Wing
Expires: March 3, 2021                                            Citrix
                                                             B. Anderson
                                                                   Cisco
                                                         August 30, 2020


                  MUD (D)TLS profiles for IoT devices
                     draft-reddy-opsawg-mud-tls-05

Abstract

   This memo extends Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) to incorporate
   (D)TLS profile parameters.  This allows a network element to identify
   unexpected (D)TLS usage, which can indicate the presence of
   unauthorized software or malware on an endpoint.

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 https://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 March 3, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://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



Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Overview of MUD (D)TLS profiles for IoT devices . . . . . . .   5
   4.  (D)TLS 1.3 handshake  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Full (D)TLS 1.3 handshake inspection  . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Encrypted SNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  (D)TLS profile YANG module  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Tree Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  MUD File Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1.  Introduction

   Encryption is necessary to protect the privacy of end users using IoT
   devices.  In a network setting, TLS [RFC8446] and DTLS
   [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] are the dominant protocols providing encryption
   for IoT device traffic.  Unfortunately, in conjunction with IoT
   applications' rise of encryption, malware is also using encryption
   which thwarts network-based analysis such as deep packet inspection
   (DPI).  Other mechanisms are needed to notice malware is running on
   the IoT device.

   Malware frequently uses its own libraries for its activities, and
   those libraries are re-used much like any other software engineering
   project.  Research [malware] indicates there are observable
   differences in how malware uses encryption compared with how non-
   malware uses encryption.  There are several interesting findings
   specific to DTLS and TLS which were found common to malware:

   o  Older and weaker cryptographic parameters (e.g.,
      TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA).

   o  TLS SNI and server certificates are composed of subjects with
      characteristics of a domain generation algorithm (DGA) (e.g.,
      www.33mhwt2j.net).



Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


   o  Higher use of self-signed certificates compared with typical
      legitimate software.

   o  Discrepancies in the server name indication (SNI) TLS extension in
      the ClientHello message and the DNS names in the
      SubjectAltName(SAN) X.509 extension in the server certificate
      message.

   o  Discrepancies in the key exchange algorithm and the client public
      key length in comparison with legitimate flows.  As a reminder,
      Client Key Exchange message has been removed from TLS 1.3.

   o  Lower diversity in TLS client advertised TLS extensions compared
      to legitimate clients.

   o  Malware using privacy enhancing technologies like Tor, Psiphon and
      Ultrasurf (see [malware-tls]) and, evasion techniques such as
      ClientHello randomization to evade detection in order to continue
      exploiting the end user.

   o  Malware using DNS-over-HTTPS [RFC8484] to avoid detection by
      malware DNS filtering service ([malware-doh]).  Malware agent may
      not use the DNS-over-HTTPS server provided by the local network.

   If observable (D)TLS profile parameters are used, the following
   functions are possible which have a favorable impact on network
   security:

   o  Permit intended DTLS or TLS use and block malicious DTLS or TLS
      use.  This is superior to the layer 3 and layer 4 ACLs of
      Manufacturer Usage Description Specification (MUD) [RFC8520] which
      are not suitable for broad communication patterns.

   o  Ensure TLS certificates are valid.  Several TLS deployments have
      been vulnerable to active Man-In-The-Middle (MITM) attacks because
      of the lack of certificate validation or vulnerability in the
      certificate validation function (see [cryto-vulnerability]).  By
      observing (D)TLS profile parameters, a network element can detect
      when the TLS SNI mismatches the SubjectAltName and when the
      server's certificate is invalid.  In TLS 1.2, the ClientHello,
      ServerHello and Certificate messages are all sent in clear-text,
      however in TLS 1.3, the Certificate message is encrypted thereby
      hiding the server identity from any intermediary.  In TLS 1.3, the
      middle-box needs to act as a TLS proxy to validate the server
      certificate and to detect TLS SNI mismatch with the server
      certificate.





Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


   o  Support new communication patterns.  An IoT device can learn a new
      capability, and the new capability can change the way the IoT
      device communicates with other devices located in the local
      network and Internet.  There would be an inaccurate policy if an
      IoT device rapidly changes the IP addresses and domain names it
      communicates with while the MUD ACLs were slower to update.  In
      such a case, observable (D)TLS profile parameters can be used to
      permit intended use and to block malicious behaviour from the IoT
      device.

