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



Network Working Group                                         F. Günther
Internet-Draft                                                ETH Zurich
Intended status: Informational                                M. Thomson
Expires: 21 November 2020                                        Mozilla
                                                               C.A. Wood
                                                              Cloudflare
                                                             20 May 2020


                    Usage Limits on AEAD Algorithms
                     draft-wood-cfrg-aead-limits-00

Abstract

   An Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) algorithm
   provides confidentiality and integrity.  Excessive use of the same
   key can give an attacker advantages in breaking these properties.
   This document provides simple guidance for users of common AEAD
   functions about how to limit the use of keys in order to bound the
   advantage given to an attacker.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/chris-wood/draft-wood-cfrg-aead-limits
   (https://github.com/chris-wood/draft-wood-cfrg-aead-limits).

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 21 November 2020.






Günther, et al.         Expires 21 November 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 AEAD Limits                      May 2020


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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Calculating Limits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  AEAD Limits and Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  AEAD_AES_128_GCM and AEAD_AES_256_GCM . . . . . . . . . .   5
       5.1.1.  Confidentiality Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.1.2.  Integrity Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.3.  AEAD_AES_128_CCM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.3.1.  Confidentiality Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.3.2.  Integrity Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.4.  AEAD_AES_128_CCM_8  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   An Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) algorithm
   provides confidentiality and integrity.  [RFC5116] specifies an AEAD
   as a function with four inputs - secret key, nonce, plaintext, and
   optional associated data - that produces ciphertext output and error
   code indicating success or failure.  The ciphertext is typically
   composed of the encrypted plaintext bytes and an authentication tag.

   The generic AEAD interface does not describe usage limits.  Each AEAD
   algorithm does describe limits on its inputs, but these are
   formulated as strict functional limits, such as the maximum length of



Günther, et al.         Expires 21 November 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 AEAD Limits                      May 2020


   inputs, which are determined by the properties of the underlying AEAD
   composition.  Degradation of the security of the AEAD as a single key
   is used multiple times is not given a thorough treatment.

   The number of times a single pair of key and nonce can be used might
   also be relevant to security.  For some algorithms, such as
   AEAD_AES_128_GCM or AEAD_AES_256_GCM, this limit is 1 and using the
   same pair of key and nonce has serious consequences for both
   confidentiality and integrity; see [NonceDisrespecting].  Nonce-reuse
   resistant algorithms like AEAD_AES_128_GCM_SIV can tolerate a limited
   amount of nonce reuse.

   It is good practice to have limits on how many times the same key (or
   pair of key and nonce) are used.  Setting a limit based on some
   measurable property of the usage, such as number of protected
   messages or amount of data transferred, ensures that it is easy to
   apply limits.  This might require the application of simplifying
   assumptions.  For example, TLS 1.3 specifies limits on the number of
   records that can be protected, using the simplifying assumption that
   records are the same size; see Section 5.5 of [TLS].

   Currently, AEAD limits and usage requirements are scattered among
   peer-reviewed papers, standards documents, and other RFCs.
   Determining the correct limits for a given setting is challenging as
   papers do not use consistent labels or conventions, and rarely apply
   any simplifications that might aid in reaching a simple limit.

   The intent of this document is to collate all relevant information
   about the proper usage and limits of AEAD algorithms in one place.
   This may serve as a standard reference when considering which AEAD
   algorithm to use, and how to use it.

2.  Requirements Notation

   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.

3.  Notation

   This document defines limitations in part using the quantities below.








Günther, et al.         Expires 21 November 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 AEAD Limits                      May 2020


      +--------+----------------------------------------------------+
      | Symbol | Description                                        |
      +========+====================================================+
      |      n | Size of the AEAD block cipher (in bits)            |
      +--------+----------------------------------------------------+
      |      t | Size of the authentication tag (in bits)           |
      +--------+----------------------------------------------------+
      |      l | Length of each message (in blocks)                 |
      +--------+----------------------------------------------------+
      |      s | Total plaintext length in all messages (in blocks) |
      +--------+----------------------------------------------------+
      |      q | Number of encryption attempts                      |
      +--------+----------------------------------------------------+
      |      v | Number of forgery attempts                         |
      +--------+----------------------------------------------------+
      |      p | Adversary attack probability                       |
      +--------+----------------------------------------------------+

                                  Table 1

   For each AEAD algorithm, we define the confidentiality and integrity
   advantage roughly as the advantage an attacker has in breaking the
   corresponding security property for the algorithm.  Specifically:

   *  Confidentiality advantage (CA): The advantage of an attacker
      succeeding in breaking the confidentiality properties of the AEAD.
      In this document, the definition of confidentiality advantage is
      the increase in the probability that an attacker is able to
      successfully distinguish an AEAD ciphertext from the output of an
      ideal pseudorandom permutation (PRP).

