[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

TCPINC                                                        M. Thomson
Internet-Draft                                                   Mozilla
Intended status: Standards Track                            July 3, 2014
Expires: January 4, 2015


                        A DTLS Extension for TCP
                      draft-thomson-tcpinc-dtls-00

Abstract

   Opportunistic security is provided for TCP using a modified DTLS.

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 January 4, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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







Thomson                  Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                DTLS for TCP                     July 2014


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  DTLS Layering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  DTLS Record Protection Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  DTLS Record Protection Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Protection Option Kinds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Modified DTLS AEAD Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  TCP Pseudoheader Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  TCP Header Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  Forbid NAPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  DTLS Role Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Design Characteristics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Interaction with TCP Fast Open  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  Zero Length DTLS Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.3.  Unauthenticated Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.4.  Interaction with DTLS Replay Protection . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.5.  TCP Keep-Alive  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.6.  Unprotected RST Segments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.7.  Cipher Suite Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  NAPT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Acknowledgments and Congestion Window Protection  . . . .  10
     7.3.  Traffic Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.4.  Peer Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  Registration of DTLS Record Protection Option Kind  . . .  11
     8.2.  Registry for DTLS Record Protection Flags . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   TCP [RFC0793] is a widely used protocol.

   As part of a general "secure all the things" effort, the IETF is
   defining opportunistic security options for all the protocols it
   maintains.  Opportunistic security ensures that we accelerate the
   eventual heat death of the universe, and discourages certain classes
   of attack [RFC7258].

   Opportunistic approaches are the most practical way to ensure wider
   deployment of security because they don't immediately depend on
   solving hard problems like authentication.




Thomson                  Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                DTLS for TCP                     July 2014


   In that spirit, reusing existing security protocols reduces the cost
   to implement, deploy and analyse new protocol modifications.  TLS
   [RFC5246] and DTLS [RFC6347] represent the current best in class
   security protocols.

   This specification defines how DTLS can be used to protect TCP.  This
   addresses the requirements outlined in [I-D.bellovin-tcpsec].  A
   small modification to the TCP record layer allows for the protection
   of the TCP pseudo header, with an allowance for NAPT (editor: why
   does Bellovin even suggest that protection of IP/port is even
   feasible?) and per-option opt-out.

   In addition, all the features of DTLS are made available:

   o  Cipher suite negotiation and agility

   o  Years of security analysis

   o  Downgrade protection in the handshake

   o  Session bindings

   o  Optional peer authentication

   o  A range of available extensions

   In addition to this, new upgrades to DTLS can be trivially added.
   Thus, improvements to algorithms or the DTLS handshake are entirely
   portable.

1.1.  Terminology

   The usual.  [RFC2119] explains what those are.

2.  DTLS Layering

   This extension to TCP places a continuous sequence of DTLS records as
   the payload of TCP.  These records provide confidentiality and
   integrity protection for their content, plus integrity protection for
   the TCP header and pseudoheader.

   An option negotiates the use of this extension.  This option is added
   to the SYN message to indicate support, and to the ACK message to
   indicate acceptance.

   Once enabled, all DTLS records, including handshake messages, are
   carried as TCP data.  The data for the protected TCP stream is the
   concatenated content of DTLS messages.



Thomson                  Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                DTLS for TCP                     July 2014


   TCP clients are automatically entered into the DTLS client role; and
   TCP servers automatically enter the DTLS server role.  Where TCP
   simultaneous open is used, a lottery determines the roles Section 5.

3.  DTLS Record Protection Option

   This option is used to negotiate the use of DTLS.  It is assigned a
   TCP option kind of 0xTBD Section 8.

   The format of the DTLS record protection option is a single octet
   flags field, followed by a list of protected option kinds.

3.1.  DTLS Record Protection Flags

   The content of the flags field is a bit pattern of features.  The
   following features are defined in this document:

   o  FORBID_NAPT: Bit 0 (the first and most significant bit of the
      first octet) being set indicates that DTLS protection is to be
      extended to addressing elements, see Section 4.3.

   A client can set these bits to request the defined alterations to the
   protocol.  A server can accept these alterations by including these
   in its ACK message, or it can reject the alterations by clearing the
   bit.

   All bits in this option MUST be set to zero unless they are
   explicitly understood.  A sender MUST remove trailing octets that
   have all zero values from the option.

   An IANA registry is established to maintain these bits Section 8.2.

3.2.  Protection Option Kinds

   The DTLS record protection option includes a list of the TCP options
   that are covered by DTLS integrity protection, each occupying a
   single octet.  Just as TCP options are terminated by a zero octet,
   this list is terminated by a zero value.