   This document extends MUD [RFC8520] to model observable (D)TLS
   profile parameters.  Using these (D)TLS profile parameters, an active
   MUD-enforcing firewall can identify MUD non-compliant (D)TLS behavior
   indicating outdated cryptography or malware.  This detection can
   prevent malware downloads, block access to malicious domains, enforce
   use of strong ciphers, stop data exfiltration, etc.  In addition,
   organizations may have policies around acceptable ciphers and
   certificates on the websites the IoT devices connect to.  Examples
   include no use of old and less secure versions of TLS, no use of
   self-signed certificates, deny-list or accept-list of Certificate
   Authorities, valid certificate expiration time, etc.  These policies
   can be enforced by observing the (D)TLS profile parameters.
   Enterprise firewalls can use the IoT device's (D)TLS profile
   parameters to identify legitimate flows by observing (D)TLS sessions,
   and can make inferences to permit legitimate flows and to block
   malicious or insecure flows.  The proposed technique is also suitable
   in deployments where decryption techniques are not ideal due to
   privacy concerns, non-cooperating end-points and expense.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   "(D)TLS" is used for statements that apply to both Transport Layer
   Security [RFC8446] and Datagram Transport Layer Security [RFC6347].
   Specific terms are used for any statement that applies to either
   protocol alone.

   'DoH/DoT' refers to DNS-over-HTTPS and/or DNS-over-TLS.








Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


3.  Overview of MUD (D)TLS profiles for IoT devices

   In Enterprise networks, protection and detection are typically done
   both on end hosts and in the network.  Host agents have deep
   visibility on the devices where they are installed, whereas the
   network has broader visibility.  Installing host agents may not be a
   viable option on IoT devices, and network-based security is an
   efficient means to protect such IoT devices.  (D)TLS profile
   parameters of IoT device can be used by middle-boxes to detect and
   block malware communication, while at the same time preserving the
   privacy of legitimate uses of encryption.  Middle-boxes need not
   proxy (D)TLS but can passively observe the parameters of (D)TLS
   handshakes from IoT devices and gain good visibility into TLS 1.0 to
   1.2 parameters and partial visibility into TLS 1.3 parameters.
   Malicious agents can try to use the (D)TLS profile parameters of
   legitimate agents to evade detection, but it becomes a challenge to
   mimic the behavior of various IoT device types and IoT device models
   from several manufacturers.  In other words, malware developers will
   have to develop malicious agents per IoT device type, manufacturer
   and model, infect the device with the tailored malware agent and will
   have keep up with updates to the device's (D)TLS profile parameters
   over time.  Further, the malware's command and control server
   certificates need to be signed by the same certifying authorities
   trusted by the IoT devices.  Typically, IoT devices have an
   infrastructure that supports a rapid deployment of updates, and
   malware agents will have a near-impossible task of similarly
   deploying updates and continuing to mimic the TLS behavior of the IoT
   device it has infected.

   The compromised IoT devices are typically used for launching DDoS
   attacks (Section 3 of [RFC8576]).  Some of the DDoS attacks like
   Slowloris and Transport Layer Security (TLS) re-negotiation can be
   detected by observing the (D)TLS profile parameters.  For example,
   the victim's server certificate need not be signed by the same
   certifying authorities trusted by the IoT device.

4.  (D)TLS 1.3 handshake

   In (D)TLS 1.3, full (D)TLS handshake inspection is not possible since
   all (D)TLS handshake messages excluding the ClientHello message are
   encrypted.  (D)TLS 1.3 has introduced new extensions in the handshake
   record layers called Encrypted Extensions.  Using these extensions
   handshake messages will be encrypted and network devices (such as a
   firewall) are incapable deciphering the handshake, thus cannot view
   the server certificate.  However, the ClientHello and ServerHello
   still have some fields visible, such as the list of supported
   versions, named groups, cipher suites, signature algorithms and
   extensions in ClientHello and, chosen cipher in the ServerHello.  For



Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


   instance, if the malware uses evasion techniques like ClientHello
   randomization, the observable list of cipher suites and extensions
   offered by the malware agent in the ClientHello message will not
   match the list of cipher suites and extensions offered by the
   legitimate client in the ClientHello message, and the middle-box can
   block malicious flows without acting as a (D)TLS 1.3 proxy.

