< draft-lvelvindron-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-04.txt   draft-lvelvindron-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-05.txt >
Internet Engineering Task Force L. Velvindron Internet Engineering Task Force L. Velvindron
Internet-Draft cyberstorm.mu Internet-Draft cyberstorm.mu
Updates: 5246 7525 (if approved) K. Moriarty Updates: 5246 7525 (if approved) K. Moriarty
Intended status: Standards Track Dell EMC Intended status: Standards Track Dell EMC
Expires: November 14, 2019 May 13, 2019 Expires: November 30, 2019 A. Ghedini
Cloudflare Inc.
May 29, 2019
Deprecating MD5 and SHA-1 signature hashes in TLS 1.2 Deprecating MD5 and SHA-1 signature hashes in TLS 1.2
draft-lvelvindron-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-04 draft-lvelvindron-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-05
Abstract Abstract
The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in
strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in
TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not
deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 14, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Signature Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Signature Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Certificate Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Certificate Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Server Key Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Server Key Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Certificate Verify . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Certificate Verify . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Updates to RFC5246 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6. Updates to RFC5246 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. Updates to RFC7525 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7. Updates to RFC7525 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
skipping to change at page 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Signature Algorithms 2. Signature Algorithms
Clients SHOULD NOT include MD5 and SHA-1 in signature_algorithms Clients SHOULD NOT include MD5 and SHA-1 in signature_algorithms
extension. If a client does not send a signature_algorithms extension. If a client does not send a signature_algorithms
extension, then the server MUST abort the handshake and send a extension, then the server MUST abort the handshake and send a
handshake_failure alert. handshake_failure alert.
3. Certificate Requests 3. Certificate Request
Servers SHOULD NOT include MD5 and SHA-1 in CertificateRequest Servers SHOULD NOT include MD5 and SHA-1 in CertificateRequest
message. message.
4. Server Key Exchange 4. Server Key Exchange
Servers MUST NOT include MD5 in ServerKeyExchange message. If client Servers MUST NOT include MD5 and SHA-1 in ServerKeyExchange message.
does receive a MD5 signature in the ServerKeyExchange message it MUST If client does receive a MD5 or SHA-1 signature in the
abort the connection with handshake_failure or insufficient_security ServerKeyExchange message it MUST abort the connection with
alert. handshake_failure or insufficient_security alert.
5. Certificate Verify 5. Certificate Verify
Clients MUST NOT include MD5 in CertificateVerify message. Clients MUST NOT include MD5 and SHA-1 in CertificateVerify message.
6. Updates to RFC5246 6. Updates to RFC5246
OLD: OLD:
In Section 7.4.1.4.1: the text should be revised from " Note: this is In Section 7.4.1.4.1: the text should be revised from " Note: this is
a change from TLS 1.1 where there are no explicit rules, but as a a change from TLS 1.1 where there are no explicit rules, but as a
practical matter one can assume that the peer supports MD5 and SHA- practical matter one can assume that the peer supports MD5 and SHA-
1." 1."
skipping to change at page 4, line 28 skipping to change at page 4, line 28
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
Concerns with TLS 1.2 implementations falling back to SHA-1 is an Concerns with TLS 1.2 implementations falling back to SHA-1 is an
issue. This draft updates the TLS 1.2 specification to deprecate issue. This draft updates the TLS 1.2 specification to deprecate
support for MD5 and SHA-1 for digital signatures. However, this support for MD5 and SHA-1 for digital signatures. However, this
document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection.
9. Acknowledgement 9. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Hubert Kario for his help in writing The authors would like to thank Hubert Kario for his help in writing
the initial draft. We are also grateful to Martin Thomson and David the initial draft. We are also grateful to Daniel Migault, Martin
Cooper. Thomson and David Cooper for their feedback.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at line 226 skipping to change at page 5, line 38
Loganaden Velvindron Loganaden Velvindron
cyberstorm.mu cyberstorm.mu
Rose Hill Rose Hill
MU MU
Phone: +230 59762817 Phone: +230 59762817
Email: logan@cyberstorm.mu Email: logan@cyberstorm.mu
Kathleen Moriarty Kathleen Moriarty
Dell EMC Dell EMC
Alessandro Ghedini
Cloudflare Inc.
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 14 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/