   *  Integrity advantage (IA): The probability of an attacker
      succeeding in breaking the integrity properties of the AEAD.  In
      this document, the definition of integrity advantage is the
      probability that an attacker is able to forge a ciphertext that
      will be accepted as valid.

   Each application requires a different application of limits in order
   to keep CA and IA sufficiently small.  For instance, TLS aims to keep
   CA below 2^-60 and IA below 2^-57.  See [TLS], Section 5.5.

4.  Calculating Limits

   Once an upper bound on CA and IA are determined, this document
   defines a process for determining two overall limits:






Günther, et al.         Expires 21 November 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 AEAD Limits                      May 2020


   *  Confidentiality limit (CL): The number of bytes of plaintext and
      maybe authenticated additional data (AAD) an application can
      encrypt before giving the adversary a non-negligible CA.

   *  Integrity limit (IL): The number of bytes of ciphertext and maybe
      authenticated additional data (AAD) an application can process,
      either successfully or not, before giving the adversary a non-
      negligible IA.

   For an AEAD based on a block function, it is common for these limits
   to be expressed instead in terms of the number of blocks rather than
   bytes.  Furthermore, it might be more appropriate to track the number
   of messages rather than track bytes.  Therefore, the guidance is
   usually based on the total number of blocks processed (s).  To aid in
   calculating limits for message-based protocols, a formulation of
   limits that includes a maximum message size (l) is included.

   All limits are based on the total number of messages, either the
   number of protected messages (q) or the number of forgery attempts
   (v); which correspond to CL and IL respectively.

   Limits are then derived from those bounds using a target attacker
   probability.  For example, given a confidentiality advantage of "v *
   (8l / 2^106)" and attacker success probability of "p", the algorithm
   remains secure, i.e., the adversary's advantage does not exceed the
   probability of success, provided that "v <= (p * 2^106) / 8l".  In
   turn, this implies that "v <= (p * 2^106) / 8l" is the corresponding
   limit.

5.  AEAD Limits and Requirements

   This section summarizes the confidentiality and integrity bounds and
   limits for modern AEAD algorithms used in IETF protocols, including:
   AEAD_AES_128_GCM [RFC5116], AEAD_AES_256_GCM [RFC5116],
   AEAD_AES_128_CCM [RFC5116], AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 [RFC8439],
   AEAD_AES_128_CCM_8 [RFC6655].

   The CL and IL values bound the total number of encryption and forgery
   queries (q and v).  Alongside each value, we also specify these
   bounds.

5.1.  AEAD_AES_128_GCM and AEAD_AES_256_GCM

   The CL and IL values for AES-GCM are derived in [AEBounds] and
   summarized below.  For this AEAD, n = 128 and t = 128 [GCM].  In this
   example, the length s is the sum of AAD and plaintext, as described
   in [GCMProofs].




Günther, et al.         Expires 21 November 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 AEAD Limits                      May 2020


5.1.1.  Confidentiality Limit

   CA = ((s + q + 1)^2) / 2^129

   This implies the following usage limit:

   q + s <= p^(1/2) * 2^(129/2) - 1

   Which, for a message-based protocol with "s <= q * l", if we assume
   that every packet is size "l", produces the limit:

   q <= (p^(1/2) * 2^(129/2) - 1) / (l + 1)

5.1.2.  Integrity Limit

   IA = 2 * (v * (l + 1)) / 2^128

   This implies the following limit:

   v <= (p * 2^127) / (l + 1)

5.2.  AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305

   The only known analysis for AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305
   [ChaCha20Poly1305Bounds] combines the confidentiality and integrity
   limits into a single expression, covered below:

   CA = IA = v * (8l / 2^106)

   This advantage is a tight reduction based on the underlying Poly1305
   PRF [Poly1305].  It implies the following limit:

   v <= (p * 2^106) / 8l

5.3.  AEAD_AES_128_CCM

   The CL and IL values for AEAD_AES_128_CCM are derived from
   [CCM-ANALYSIS] and specified in the QUIC-TLS mapping specification
   [I-D.ietf-quic-tls].  This analysis uses the total number of
   underlying block cipher operations to derive its bound.  For CCM,
   this number is the sum of: the length of the associated data in
   blocks, the length of the ciphertext in blocks, the length of the
   plaintext in blocks, plus 1.