4.1.  Full (D)TLS 1.3 handshake inspection

   To obtain more visibility into negotiated TLS 1.3 parameters, a
   middle-box can act as a (D)TLS 1.3 proxy.  A middle-box can act as a
   (D)TLS proxy for the IoT devices owned and managed by the IT team in
   the Enterprise network and the (D)TLS proxy must meet the security
   and privacy requirements of the organization.  In other words, the
   scope of middle-box acting as a (D)TLS proxy is restricted to
   Enterprise network owning and managing the IoT devices.  The middle-
   box MUST follow the behaviour explained in Section 9.3 of [RFC8446]
   to act as a compliant (D)TLS 1.3 proxy.

   To function as a (D)TLS proxy the middle-box creates a signed
   certificate using itself as a certificate authority.  That
   certificate authority has to be trusted by the (D)TLS client.  The
   IoT device needs to be configured with the middle-box's CA
   certificate as Explicit Trust Anchor database entry to validate the
   server certificate.  The mechanism to configure the IoT device with
   the middle-box's CA certificate is out of scope.  The middle-box uses
   the "supported_versions" TLS extension (defined in TLS 1.3 to
   negotiate the supported TLS versions between client and server) to
   determine the TLS version.  During the (D)TLS handshake, If (D)TLS
   version 1.3 is used, the middle-box ((D)TLS proxy) modifies the
   certificate provided by the server and signs it with the private key
   from the local CA certificate.  The middle-box has visibility into
   further exchanges between the IoT device and server which enables it
   to inspect the (D)TLS 1.3 handshake, enforce the MUD (D)TLS profile
   and can inspect subsequent network traffic.  The IoT device uses the
   Explicit Trust Anchor database to validate the server certificate.

4.2.  Encrypted SNI

   To increase privacy, encrypted SNI (ESNI,
   [I-D.ietf-tls-sni-encryption]) prevents passive observation of the
   TLS Server Name Indication extension.  To effectively provide that
   privacy protection, SNI encryption needs to be used in conjunction
   with DNS encryption (e.g., DNS-over-TLS (DoT) [RFC7858] or DNS-over-
   HTTPS (DoH) [RFC8484]).  A middle-box (e.g., firewall) passively
   inspecting an encrypted SNI (D)TLS handshake cannot observe the
   encrypted SNI nor observe the encrypted DNS traffic.  If an IoT
   device is pre-configured to use public DoH/DoT servers, that middle-



Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


   box needs to act as a DoH/DoT proxy and replace the ECH configuration
   in the "echconfig" SvcParamKey (Section 6.3 of
   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https]) with the middle box's ECH configuration.
   Instead of an unappealing DoH/DoT proxy, the IoT device can be
   bootstrapped to discover and authenticate DoH/DoT servers provided by
   a local network by making use of one of the mechanisms described in
   Section 4 of [I-D.reddy-add-enterprise].  The local DoH/DoT server
   replaces the ECH configuration in the "echconfig" SvcParamKey with
   the middle box's ECH configuration.

   A common usage pattern for certain type of IoT devices (e.g., light
   bulb) is for it to "call home" to a service that resides on the
   public Internet, where that service is referenced through a domain
   name (A or AAAA record).  As discussed in Manufacturer Usage
   Description Specification [RFC8520], because these devices tend to
   require access to very few sites, all other access should be
   considered suspect.  If an IoT device is pre-configured to use public
   DoH/DoT server, the MUD policy enforcement point is moved to that
   public server, which cannot enforce the MUD policy based on domain
   names (Section 8 of [RFC8520]).  If the DNS query is not accessible
   for inspection, it becomes quite difficult for the infrastructure to
   suspect anything.  Thus the use of a public DoH/DoT server is
   incompatible with MUD in general.  A local DoH/DoT server is
   necessary to allow MUD policy enforcement on the local network.

5.  (D)TLS profile YANG module

   This document specifies a YANG module for representing (D)TLS
   profile.  The (D)TLS profile YANG module provides a method for
   firewall to observe the (D)TLS profile parameters in the (D)TLS
   handshake to permit intended use and to block malicious behavior.
   This module uses the common YANG types defined in [RFC6991] , rules
   defined in [RFC8519] and cryptographic types defined in
   [I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types].

   The (D)TLS profiles and the parameters in each (D)TLS profile include
   the following:

   o  Profile name

   o  (D)TLS version in ClientHello.legacy_version

   o  (D)TLS versions supported by the IoT device.  As a reminder,
      "supported_versions" extension defined in (D)TLS 1.3 is used by
      the client to indicate which versions of (D)TLS it supports and a
      client is considered to be attempting to negotiate (D)TLS 1.3 if
      the ClientHello contains a "supported_versions" extension with
      0x0304 contained in its body.



Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


   o  If GREASE [RFC8701] (Generate Random Extensions And Sustain
      Extensibility) values are offered by the client or not.

   o  List of supported symmetric encryption algorithms.  TLS 1.3
      defines five cipher suites (Appendix B.4 of [RFC8446]), but most
      clients are continuing to offer TLS 1.2 compatible cipher suites
      for backwards compatibility.

   o  List of supported compression methods for data compression.  In
      TLS 1.3, only the "null" compression method is allowed
      (Section 4.1.2 of [RFC8446]).

   o  List of supported extension types

   o  List of trust anchor certificates used by the IoT device.  If the
      server certificate is signed by one of the trust anchors, the
      middle-box continues with the connection as normal.  Otherwise,
      the middle-box will react as if the server certificate validation
      has failed and takes appropriate action (e.g, block the (D)TLS
      session).  An IoT device can use a private trust anchor to
      validate a server's certificate (e.g., the private trust anchor
      can be preloaded at manufacturing time on the IoT device and the
      IoT device fetches the firmware image from the Firmware server
      whose certificate is signed by the private CA).

   o  List of SPKI pin set pre-configured on the client to validate
      self-signed server certificates or raw public keys.  A SPKI pin
      set is a cryptographic digest to "pin" public key information in a
      manner similar to HTTP Public Key Pinning (HPKP) [RFC7469].  If
      SPKI pin set is present in the (D)TLS profile of a IoT device and
      the server certificate does not pass the PKIX certification path
      validation, the middle-box computes the SPKI Fingerprint for the
      public key found in the server's certificate (or in the raw public
      key, if the server provides that instead).  If a computed
      fingerprint exactly matches one of the SPKI pin sets in the (D)TLS
      profile, the middle-box continues with the connection as normal.
      Otherwise, the middle-box will act on the SPKI validation failure
      and takes appropriate action.

   o  Cryptographic hash algorithm used to generate the SPKI pinsets

   o  List of pre-shared key exchange modes

   o  List of named groups (DHE or ECDHE) supported by the client

   o  List signature algorithms the client can validate in X.509 server
      certificates




Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


   o  List signature algorithms the client is willing to accept for
      CertificateVerify message (Section 4.2.3 of [RFC8446]).  For
      example, a TLS client implementation can support different sets of
      algorithms for certificates and in TLS to signal the capabilities
      in "signature_algorithms_cert" and "signature_algorithms"
      extensions.

   o  List of supported application protocols (e.g., h3, h2, http/1.1
      etc.)

   o  List of certificate compression algorithms (defined in
      [I-D.ietf-tls-certificate-compression])

   o  List of the distinguished names [X501] of acceptable certificate
      authorities, represented in DER-encoded format [X690] (defined in
      Section 4.2.4 of [RFC8446])

   o  List of client key exchange algorithms and the client public key
      lengths in versions prior to (D)TLS 1.3

   The (D)TLS profile parameters include the GREASE values for extension
   types, named groups, signature algorithms, (D)TLS versions, pre-
   shared key exchange modes and cipher suites, but normalized to the
   value 0x0a to preserve ordering information.  Note that the GREASE
   values are random but their positions are deterministic (Section 5 of
   [RFC8701]) and peers will ignore these values and interoperate.

   If the (D)TLS profile parameters are not observed in a (D)TLS session
   from the IoT device, the default behaviour is to block the (D)TLS
   session.

   Note: The TLS and DTLS IANA registries are available from
   <https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.txt>.

5.1.  Tree Structure

   This document augments the "ietf-mud" MUD YANG module defined in
   [RFC8520] for signaling the IoT device (D)TLS profile.  This document
   defines the YANG module "reddy-opsawg-mud-tls-profile", which has the
   following tree structure:











Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


module: reddy-opsawg-mud-tls-profile
  augment /acl:acls/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/acl:matches:
    +--rw client-profile
       +--rw tls-profiles* [profile-name]
          +--rw profile-name              string
          +--rw protocol-version?         uint16
          +--rw supported_versions*       uint16
          +--rw grease_extension?         boolean
          +--rw encryption-algorithms*    encryption-algorithm
          +--rw compression-methods*      compression-method
          +--rw extension-types*          extension-type
          +--rw acceptlist-ta-certs*      ct:trust-anchor-cert-cms
          +--rw SPKI-pin-sets*            SPKI-pin-set
          +--rw SPKI-hash-algorithm?      iha:hash-algorithm-type
          +--rw psk-key-exchange-modes*   psk-key-exchange-mode
          +--rw supported-groups*         supported-group
          +--rw signature-algorithms-cert*     signature-algorithm
          +--rw signature-algorithms*     signature-algorithm
          +--rw application-protocols*    application-protocol
          +--rw cert-compression-algorithms*   cert-compression-algorithm
          +--rw certificate_authorities*       certificate_authorities
          +--rw client-public-keys
             +--rw key-exchange-algorithms*     key-exchange-algorithm
             +--rw client-public-key-lengths*   client-public-key-length

5.2.  YANG Module

module reddy-opsawg-mud-tls-profile {
   yang-version 1.1;
   namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:reddy-opsawg-mud-tls-profile";
   prefix mud-tls-profile;


   import ietf-crypto-types {
     prefix ct;
     reference "draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-01:
                Common YANG Data Types for Cryptography";
   }

   import iana-hash-algs {
     prefix iha;
     reference
          "RFC XXXX: Common YANG Data Types for Hash algorithms";
   }

   import ietf-access-control-list {
     prefix acl;
     reference



Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


       "RFC 8519: YANG Data Model for Network Access
                  Control Lists (ACLs)";
   }

   organization
     "IETF Operations and Management Area Working Group Working Group";
   contact
      "Editor:  Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
               <mailto:TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>";

   description
     "This module contains YANG definition for the IoT device
      (D)TLS profile.

      Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
      authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

      Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
      without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
      to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
      set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
      Relating to IETF Documents
      (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

      This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see
      the RFC itself for full legal notices.";

   revision 2019-06-12 {
     description
       "Initial revision";
   }

   typedef compression-method {
     type uint8;
     description "Compression method";
   }

   typedef extension-type {
     type uint16;
     description "Extension type";
   }

   typedef encryption-algorithm {
     type uint16;
     description "Encryption algorithm";
   }

   typedef supported-group {



Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


     type uint16;
     description "Named group (DHE or ECDHE)";
   }

   typedef SPKI-pin-set {
     type binary;
     description "Subject Public Key Info pin set";
   }

   typedef signature-algorithm {
     type uint16;
     description "Signature algorithm";
   }

   typedef key-exchange-algorithm {
     type uint8;
     description "key exchange algorithm";
   }

   typedef psk-key-exchange-mode {
     type uint8;
     description "pre-shared key exchange mode";
   }

   typedef client-public-key-length {
     type uint8;
     description "client public key length";
   }

   typedef application-protocol {
     type string;
     description "application protocol";
   }

   typedef cert-compression-algorithm {
     type uint8;
     description "certificate compression algorithm";
   }

   typedef certificate_authority {
     type binary;
     description "Distinguished Name of Certificate authority";
   }

   grouping client-profile {
     description
       "A grouping for (D)TLS profiles.";
     container client-profile {



Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


       list tls-profiles {
         key "profile-name";
         description
          "A list of (D)TLS version profiles supported by the client.";
        leaf profile-name {
          type string {
            length "1..64";
          }
          description
            "The name of (D)TLS profile; space and special
            characters are not allowed.";
         }
         leaf protocol-version {
           type uint16;
           description "(D)TLS version in ClientHello.legacy_version";
         }
         leaf-list supported_versions {
           type uint16;
           description
             "TLS versions supported by the client indicated
              in the supported_versions extension in (D)TLS 1.3.";
         }
         leaf grease_extension {
           type boolean;
           description
            "If set to 'true', Grease extension values are offered by
             the client.";
         }
         leaf-list encryption-algorithms {
           type encryption-algorithm;
           description "Encryption algorithms";
         }
         leaf-list compression-methods {
           type compression-method;
            description "Compression methods";
         }
         leaf-list extension-types {
           type extension-type;
           description "Extension Types";
         }
         leaf-list acceptlist-ta-certs {
           type ct:trust-anchor-cert-cms;
           description
             "A list of trust anchor certificates used by the client.";
         }
         leaf-list SPKI-pin-sets {
            type SPKI-pin-set;
            description



Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


             "A list of SPKI pin sets pre-configured on the client
              to validate self-signed server certificate or
              raw public key.";
         }
         leaf SPKI-hash-algorithm {
           type iha:hash-algorithm-type;
           description
             "cryptographic hash algorithm used to generate the
              SPKI pinset.";
         }
         leaf-list psk-key-exchange-modes {
           type psk-key-exchange-mode;
           description
             "pre-shared key exchange modes";
         }
         leaf-list supported-groups {
            type supported-group;
            description
             "A list of named groups supported by the client.";
         }
         leaf-list signature-algorithms-cert {
            type signature-algorithm;
            description
             "A list signature algorithms the client can validate
              in X.509 certificates.";
         }
         leaf-list signature-algorithms {
            type signature-algorithm;
            description
             "A list signature algorithms the client can validate
              in the CertificateVerify message.";
         }
         leaf-list application-protocols {
            type application-protocol;
            description
             "A list application protocols supported by the client";
         }
         leaf-list cert-compression-algorithms {
            type cert-compression-algorithm;
            description
             "A list certificate compression algorithms
              supported by the client";
         }
         leaf-list certificate_authorities {
            type certificate_authority;
            description
             "A list of the distinguished names of certificate authorities
              acceptable to the client";



Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


         }
         container client-public-keys {
           leaf-list key-exchange-algorithms {
             type key-exchange-algorithm;
             description
             "Key exchange algorithms supported by the client";
           }
           leaf-list client-public-key-lengths {
             type client-public-key-length;
             description
             "client public key lengths";
           }
         }
   }
  }
 }
 augment "/acl:acls/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/acl:matches" {
   description
     "MUD (D)TLS specific matches.";
   uses client-profile;
 }
}

6.  MUD File Example

   This example below contains (D)TLS profile parameters for a IoT
   device used to reach servers listening on port 443 using TCP
   transport.  JSON encoding of YANG modelled data [RFC7951] is used to
   illustrate the example.

   {
      "ietf-mud:mud": {
        "mud-version": 1,
         "mud-url": "https://example.com/IoTDevice",
         "last-update": "2019-18-06T03:56:40.105+10:00",
         "cache-validity": 100,
         "is-supported": true,
         "systeminfo": "IoT device name",
         "from-device-policy": {
            "access-lists": {
              "access-list": [
                {
                  "name": "mud-7500-profile"
                }
              ]
            }
         },
        "ietf-access-control-list:acls": {



Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


          "acl": [
            {
              "name": "mud-7500-profile",
              "type": "ipv6-acl-type",
              "aces": {
                "ace": [
                  {
                    "name": "cl0-frdev",
                    "matches": {
                      "ipv6": {
                        "protocol": 6
                      },
                      "tcp": {
                        "ietf-mud:direction-initiated": "from-device",
                        "destination-port": {
                          "operator": "eq",
                          "port": 443
                        }
                      },
                      "reddy-opsawg-mud-tls-profile:client-profile" : {
                        "tls-profiles" : [
                           {
                              "protocol-version" : 771,
                              "supported_versions_ext" : "FALSE",
                              "encryption-algorithms" :
                                 [31354, 4865, 4866, 4867],
                              "extension-types" : [10],
                              "supported-groups" : [29]
                           }
                         ]
                      },
                      "actions": {
                         "forwarding": "accept"
                      }
                  }
               }
             ]
            }
           }
          ]
        }
      }
   }








Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


7.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations in [RFC8520] need to be taken into
   consideration.  Although it is challenging for a malware to mimic the
   TLS behavior of various IoT device types and IoT device models from
   several manufacturers, malicious agents have a very low probabilty of
   using the same (D)TLS profile parameters as legitimate agents on the
   IoT device to evade detection.  Network security services should also
   rely on contextual network data to detect false negatives.  In order
   to detect such malicious flows, anomaly detection (deep learning
   techniques on network data) can be used to detect malicious agents
   using the same (D)TLS profile parameters as legitimate agent on the
   IoT device.  In anomaly detection, the main idea is to maintain
   rigorous learning of "normal" behavior and where an "anomaly" (or an
   attack) is identified and categorized based on the knowledge about
   the normal behavior and a deviation from this normal behavior.

8.  Privacy Considerations

   The middle-box acting as a (D)TLS proxy must immediately delete the
   decrypted data upon completing any necessary inspection functions.
   TLS proxy potentially has access to a user's PII (Personally
   identifiable information) and PHI (Protected Health Information).
   The TLS proxy must not store, process or modify PII data.  For
   example, IT administrator can configure firewall to bypass payload
   inspection for a connection destined to a specific service due to
   privacy compliance requirements.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests IANA to register the following URIs in the
   "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:

         URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:reddy-opsawg-mud-tls-profile
         Registrant Contact: The IESG.
         XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.

