Internet-Draft | Fully-Specified Algorithms for JOSE and | October 2023 |
Jones & Steele | Expires 22 April 2024 | [Page] |
This specification refers to cryptographic algorithm identifiers that fully specify the cryptographic operations to be performed, including any curve, key derivation function (KDF), hash functions, etc., as being "fully specified". Whereas, it refers to cryptographic algorithm identifiers that require additional information beyond the algorithm identifier to determine the cryptographic operations to be performed as being "polymorphic". This specification creates fully-specified algorithm identifiers for all registered JOSE and COSE polymorphic algorithm identifiers, enabling applications to use only fully-specified algorithm identifiers.¶
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 22 April 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
The IANA algorithm registries for JOSE [IANA.JOSE.Algorithms] and COSE [IANA.COSE.Algorithms] contain two kinds of algorithm identifiers:¶
RS256
and ES256K
in both JOSE and COSE
and ES256
in JOSE.¶
EdDSA
in both JOSE and COSE
and ES256
in COSE.¶
This matters because many protocols negotiate supported operations using only algorithm identifiers. For instance, OAuth Authorization Server Metadata [RFC8414] uses negotiation parameters like these (from an example in the specification):¶
"token_endpoint_auth_signing_alg_values_supported": ["RS256", "ES256"]¶
OpenID Connect Discovery [OpenID.Discovery] likewise negotiates supported algorithms
using alg
and enc
values.
W3C Web Authentication [WebAuthn] and
FIDO Client to Authenticator Protocol (CTAP) [FIDO2]
negotiate using COSE alg
numbers.¶
This does not work for polymorphic algorithms.
For instance, with EdDSA
, you do not know which of the curves
Ed25519
and/or Ed448
are supported!
This causes real problems in practice.¶
WebAuthn contains this de-facto algorithm definition to work around this problem:¶
-8 (EdDSA), where crv is 6 (Ed25519)¶
This redefines the COSE EdDSA
algorithm identifier
for the purposes of WebAuthn to restrict it to using
the Ed25519
curve - making it non-polymorphic
so that algorithm negotiation can succeed, but also effectively
eliminating the possibility of using Ed448
.
Other similar workarounds for polymorphic algorithm identifiers are used in practice.¶
This specification creates fully-specified algorithm identifiers for all registered polymorphic JOSE and COSE algorithms and their parameters, enabling applications to use only fully-specified algorithm identifiers. It furthermore deprecates the practice of registering polymorphic algorithm identifiers.¶
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.¶
This section creates fully-specified digital signature algorithm identifiers for all registered polymorphic JOSE and COSE algorithms and their parameters.¶
[RFC9053] defines the current use of
the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) by COSE.
The COSE algorithm registrations for ECDSA are polymorphic,
since they do not specify the curve used.
For instance, ES256
is defined as
"ECDSA w/ SHA-256" in Section 2.1 of [RFC9053].
(The corresponding JOSE registrations in [RFC7518] are full-specified.)¶
The following fully-specified COSE algorithms are defined:¶
Name | COSE Value | Description | COSE Recommended |
---|---|---|---|
ESP256 | TBD (requested assignment -9) | ECDSA using P-256 curve and SHA-256 | Yes |
ESP384 | TBD (requested assignment -48) | ECDSA using P-384 curve and SHA-384 | Yes |
ESP512 | TBD (requested assignment -49) | ECDSA using P-521 curve and SHA-512 | Yes |
[RFC8037] defines the current use of
the Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)
by JOSE and [RFC9053] defines its current use by COSE.