   In the following limits, this is simplified to a value of twice the
   length of the packet in blocks, i.e., 2l represents the effective
   length, in number of block cipher operations, of a message with l
   blocks.  This simplification is based on the observation that common



Günther, et al.         Expires 21 November 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 AEAD Limits                      May 2020


   applications of this AEAD carry only a small amount of associated
   data compared to ciphertext.  For example, QUIC has 1 to 3 blocks of
   AAD.

   For this AEAD, n = 128 and t = 128.

5.3.1.  Confidentiality Limit

   CA = (2l * q)^2 / 2^n
      = (2l * q)^2 / 2^128

   This implies the following limit:

   q <= sqrt((p * (2^127)) / l^2)

5.3.2.  Integrity Limit

   IA = v / 2^t + (2l * (v + q))^2 / 2^n
      = v / 2^128 + (2l * (v + q))^2 / 2^128

   This implies the following limit:

   v + (2l * (v + q))^2 <= p * 2^128

   In a setting where "v" or "q" is sufficiently large, "v" is
   negligible compared to "(2l * (v + q))^2", so this this can be
   simplified to:

   v + q <= p^(1/2) * 2^63 / l

5.4.  AEAD_AES_128_CCM_8

   The analysis in [CCM-ANALYSIS] also applies to this AEAD, but the
   reduced tag length of 64 bits changes the integrity limit calculation
   considerably.

   IA = v / 2^t + (2l * (v + q))^2 / 2^n
      = v / 2^64 + (2l * (v + q))^2 / 2^128

   This results in reducing the limit on "v" by a factor of 2^64.

   v * 2^64 + (2l * (v + q))^2 <= p * 2^128









Günther, et al.         Expires 21 November 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 AEAD Limits                      May 2020


6.  Security Considerations

   Many of the formulae in this document depend on simplifying
   assumptions that are not universally applicable.  When using this
   document to set limits, it is necessary to validate all these
   assumptions for the setting in which the limits might apply.  In most
   cases, the goal is to use assumptions that result in setting a more
   conservative limit, but this is not always the case.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not make any request of IANA.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [AEBounds] Luykx, A. and K. Paterson, "Limits on Authenticated
              Encryption Use in TLS", 8 March 2016,
              <http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/~kp/TLS-AEbounds.pdf>.

   [CCM-ANALYSIS]
              Jonsson, J., "On the Security of CTR + CBC-MAC",
              DOI 10.1007/3-540-36492-7_7, Selected Areas in
              Cryptography pp. 76-93, 2003,
              <https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36492-7_7>.

   [ChaCha20Poly1305Bounds]
              Procter, G., "A Security Analysis of the Composition of
              ChaCha20 and Poly1305", 2014,
              <https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/613.pdf>.

   [GCM]      Dworkin, M., "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of
              Operation: Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and GMAC",
              NIST Special Publication 800-38D, November 2007.

   [GCMProofs]
              Iwata, T., Ohashi, K., and K. Minematsu, "Breaking and
              Repairing GCM Security Proofs", n.d.,
              <https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/438.pdf>.

   [Poly1305] Bernstein, D.J., "The Poly1305-AES message-authentication
              code", International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption,
              2005 , n.d., <https://link.springer.com/content/
              pdf/10.1007/11502760_3.pdf>.






Günther, et al.         Expires 21 November 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 AEAD Limits                      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>.

   [RFC5116]  McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated
              Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>.

   [RFC6655]  McGrew, D. and D. Bailey, "AES-CCM Cipher Suites for
              Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6655, July 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6655>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8439]  Nir, Y. and A. Langley, "ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF
              Protocols", RFC 8439, DOI 10.17487/RFC8439, June 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8439>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-quic-tls]
              Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using TLS to Secure QUIC",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-tls-28,
              19 May 2020, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
              ietf-quic-tls-28.txt>.

   [NonceDisrespecting]
              Bock, H., Zauner, A., Devlin, S., Somorovsky, J., and P.
              Jovanovic, "Nonce-Disrespecting Adversaries -- Practical
              Forgery Attacks on GCM in TLS", 17 May 2016,
              <https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/475.pdf>.

   [TLS]      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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Felix Günther
   ETH Zurich

   Email: mail@felixguenther.info





Günther, et al.         Expires 21 November 2020                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 AEAD Limits                      May 2020


   Martin Thomson
   Mozilla

   Email: mt@lowentropy.net


   Christopher A. Wood
   Cloudflare

   Email: caw@heapingbits.net









































Günther, et al.         Expires 21 November 2020               [Page 10]


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