   Any data following this list is reserved for extension and MUST be
   ignored.

4.  Modified DTLS AEAD Operation

   This mechanism MUST be used with an Authenticated Encryption with
   Additional Data (AEAD) mode.  The DTLS record layer is modified to
   provide integrity protection for the TCP pseudoheader and header by
   including this as part of the additional data.



Thomson                  Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                DTLS for TCP                     July 2014


   An important characteristic of this is that records are protected as
   though each individual DTLS record is part of a unique TCP segment.
   This ensures that repacketization by middleboxes does not result in
   records being marked as invalid.

   TCP middleboxes can, and sometimes do, split or coalesce TCP
   segments.  This affects the calculation of the authenticated data
   that is input to the AEAD protection.

   To prevent this from invalidating integrity checks unnecessarily, the
   associated data passed to the AEAD algorithm contains a modified
   value of the TCP header and pseudoheader.

   For a sender that transmits a single DTLS record in each TCP segment
   with only protected TCP options, this demands no additional
   calculation.  However, a receiver needs to construct the TCP header
   and pseudoheader.  The length of this packet is based on the length
   of the DTLS record, with the value of protected TCP options being
   extracted from the TCP header of the segment that carries the first
   byte of the DTLS record.

   In TLS and DTLS, the additional data that is protected by the AEAD
   function is [RFC5246]:

   additional_data = seq_num + TLSCompressed.type +
                     TLSCompressed.version + TLSCompressed.length;

   where "+" denotes concatenation.

   This specification expands the fields that are protected to include a
   constructed TCP pseudoheader and header as follows:

   tcp_additional_data = pseudoheader + tcp_header +
                         additional_data;

   Construction of the "pseudoheader" and "tcp_header" portions of the
   authenticated data are described in the following sections.

4.1.  TCP Pseudoheader Construction

   The pseudoheader that is used for AEAD input depends on the IP
   version in use, for IPv4 [RFC0793], with length of fields in bits
   shown in parentheses:

   pseudoheader_v4 = source_address(32) + destination_address(32) +
                      zero(8) + protocol(8) + tcp_length(16)

   Or for IPv6 [RFC2460]:



Thomson                  Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                DTLS for TCP                     July 2014


   pseudoheader_v6 = source_address(128) + destination_address(128) +
                     tcp_length(32) + zero(24) + protocol(8)

   In both cases, the value for "tcp_length" is derived by constructing
   a TCP header as described in Section 4.2.

   The values for "source_address" and "destination_address" are
   replaced with zero bits, unless the FORBID_NAPT flag is enabled.
   Setting these values to zero permits the use of NAPT devices.

4.2.  TCP Header Construction

   In order to ensure that the protocol is robust in the presence of
   middleboxes, unprotected TCP options are removed from the TCP header
   before applying protection.

   tcp_header = source_port(16) + destination_port(16) +
                sequence_number(32) + acknowledgement_number(32) +
                data_offset(4) + flags(12) + window(16) +
                checksum(16) + urgent_pointer(16) + options(?)

   The following construction rules apply:

   source_port and destination_port:  These fields MUST be replaced with
      zero bits unless the FORBID_NAPT flag is enabled for the session.
      Setting these values to zero permits the use of port translation.

   sequence_number:  This field MUST be set to the sequence number
      corresponding to the first octet of the DTLS record.  If multiple
      segments are combined into a single packet, this will be different
      to the sequence number that appears in the TCP header.

   acknowledgement_number and window:  These fields MUST be replaced
      with zero bits.  Removing the acknowledgement and congestion
      window from integrity protection does provide some opportunities
      to an on-path attacker Section 7.2.

   data_offset:  The data offset MUST be set to the size of the modified
      TCP header.

   flags:  The reserved and flags part of the TCP header is protected.

   checksum:  This field MUST be replaced with zero bits, just as it is
      when the TCP checksum is calculated.

   urgent_pointer:  The urgent pointer is protected.





Thomson                  Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                DTLS for TCP                     July 2014


   options:  The set of options that are included under protection are
      included.  Options that are not protected are removed.
      Section 3.2 described how options are selected for protection.
      The list of options is terminated with an option of kind 0x0 and
      padding to a multiple of 32 bits with zero octets.

   This construction permits the addition and removal of options by
   middleboxes, as long as they are not in the list of options that are
   protected.  It also permits repacketization and acknowledgment.