Both register polymorphic EdDSA
algorithm identifiers.¶
The following fully-specified JOSE and COSE algorithms are defined:¶
Name | COSE Value | Description | JOSE Implementation Requirements | COSE Recommended |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ed25519 | TBD (requested assignment -50) | EdDSA using Ed25519 curve | Optional | No |
Ed448 | TBD (requested assignment -51) | EdDSA using Ed448 curve | Optional | No |
This section registers the following values in the IANA "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms" registry [IANA.JOSE.Algorithms].¶
The following registration is updated to change its status to Deprecated.¶
This section registers the following values in the IANA "COSE Algorithms" registry [IANA.COSE.Algorithms].¶
Name: ESP256¶
Value: TBD (requested assignment -9)¶
Description: ECDSA using P-256 curve and SHA-256¶
Reference: Section 2.1 of this document¶
Recommended: Yes¶
Name: ESP384¶
Value: TBD (requested assignment -48)¶
Description: ECDSA using P-384 curve and SHA-384¶
Reference: Section 2.1 of this document¶
Recommended: Yes¶
Name: ESP512¶
Value: TBD (requested assignment -49)¶
Description: ECDSA using P-521 curve and SHA-512¶
Reference: Section 2.1 of this document¶
Recommended: Yes¶
The following registrations are updated to change their status to Deprecated.¶
Name: ES256¶
Value: -7¶
Description: ECDSA w/ SHA-256¶
Reference: RFC 9053¶
Recommended: Deprecated¶
Name: ES384¶
Value: -35¶
Description: ECDSA w/ SHA-384¶
Reference: RFC 9053¶
Recommended: Deprecated¶
The review instructions for the designated experts for the IANA "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms" registry [IANA.JOSE.Algorithms] in Section 7.1 of [RFC7518] are updated to add this additional review criterion:¶
Registration requests for polymorphic algorithm identifiers must not be accepted; only fully-specified algorithm identifiers may be registered going forward.¶
The review instructions for the designated experts for the IANA "COSE Algorithms" registry [IANA.COSE.Algorithms] in Section 10.4 of [RFC9053] are also updated to add the same additional review criterion.¶
The key representations for the new fully-specified algorithms
defined by this specification are the same as those for the
polymorphic algorithms that they replace,
other than the alg
value, if included.
For instance, the representation for a key used with the
Ed25519
algorithm is the same as that specified
in [RFC8037], except that the alg
value would be Ed25519
rather than
EdDSA
, if included.¶
The working group has discussed some existing algorithms that are not updated by this specification. This section discusses why they have not been updated.¶
The working group has discussed whether the
RS256
,
RS384
, and
RS512
algorithms
should be considered fully-specified or not,
because they can operate on keys of different sizes.
For instance, they can use both 2048- and 4096-bit keys.
The same is true of the PS*
algorithms.¶
This is not a problem in practice, because RSA libraries accomodate keys of different sizes without having to use different code. Therefore, for example, there are not known cases in the wild where it would be useful to have different algorithm identifiers for RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 with SHA-256 and 2048-bit keys and RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 with SHA-256 and 4096-bit keys or 8192-bit keys. Therefore, the RSA signature algorithms are not replaced by this specification.¶
The working group has discussed whether the
ECDH-ES
key agreement algorithm
should be considered fully-specified or not,
because it can use ephemeral keys of different key types and algorithms.
Indeed, an implementation might work when ECDH-ES
is used with a ephemeral keys using the P-256
curve,
and not work when used with ephemeral keys using the
Ed25519
curve.¶
One way that protocols can handle this situation is to use a discovery mechanism to declare what ephemeral key types are supported. The alternative would be to introduce new fully-specified algorithm identifiers for choices such as "ECDH-ES with the P-256 Curve", etc. Feedback from deployers would be useful in determining what actions this specification should take in this case.¶
Using fully-specified algorithm identifiers reduces the attack surface relative to using polymorphic algorithm identifiers, since it reduces the opportunity for attackers to choose algorithms.¶
The security considerations for ECDSA in [RFC7518], for EdDSA in [RFC8037], and for ECDSA and EdDSA in [RFC9053] apply.¶
[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]¶
-02¶
Stated that key representations remain the same,
other than the alg
value.¶
Discussed algorithms not updated.¶
-01¶
Renamed ES25519
to Ed25519
and
ES448
to Ed448
, by popular demand!¶
-00¶
Initial version.¶
The authors thank John Bradley, Brian Campbell, Ilari Liusvarra, Tobias Looker, and Filip Skokan for their contributions to this specification.¶