10.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Flemming Andreasen, Shashank Jain, Michael Richardson,
   Piyush Joshi and Harsha Joshi for the discussion and comments.

11.  References








Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types]
              Watsen, K., "YANG Data Types and Groupings for
              Cryptography", draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-18 (work in
              progress), August 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-certificate-compression]
              Ghedini, A. and V. Vasiliev, "TLS Certificate
              Compression", draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression-10
              (work in progress), January 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13]
              Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
              Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
              1.3", draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-38 (work in progress), May
              2020.

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

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
              January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.

   [RFC6991]  Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
              RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [RFC8519]  Jethanandani, M., Agarwal, S., Huang, L., and D. Blair,
              "YANG Data Model for Network Access Control Lists (ACLs)",
              RFC 8519, DOI 10.17487/RFC8519, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8519>.




Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


   [RFC8701]  Benjamin, D., "Applying Generate Random Extensions And
              Sustain Extensibility (GREASE) to TLS Extensibility",
              RFC 8701, DOI 10.17487/RFC8701, January 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8701>.

   [X690]     ITU-T, "Information technology - ASN.1 encoding Rules:
              Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
              Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
              (DER)", ISO/IEC 8825-1:2002, 2002.

11.2.  Informative References

   [cryto-vulnerability]
              Perez, B., "Exploiting the Windows CryptoAPI
              Vulnerability", January 2020,
              <https://media.defense.gov/2020/Jan/14/2002234275/-1/-1/0/
              CSA-WINDOWS-10-CRYPT-LIB-20190114.PDF>.

   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https]
              Schwartz, B., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Service binding
              and parameter specification via the DNS (DNS SVCB and
              HTTPS RRs)", draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-01 (work in
              progress), July 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-sni-encryption]
              Huitema, C. and E. Rescorla, "Issues and Requirements for
              SNI Encryption in TLS", draft-ietf-tls-sni-encryption-09
              (work in progress), October 2019.

   [I-D.reddy-add-enterprise]
              Reddy.K, T. and D. Wing, "DNS-over-HTTPS and DNS-over-TLS
              Server Deployment Considerations for Enterprise Networks",
              draft-reddy-add-enterprise-00 (work in progress), June
              2020.

   [malware]  Anderson, B., Paul, S., and D. McGrew, "Deciphering
              Malware's use of TLS (without Decryption)", July 2016,
              <https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01639>.

   [malware-doh]
              Cimpanu, C., "First-ever malware strain spotted abusing
              new DoH (DNS over HTTPS) protocol", July 2019,
              <https://www.zdnet.com/article/first-ever-malware-strain-
              spotted-abusing-new-doh-dns-over-https-protocol/>.







Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


   [malware-tls]
              Anderson, B. and D. McGrew, "TLS Beyond the Browser:
              Combining End Host and Network Data to Understand
              Application Behavior", October 2019,
              <https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3355601>.

   [RFC7469]  Evans, C., Palmer, C., and R. Sleevi, "Public Key Pinning
              Extension for HTTP", RFC 7469, DOI 10.17487/RFC7469, April
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7469>.

   [RFC7858]  Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
              and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
              Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.

   [RFC7951]  Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
              RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>.

   [RFC8484]  Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
              (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>.

   [RFC8520]  Lear, E., Droms, R., and D. Romascanu, "Manufacturer Usage
              Description Specification", RFC 8520,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8520, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8520>.

   [RFC8576]  Garcia-Morchon, O., Kumar, S., and M. Sethi, "Internet of
              Things (IoT) Security: State of the Art and Challenges",
              RFC 8576, DOI 10.17487/RFC8576, April 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8576>.

   [X501]     "Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection -
              The Directory: Models", ITU-T X.501, 1993.

Authors' Addresses

   Tirumaleswar Reddy
   McAfee, Inc.
   Embassy Golf Link Business Park
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560071
   India

   Email: kondtir@gmail.com






Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft       MUD TLS profile for IoT devices         August 2020


   Dan Wing
   Citrix Systems, Inc.
   4988 Great America Pkwy
   Santa Clara, CA  95054
   USA

   Email: danwing@gmail.com


   Blake Anderson
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Dr
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: blake.anderson@cisco.com



































Reddy, et al.             Expires March 3, 2021                [Page 21]


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