4.3.  Forbid NAPT

   The DTLS record protection option Section 3 contains a FORBID_NAPT
   bit that can be used to signal that network address and port
   translation (NAPT) is forbidden.

   If the FORBID_NAPT option is not set, addressing information is
   replaced with zero values.  This is the IP (v4 or v6) address fields
   in the pseudoheader, and the source and destination port numbers.

   Why anyone in their right mind would do this is beyond me, but it's
   in the requirements and this would seem to be sufficient to address
   those, albeit by making the whole mechanism more complex.

5.  DTLS Role Selection

   Ordinarily, the role of DTLS client is assumed by the peer that sends
   the first TCP SYN packet (the TCP client), and the role of DTLS
   server is assumed by the peer that responds (the TCP server).

   Peers that perform a TCP simultaneous open - that is, where both
   peers simultaneously send SYN packets to open a connection, often to
   work around middlebox limitations - are assigned client and server
   roles in DTLS based on the following rules.

   If only one peer provides a DTLS handshake in TCP fast open data
   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-fastopen], then that peer becomes the client.  Note
   that including the DTLS handshake message in the initial SYN packet
   is only safe if there is a previous confirmation from a server that
   it supports this protocol (see Section 6.1).

   If neither or both peers provide the DTLS handshake option, then the
   peer that selects the numerically highest value for their
   ClientRandom assumes the client role.  In the absence of the DTLS
   handshake option, role allocations are not determined until a
   ClientHello message is exchanged.





Thomson                  Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                DTLS for TCP                     July 2014


6.  Design Characteristics

   This section outlines a number of considerations that allow this
   protocol to actually be implemented.

6.1.  Interaction with TCP Fast Open

   TCP fast open [I-D.ietf-tcpm-fastopen] can be used to mitigate the
   additional latency cost imposed by the DTLS handshake.  However, this
   represents a risk, since the payload of the initial packet is
   directly passed to an application if the opportunistic security
   option is not negotiated.

   Adding data to an initial SYN is therefore only possible if there is
   a previous indication that a server supports the combination of TCP
   fast open and opportunistic security in combination.

   A server that provides a TCP fast open cookie for an encrypted
   connection MUST accept encryption on future connections with that
   cookie, or reject the connection.  This ensures that clients are able
   to send a DTLS handshake message in the initial SYN packet.

6.2.  Zero Length DTLS Data

   [RFC5246], Section 6.2 notes that the TLS record layer protects non-
   zero length blocks.  This use of DTLS requires that frames be
   permitted to be empty, relying solely on integrity protection of the
   associated data.

      This does not mean that the TCP segment contains no data, since it
      will contain the DTLS record header (including the explicit nonce,
      if any, and any bits produced by the AEAD cipher to ensure
      integrity).

6.3.  Unauthenticated Acknowledgments

   TCP segments that only acknowledge receipt of data, or update the
   receive window do not require authentication, since the corresponding
   fields are not protected.  These frames can be accepted and
   processed, as long as only the receive window is updated.

   By the same logic, protection of the TCP window scaling option
   [RFC1323] and the selective acknowledgment (SACK) option [RFC2018]
   are not made mandatory.  These SHOULD NOT be added to the list of
   protected options Section 3.2.






Thomson                  Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                DTLS for TCP                     July 2014


6.4.  Interaction with DTLS Replay Protection

   TCP segment retransmission and reassembly requires that a sender be
   able to retransmit.  These frames will be retransmitted with the same
   data, including the DTLS serial number.  To avoid having
   retransmissions erroneously discarded, any DTLS replay protection
   needs to allow for replay of records that appear in unacknowledged
   segments.

6.5.  TCP Keep-Alive

   This protocol does not protect TCP keep-alive segments [RFC1122];
   that is, segments that are sent purely to ensure that the connection
   is maintained through middleboxes.  These can contain a single junk
   byte from just prior to the start of the congestion window.  These
   segments are discarded without being validated.

   This differs from [I-D.bittau-tcp-crypt], which protects keep-alive
   segments.  Protection ensures that an attacker is unable to prolong
   the lifetime of a connection that is otherwise unwanted.

   Since an unwanted connection can be terminated with an authenticated
   segment that bears a FIN or RST bit, this concern is unwarranted.

6.6.  Unprotected RST Segments

   Existing TCP implementations, particularly middleboxes, rely TCP RST
   to terminate connections.  If RST authentication is required, then it
   becomes impossible for a node which is not part of the association
   (either because it is a middlebox or because it is a legitimate
   endpoint which has lost state) to terminate the connection.  An
   implementation MAY choose to respect an unauthenticated RST to permit
   these uses.

   (Note: we may want to provide an option that the middlebox can
   include in a RST to prove that it is on-path to make this a little
   easier to accept.)

6.7.  Cipher Suite Selection

   Implementations MUST support the TLS_BLAH_WITH_BLAH_BLAH cipher
   suite.

   Implementations MUST NOT offer non-AEAD modes and MUST terminate the
   connection if a non-AEAD mode if one is erroneously offered.






Thomson                  Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                DTLS for TCP                     July 2014


7.  Security Considerations

   None of this document mandates any level of authentication for peers,
   which opens up all sorts of active attacks.

7.1.  NAPT

   The choice to protect a TCP connection from addressing modification
   prevents network address and port translation from altering the
   addressing information on a connection.  Unfortunately, this is a
   procedure that much of the Internet relies on.  Enabling this feature
   is likely to break a lot of uses, but failure to use it exposes the
   connection to trivial re-routing attacks.

   In the absence of peer authentication, and where there is a high
   level of assurance that no NAPT is being used for a communications
   path, this protection might be used.  Of course, any protection this
   provides is trivially circumvented by an on-path attacker.

7.2.  Acknowledgments and Congestion Window Protection

   This design permits a middlebox to generate acknowledgments and to
   perform repacketization.  This opens a number of denial of service
   avenues for malicious middleboxes.  Falsifying window advertisements
   can cause a sender to send more packets than might otherwise be sent.
   Similarly, sending a reduced acknowledgment sequence number can cause
   excessive retransmission.  In a similar fashion, retransmissions can
   be suppressed by sending inflated acknowledgment sequence numbers.

   These are options that are already available to an on-path attacker.

7.3.  Traffic Redirection

   Without the FORBID_NAPT flag enabled, it's possible for a middlebox
   to rewrite addressing information so that this flow.  If only
   authenticated RST and FIN segments are accepted by the TCP stack, the
   target of this flow - who doesn't have access to the traffic keys -
   is unable to do anything to end the flow of data.

   This isn't particularly interesting as an attack, since we have to
   assume that any middlebox capable of this is also capable of just
   generating the same volume of packets toward the victim.

7.4.  Peer Authentication

   In order to have this deployed, peers will have to avoid relying on
   authentication.  That means that this is open to active attacks.




Thomson                  Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                DTLS for TCP                     July 2014


   Implementations might consider using some form of key continuity.
   Clients SHOULD avoid key continuity for different servers to avoid
   tracking by correlating keying material.  Full continuity might be
   more applicable for servers, where key continuity does not create any
   special tracking ability.

   (This probably needs work.)

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document registers a new TCP option kind, and establishes a
   registry to maintain its contents.

8.1.  Registration of DTLS Record Protection Option Kind

   This document registers the DTLS record protection option with a TCP
   option kind of 0xTBD.

   The format of this option is described in Section 3

8.2.  Registry for DTLS Record Protection Flags

   IANA will maintain a registry of "TCP DTLS Record Protection Flags"
   under the "Service Names and Transport Protocol Port Numbers" group
   of registries.

   This registry controls a contiguous space starting from bit 0 to 2023
   (inclusive).  New registrations in this registry require IETF review
   [RFC5226], with the following information:

   Bit Number:  The bit number being assigned

   Purpose:  A brief description of the feature.

   Specification:  A reference to the specification that defines the
      feature.

   The initial contents of this registry are:

   Bit Number:  0

   Purpose:  Enables protection of addressing information.

   Specification:  This document.







Thomson                  Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                DTLS for TCP                     July 2014


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
              793, September 1981.

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [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.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.bellovin-tcpsec]
              Bellovin, S., "Problem Statement and Requirements for a
              TCP Authentication Option", draft-bellovin-tcpsec-01 (work
              in progress), July 2007.

   [I-D.bittau-tcp-crypt]
              Bittau, A., Boneh, D., Hamburg, M., Handley, M., Mazieres,
              D., and Q. Slack, "Cryptographic protection of TCP Streams
              (tcpcrypt)", draft-bittau-tcp-crypt-04 (work in progress),
              February 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-fastopen]
              Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP
              Fast Open", draft-ietf-tcpm-fastopen-09 (work in
              progress), July 2014.

   [RFC1323]  Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions
              for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.





Thomson                  Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                DTLS for TCP                     July 2014


   [RFC2018]  Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP
              Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, May 2014.

Author's Address

   Martin Thomson
   Mozilla

   Email: martin.thomson@gmail.com







































Thomson                  Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 13]


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